Transistors, the building blocks of modern electronics, are typically made of silicon. Because it’s a semiconductor, this material can control the flow of electricity in a circuit. But silicon has fundamental physical limits that restrict how compact and energy-efficient a transistor can be.

MIT researchers have now replaced silicon with a magnetic semiconductor, creating a magnetic transistor that could enable smaller, faster, and more energy-efficient circuits. The material’s magnetism strongly influences its electronic behavior, leading to more efficient control of the flow of electricity. 

The team used a novel magnetic material and an optimization process that reduces the material’s defects, which boosts the transistor’s performance.

The material’s unique magnetic properties also allow for transistors with built-in memory, which would simplify circuit design and unlock new applications for high-performance electronics.

“People have known about magnets for thousands of years, but there are very limited ways to incorporate magnetism into electronics. We have shown a new way to efficiently utilize magnetism that opens up a lot of possibilities for future applications and research,” says Chung-Tao Chou, an MIT graduate student in the departments of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) and Physics, and co-lead author of a paper on this advance.

Chou is joined on the paper by co-lead author Eugene Park, a graduate student in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering (DMSE); Julian Klein, a DMSE research scientist; Josep Ingla-Aynes, a postdoc in the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center; Jagadeesh S. Moodera, a senior research scientist in the Department of Physics; and senior authors Frances Ross, TDK Professor in DMSE; and Luqiao Liu, an associate professor in EECS, and a member of the Research Laboratory of Electronics; as well as others at the University of Chemistry and Technology in Prague. The paper appears today in Physical Review Letters.

Overcoming the limits

In an electronic device, silicon semiconductor transistors act like tiny light switches that turn a circuit on and off, or amplify weak signals in a communication system. They do this using a small input voltage.

But a fundamental physical limit of silicon semiconductors prevents a transistor from operating below a certain voltage, which hinders its energy efficiency.

To make more efficient electronics, researchers have spent decades working toward magnetic transistors that utilize electron spin to control the flow of electricity. Electron spin is a fundamental property that enables electrons to behave like tiny magnets.

So far, scientists have mostly been limited to using certain magnetic materials. These lack the favorable electronic properties of semiconductors, constraining device performance.

“In this work, we combine magnetism and semiconductor physics to realize useful spintronic devices,” Liu says.

The researchers replace the silicon in the surface layer of a transistor with chromium sulfur bromide, a two-dimensional material that acts as a magnetic semiconductor.

Due to the material’s structure, researchers can switch between two magnetic states very cleanly. This makes it ideal for use in a transistor that smoothly switches between “on” and “off.”

“One of the biggest challenges we faced was finding the right material. We tried many other materials that didn’t work,” Chou says.

They discovered that changing these magnetic states modifies the material’s electronic properties, enabling low-energy operation. And unlike many other 2D materials, chromium sulfur bromide remains stable in air.

To make a transistor, the researchers pattern electrodes onto a silicon substrate, then carefully align and transfer the 2D material on top. They use tape to pick up a tiny piece of material, only a few tens of nanometers thick, and place it onto the substrate.

“A lot of researchers will use solvents or glue to do the transfer, but transistors require a very clean surface. We eliminate all those risks by simplifying this step,” Chou says.

Leveraging magnetism

This lack of contamination enables their device to outperform existing magnetic transistors. Most others can only create a weak magnetic effect, changing the flow of current by a few percent or less. Their new transistor can switch or amplify the electric current by a factor of 10.

They use an external magnetic field to change the magnetic state of the material, switching the transistor using significantly less energy than would usually be required.

The material also allows them to control the magnetic states with electric current. This is important because engineers cannot apply magnetic fields to individual transistors in an electronic device. They need to control each one electrically.

The material’s magnetic properties could also enable transistors with built-in memory, simplifying the design of logic or memory circuits.

A typical memory device has a magnetic cell to store information and a transistor to read it out. Their method can combine both into one magnetic transistor.

“Now, not only are transistors turning on and off, they are also remembering information. And because we can switch the transistor with greater magnitude, the signal is much stronger so we can read out the information faster, and in a much more reliable way,” Liu says.

Building on this demonstration, the researchers plan to further study the use of electrical current to control the device. They are also working to make their method scalable so they can fabricate arrays of transistors.

This research was supported, in part, by the Semiconductor Research Corporation, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Army Research Office, and the Czech Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports. The work was partially carried out at the MIT.nano facilities.

Researchers at Northeastern University, in collaboration with Consumer Reports, evaluated how much modern cars spy in their drivers:

To determine this, CR dug through thousands of pages of automakers’ privacy policies and asked questions of 15 different automakers­BMW, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Stellantis, Subaru, Tesla, Toyota, and Volkswagen. We also reviewed corporate, regulatory, and legal filings from data brokers operating in the “insurtech” industry­the technology companies and data brokers that help insurance companies set their rates. And we spoke to several car privacy experts, who, at industry conferences and in market reports, have described the profit potential of individual driving data as the “new oil.”...

When the rich and powerful try to use the court to silence negative reporting about themselves, it’s worth calling out that behavior for what it is: an attack on free speech. This is why EFF is happy to stand up for reporters who find themselves in that situation.

The California Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision to strike a former Premise Data CEO’s meritless lawsuit against a journalist who exposed the CEO’s secret arrest for felony domestic violence. Jack Poulson, the writer and publisher of All Source Intelligence, reported details from the San Francisco Police Department’s report of the arrest and posted a copy of the report after receiving the document from a confidential source. Poulson later learned the arrest record had been sealed. The CEO, Maury Blackman, sued Poulson, Substack, AWS, and another organization for damages to try and force the removal of Poulson’s reporting from the internet.

The trial court tossed the entire case under California’s anti-SLAPP statute—SLAPP stands for “strategic lawsuit against public participation” and describes cases where the goal isn’t vindication in court so much as it is costing someone time, money, and peace of mind fighting the lawsuit. To fight SLAPP cases, states like California have passed anti-SLAPP laws, which are invaluable tools for protecting the First Amendment. California’s law provides an avenue for early dismissals of these baseless lawsuits, which curtails their intended effect on the target. Blackman appealed the court’s decision, arguing that a court order sealing the arrest overrides Poulson’s right to report the news.

The Court of Appeals correctly rejected Blackman’s appeal and affirmed the decision to throw out the case. The court held that the First Amendment protects Poulson’s publications. As the court explained in its decision, “the First Amendment protects the lawfully obtained truthful publication of the information at issue absent ‘a need to further a state interest of the highest order,’” a standard that Blackman’s privacy interests do not satisfy. The Court also found that Poulson, as the publisher of the All Source Intelligence newsletter, was protected by California’s Shield Law, relying on precedent established by EFF in 2006. The Court also affirmed that Substack and the other website, which had merely temporarily hosted a copy of the arrest record, were immunized from liability by Section 230.

This decision is a win for free speech, for Jack Poulson, and for everybody.  

Related Cases: Blackman v. Substack, et al.

With the launch of iOS 27, Apple is rolling out a variety of new AI features to its familiar voice assistant, Siri. But how are AI tools like these handling our data? In our latest EFFector newsletter, we're talking about the privacy complications of AI phone features.

JOIN OUR NEWSLETTER

For over 35 years, EFFector has been your guide to understanding the intersection of technology, civil liberties, and the law. This issue covers drones and our right to record the law enforcement, video doorbell footage privacy, and how to limit what data Apple's new Siri AI can access.

Prefer to listen in? EFFector is now available on all major podcast platforms. This time we're asking EFF's Thorin Klosowski about the difference between AI phone features that are computed on-device and ones that are computed on external servers—and what that means for data protection. You can find the episode and subscribe on your podcast platform of choice:

%3Ciframe%20height%3D%22200px%22%20width%3D%22100%25%22%20frameborder%3D%22no%22%20scrolling%3D%22no%22%20seamless%3D%22%22%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fplayer.simplecast.com%2Ff5abca72-7d82-4e94-9c0b-0d9f991891f0%3Fdark%3Dfalse%22%20allow%3D%22autoplay%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E Privacy info. This embed will serve content from simplecast.com

   

Want to protect your right to digital privacy? Sign up for EFF's EFFector newsletter for updates, ways to take action, and new merch drops. You can also fuel the fight for privacy and free speech online when you support EFF today!

Google.org announced on Sept. 15 that the MIT Transit Lab is a recipient of $2.1 million in funding — one of only 15 projects selected in the worldwide Google.org Impact Challenge: AI for Government Innovation. The funding from Google’s philanthropic arm will support NGOs, social enterprises, and academic institutions as they integrate artificial intelligence-powered solutions across topics like health, resilience, and economy.

The Transit Lab’s winning project, the Public Transit Intelligence Hub (PTIQ), aims to unify public transportation agencies’ real-time monitoring, operations control, and passenger communication systems into a single centralized AI-orchestrated platform that will allow transit control center staff to make better-informed, on-the-spot decisions, and provide riders with more immediate and accurate information.

The control centers of public transportation agencies are similar in appearance to the portrayal of NASA mission control in movies: rooms filled with employees monitoring dozens of radio feeds and computer screens relaying real-time camera data about stations and their operations, transit vehicle locations, riders, traffic, and road conditions. Unfortunately, the information coming in is fragmented, rather than integrated into a centralized system with overall awareness of the network’s conditions. This system creates an intense work environment for the transit staff making operations and communications decisions that can affect thousands of passengers relying on transit to get them where they need to go.

“Public transportation agencies are required to make decisions around the clock regarding real-time operations, control, and passenger communication,” says Awad Abdelhalim, associate director of the Transit Lab, and PTIQ co-principal investigator, project director, and technical lead. “Our goal isn't to automate those decisions, but to make sure the people making them have the best information possible. By unifying and streamlining data and information flow from fragmented and siloed internal systems, PTIQ will improve the experience of both riders and the transit workforce.”

Jinhua Zhao, the MIT Class of 1941 Professor of City and Transportation, head of the MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning, and founder and director of the MIT Mobility Initiative (MMI), is the other co-principal investigator on the project. The PTIQ program manager is MIT Lecturer Jim Aloisi, who directs the Transit Research Consortium, which will also work on the project. That consortium is comprised of researchers from the Transit Lab, MMI, and Northeastern University, where Professor Haris Koutsopoulos takes the lead. 

In addition to providing funding for the three-year project, Google.org will provide pro bono support from its own engineers and AI product experts.

"AI holds incredible potential to transform public services, but there is often a gap between promise and practice,” says Maggie Johnson, global head of Google.org. “By equipping the 15 selected organizations with funding and pro bono support from Google's own AI experts, we are empowering the people closest to the problem to show what is truly possible. Together, we can ensure that AI makes a profound, positive difference in the everyday lives of communities worldwide."

The project will build on the group’s decades of experience in applied-research collaborations with transit agencies in major metropolitan areas throughout the world. PTIQ’s decision support interface for control center staff will integrate predictive models, optimization engines, and large language model-based contextual reasoning. But ultimately the decision-making based on that information will be left to transit staff, who can better balance the trade-offs of making one decision over another in these often incredibly complex situations.

“The hard part of integrating AI in transit is not the technology; it’s the institution,” Zhao says. “AI is evaluated on benchmarks. Public transit is assessed in the control center and on the streets. Over decades of work with transit agencies in Washington, D.C., Chicago, London, Boston, Tokyo, and Hong Kong, we have learned to ask a different question. Not whether AI can do this, but whether it can work in the organization and whether the staff trust it. PTIQ is designed to ground AI in the institutional reality and behavioral nuances of a transit agency, and bring machine intelligence and human judgment into one place.”

“Currently the evaluation of AI models relies heavily on deterministic, objective tasks, such as solving mathematical equations or generating code,” Abdelhalim explains. “However, the vast majority of real-world operational tasks — like delivering public transit services — are highly dynamic, multi-stakeholder, and lack a single correct objective answer. These complex spatiotemporal environments are the ultimate testbed for evaluating what AI systems can add to society.”

PTIQ aims to transform the transit workforce experience, the transit rider experience, and the overall ability of transit agencies to efficiently respond to disruptions and unexpected events. 

“We expect that PTIQ will take what is largely a siloed environment and connect it in ways that provide powerful benefits for the agency workforce and its riders,” says Aloisi, who is also a former secretary of transportation for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. “[Doing this by] improving response time, reducing platform and bus stop crowding, providing riders with higher quality and timely information, and supporting agency staff — from dispatchers to vehicle operators and communications staff — with high-quality, reliable, real-time information and solution sets.”

A new AI system that excels at challenging games with hidden information could someday help human decision-makers select ideal strategies to outfox opponents in complicated situations like military maneuvers.

Using advances in machine-learning, researchers from MIT, Carnegie Mellon University, New York University, and Stanford University developed an AI that defeated top-ranked human players of the board wargame Stratego by a large margin — something no AI system had been able to achieve. 

Stratego, a two-player game of imperfect information, in which the opponent’s piece identities remain hidden, is often used as a benchmark to test the strategic thinking abilities of powerful AI models.

To build their model, the researchers combined efficient training algorithms with new techniques tailored for calculated decision-making in hidden information settings. 

The AI system achieved greater performance at Stratego than the next best models, while being far cheaper and less computationally demanding to train. The system also outperformed top human players in other strategic games with different rules and designs, demonstrating how it can be generalized for a variety of use-cases.

The AI system could be adapted to help humans tackle many real-world problems with hidden information, such as business negotiations or cybersecurity. 

“In the kind of imperfect information tasks you would face in reality, you often don’t have the luxury of enumerating through all the possibilities. There are just too many. Having AI algorithms that are general purpose and can provably perform this challenging task so well is a big step forward,” says Gabriele Farina, an assistant professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS), principal investigator at the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS), and senior author of a paper on this AI system.

He is joined on the paper by lead author Samuel Sokota, a graduate student at Carnegie Mellon; Eugene Vinitsky, an assistant professor at NYU; Zico Kolter, a professor at Carnegie Mellon; Hengyuan Hu, a graduate student at Stanford; and Zhiyuan Fan, an EECS graduate student at MIT. The research appears today in Nature.

Hidden information

The world is full of imperfect information problems. 

In these interactions, some parties possess information others do not. For instance, traders in financial markets may not know the rationale behind the trades of others, while military forces likely don’t have full knowledge of enemy positions. 

With hidden information, the decisions parties make, as well as the decisions they choose not to make, are intertwined in such a way that it is extremely difficult to determine the best steps to take next.

“The more you bluff, the more your opponent expects it, and the less each bluff is worth. It’s not obvious how to reason about that,” Sokota explains. “It’s very different from a setting like chess, where the best move is still the best move no matter how often you’ve played it.”

Stratego is often used to model imperfect information situations. In this board wargame, which resembles military chess, players arrange 40 pieces on their side of a board and then move pieces across the board to capture their opponent’s flag. 

But the identity of all pieces remains secret until they collide, and then the lower-ranking piece is eliminated.

The possible piece configurations number more than 10 to the 66th power — an exponentially greater number than in chess — making Stratego extremely difficult for an AI system to play well. 

Past efforts, such as Google’s DeepMind, relied on sophisticated operations that were computationally demanding and costly. But even with millions of dollars in training costs, these models were still not strong enough to beat top human Stratego players.

“With Stratego, there is an explosion of possible universes you might have to deal with. AI techniques that were developed for games like poker definitely could not scale in this setting,” Farina says.

The MIT researchers set out to develop a full AI system that could achieve superhuman performance for less cost, which they called Ataraxos (a Greek word used to describe one who is unbothered or free from anxiety).

A two-pronged approach

To build Ataraxos, the researchers trained the model using a technique called self-play reinforcement learning. The model plays against itself many times to learn a strong “blueprint strategy” of how to excel at Stratego. 

They designed especially efficient algorithms, which enabled Ataraxos to learn much faster than prior methods while ensuring it didn’t get stuck trying to predict every possible move. This reduces training costs and boosts performance. 

“Our system reaches strictly higher playing strength than DeepNash (DeepMind’s system) while using less than one hundredth of the training examples and less than one thirtieth of the self-play games, indicating a massive improvement in efficiency,” says Farina.

During a game, Ataraxos uses the blueprint strategy as a starting point to set up the board and begin thinking about its next moves at each round of play. 

But before acting, it refines its choices on the fly using a technique called decision-time planning. The system employs a generative model that uses probabilities to estimate the likely identities of the opponent’s hidden pieces, then evaluates future choices before selecting the next move. 

“Rather than just guessing blindly, we use decision-time planning to find the most plausible state of the board. Using this generative model allows us to really zoom in on the specific board and opponent we are facing,” Farina says.

The innovative use of this generative model for decision-time planning was the missing piece that enabled Ataraxos to achieve superhuman performance.

Ataraxos beat the strongest Stratego player in the world by a record margin of 15-1-4 and achieved a 39-2 record against top human players at the Stratego world championship. “Ataraxos is good at calculating risk in a way that humans are not. A human might start freaking out if their most valuable piece is exposed, but the bot can be surprisingly composed. It doesn’t overcorrect and give away its secrets,” Farina says.

The researchers also adapted Ataraxos for other imperfect information games, including Barrage Stratego (a faster-paced variant with fewer pieces), Hanabi (a cooperative card game with many players), and Dou dizhu (a game in which two players cooperate against a third).

The system achieved superhuman performance in each instance, demonstrating the generality of this method.

In the future, the researchers want to build interpretability measures into Ataraxos so the system can explain its decision-making in a way that a human could understand. 

“Humans must have the final say in whether a recommendation is followed, so before adoption can happen, we need a way to audit the model’s decisions. We still have a long way to go, but I hope these algorithms can be the foundation for a lot more work to come,” Farina says.

This research is funded, in part, by the Office of Naval Research, the New York University Department of Civil and Urban Engineering, the C2SMART Center, the National Science Foundation, and a Schmidt Sciences AI2050 Early Career Fellowship.   

AI systems are regularly completing tasks in ways that their prompters don’t want or intend. Some of them are disturbing, and some of them are dangerous. This is something I’ve been calling “genie behavior,” because I think that really gets at the core of what’s happening.

I wish the popular press would report on this better. I don’t like the “going rogue” framing because it deflects the responsibility from the prompters—often the AI companies themselves. And now, pretty much anything off-script is being called “hacking.”

Take, for example, the recent stories of one of OpenAI’s models hacking into government systems. First, ...

About 25 percent of lung adenocarcinomas have mutations of the gene KRAS, which drives uncontrolled cell growth. In recent years, the FDA has approved two KRAS inhibitors to treat patients with KRAS mutations. While these drugs can work well initially, tumors almost always develop resistance to them.

Usually, resistance emerges because cells reactivate KRAS activity, through mutations that prevent drug binding or by increasing KRAS expression that overpowers the effects of the inhibitor. However, in a new study, MIT researchers have modeled an alternative mechanism that cancer cells can use to become resistant to KRAS inhibition.

The researchers found that in some cases, lung tumors undergo transformation from adenocarcinoma to squamous cell carcinoma. Both of these tumor types are commonly found in the lungs, but they are thought to  arise from different cells and have different genetic profiles.

When this transition occurs, tumor cells no longer require KRAS, and appear to turn on alternative signaling pathways that help them continue to grow. Ongoing work to identify those pathways may reveal targets for new drugs that could help prevent resistance to KRAS inhibitors.

“The main takeaway is that there seem to be different routes of resistance to KRAS inhibitors, and so we need to be thinking about how we can address this,” says Carrie Rodriguez, an MIT graduate student and one of the lead authors of the paper.

Nicolas Mathey-Andrews PhD ’25 is also a lead author of the study, which appears today in the journal Nature Genetics. The paper’s senior author is Tyler Jacks, the David H. Koch Professor of Biology and a member of MIT’s Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research.

Tissue transformation

The two FDA-approved KRAS inhibitors both target a mutation called KRAS-G12C. These drugs are approved only for use in patients whose tumors have failed to respond to other drugs, and these patients usually have cancer that has spread beyond the lungs.

KRAS inhibitors are effective in about 35 percent of the patients who receive them. However, in those cases, the tumors almost always end up becoming resistant by generating additional copies of the KRAS gene or finding other ways to turn on the MAP kinase signaling pathway, which is usually triggered by KRAS and stimulates cell growth.

“Resistance to targeted therapies is a very serious problem,” Rodriguez says. “Sometimes these KRAS inhibitors can hold cancers at bay, but most cases do end up relapsing.”

A 2021 study from researchers at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, which analyzed tumors from 17 non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with KRAS-G12C inhibition, identified secondary resistance mutations in a majority of patients. In two of these patients, however, the researchers found that tumors transformed from adenocarcinomas to squamous cell carcinomas, but they did not harbor obvious resistance mutations.

Both adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas are classified as non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs), which are the most common type of primary lung cancer. Adenocarcinomas, the most common type of NSCLCs, often originate from the surfactant-producing cells that line the lungs, while squamous cell carcinomas originate in the cells that line the central airways of the lungs.

Mutations of KRAS are found much more frequently in adenocarcinomas than in squamous cell carcinomas

In this study, the researchers set out to model the factors that might drive the transition from adenocarcinomas to squamous cell carcinomas. To do that, they engineered a mouse lung cancer model to express the mutation that is targeted by the FDA-approved KRAS inhibitors. 

Following treatment with a KRAS-G12C inhibitor, tumors with genetic loss of Nkx2-1, which normally helps maintain alveolar epithelial identity, were able to undergo adeno-to-squamous transition. Turning on a transcription factor called DeltaNp63, which is overactive in many squamous cell carcinomas, also made this transition more likely. Another transcription factor known as SOX2 also helped stimulate the transition, but this gene could not initiate the transition on its own.

Paths to resistance

Tumors that underwent these tissue transformations did not acquire the mutations that typically boost KRAS expression in adenocarcinomas. Instead, KRAS signaling was shut off. The researchers hypothesize that these cells may turn on another signaling pathway that helps them to continue growing.

“There seem to be several different routes where you can get to squamous transformation, either through loss of lung-lineage-defining transcription factors, or overexpression of these squamous master regulators, SOX2 or DeltaNp63. Those resistant squamous tumors no longer respond to KRAS inhibition because they shut off the signaling or at least dampen it significantly,” Rodriguez says.

The researchers are now further exploring what happens to tumor cells as they transition to a squamous state, in hopes of identifying vulnerabilities that could be targeted with new drugs.

“Fundamentally this is a transition that’s poorly understood, and we were happy to see that we were able to model it,” Mathey-Andrews says. “Future directions that have an eye toward translation will utilize those models to understand the process and conditions by which histologic transformation occurs, and then also nominate potential targets downstream.”

The research was funded, in part, by the Koch Institute Support (core) Grant from the National Cancer Institute, a Ruth Kirschstein National Service Research Award, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the Ludwig Center at MIT.

San Francisco's decision to retain its use of Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) surveillance cameras belies what we know about this spying technology tool: it endangers residents and threatens the privacy and civil liberties of our community. Based on what's in the city's press release and announcement, this policy will do nothing to stop actual harms.

We know innocent drivers will be stopped and menaced by officers because of erroneous matches. We know officers use Flock to stalk potential and past romantic partners. Data will be accessed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and used to deport immigrants. Promising greater penalties for such abuse will not end this. These are not isolated mistakes that another policy can fix. They are consequences of building a system that records everyone’s movements and makes them searchable by police. This is also not unique to a single vendor. From Flock Safety to Motorola to Axon—San Francisco must end its use of ALPRs.

We ultimately cannot rely on new protocols from city officials, and the City’s new policy is woefully inadequate. There is no warrant requirement to search stored ALPR data. An incident or computer-aided dispatch (CAD) number is not judicial authorization. Without a warrant requirement, officers can search stored location data without showing probable cause to a judge, and will. Without judicial control, officers will continue to search the data for abusive reasons. But a warrant requirement alone would not justify retaining the ALPR network: the community is demanding an end to the collection itself.

Additionally, the announced policies include no deadline to delete ALPR data, there is only a 30-day deadline to move data from the vendor’s servers to the city’s servers. City officials must understand that moving data is not deleting it. Whether Flock or SFPD stores the data, it remains a permanent record of where people drive, worship, work, organize, seek care, and spend time with others. Thus, the best practice is deletion. New Hampshire requires deletion in three minutes, and Flock itself has reduced the default retention time to seven days. San Francisco can and should do better.

Lastly, while transparency and documentation are important concepts, better audit logs are not the answer. They can expose abuse only after a search has occurred. They cannot undo the disclosure of someone’s movements or justify collecting everyone’s location data in the first place; especially when we are talking about people’s lives and civil liberties. The city's announced policy does not even require officers to state, in their own words, why they are searching the stored ALPR data—an accountability rule that has exposed abusive searches across the country.

San Francisco is behind many communities that have considered the tradeoffs of ALPR surveillance and made the right choice by ending their contracts. San Francisco must do the same.

J-PAL North America, a regional office of MIT’s Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL), convened the second cohort of the Climate Action Learning Lab this spring with 17 climate leaders from four U.S. government agencies and nonprofit organizations. Participants then engaged in four months of programming designed to strengthen their skills in generating and using evidence, applying research insights to their own programs, and identifying promising policy-relevant interventions for evaluation.

The Climate Action Learning Lab first emerged in 2025 as a response to an urgent need for rigorous research on programs that seek to improve resilience to climate-related hazards and support the transition to a low-carbon economy. By helping participants identify interventions and develop evaluation plans, the Learning Lab aims to generate evidence about which approaches are most effective, and for whom. 

“We have a unique opportunity to embed rigorous evaluation into promising programs as they are implemented in order to accurately measure their impacts on emissions reductions,” says Peter Christensen, scientific advisor of the J-PAL North America Environment, Energy, and Climate Change Sector. “By developing rigorous evaluations, Learning Lab participants can better understand the behavioral mechanisms that drive program impacts and cost-effectiveness, and build an evidence base to inform more effective policymaking.”

Following the success of last year’s Climate Action Learning Lab, which led to multiple research collaborations and the launch of two randomized evaluations, J-PAL North America recruited a second cohort of leaders representing four organizations: the City of Boston’s Sustainability Office, the Hawaii Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and the Electrification Coalition. 

From May through August, the cohort engaged in a set of offerings including training on impact evaluation, learning how to formulate research questions, and assessing the generalizability of the existing evidence to their own contexts. Participants had the opportunity to explore J-PAL resources, including the recently released Climate Action Evidence Review, which synthesizes existing evidence and highlights important gaps where more research is critical to inform effective, equitable climate action. 

“It was exciting to learn where the gaps in research are and where we have an opportunity to lead. The experience reinforced that we are addressing issues that have not been widely studied, and having access to researchers’ expertise was incredibly valuable,” says Ana Paola De La Vega, from the City of Boston’s Environment Department. Throughout the Learning Lab, the city explored a potential evaluation of its Boston Energy Saver program to better understand its impacts on energy cost savings and energy efficiency incentive uptake among small businesses.

Members of the Climate Action Learning Lab put theory into practice through personalized strategy sessions, where they examined potential programs for evaluation. Researchers from the J-PAL network joined select sessions to advise organizations on which programs to prioritize, considering factors such as research feasibility and existing evidence gaps. Each participating organization selected a target program and explored potential randomization approaches. 

“The Climate Action Learning Lab provided our team with a valuable opportunity to catalog our projects and better understand what makes a program ready for evaluation. It also helped us identify which initiatives are the strongest candidates for rigorous evaluation and how to prioritize them,” says Leah Laramee, Hawaii climate change mitigation and adaptation coordinator. During the Learning Lab, the team assessed three potential programs for evaluation and selected a rebate finder that connects residents with climate-related programs, with a focus on understanding its impact on program uptake, particularly among vulnerable communities.

In August, J-PAL North America hosted a virtual summit to celebrate Learning Lab participants as emerging champions for evidence in the climate space. During the event, cohort members presented their priority research questions and strategic evaluation plans and received feedback from researchers and peers. These presentations highlighted the progress made throughout the engagement and provided an opportunity to discuss next steps for advancing organizations’ evaluation plans beyond the Learning Lab.

“Overall, the Learning Lab has provided our team with a strong foundation to think critically about our own programming when applying for grants, setting up new projects, and determining how to assess impact from the beginning. This knowledge could ultimately help us determine what approaches the Electrification Coalition can take in future policies and programs,” says Ashley Blackwell, deputy director at the Electrification Coalition. 

Although formal Learning Lab programming has concluded, J-PAL North America will continue supporting organizations interested in launching a randomized evaluation through partnership development with researchers and potential funding opportunities. This Learning Lab cohort will join J-PAL North America’s Climate Action Community of Practice, alongside longtime partners and participants from the inaugural Learning Lab cohort. Together, Community of Practice members will continue to exchange ideas, build connections, and explore evidence-informed approaches to mitigation and adaptation strategies.

To learn more about J-PAL North America’s work in the energy, environment, and climate change sector, including our full range of activities, resources, and partnership opportunities, visit the Evidence for Climate Action Project webpage.

People are increasingly concerned about the ways in which mass surveillance is tracking our every move: from Flock license plate readers to face recognition to creepy ads that – based on what we see and do online – seem to know everything we’re thinking and planning. It didn’t have to be this way, and since the early days of the internet, a dedicated band of activists, lawyers and technologists have fought for a better, more secure and private digital future – a future that’s still attainable.  

Cindy Cohn, who just finished a 26-year run with the Electronic Frontier Foundation including 11 years as its executive director, has lived this fight. She says privacy isn’t just about secrecy: It's ultimately about power – who has it, and who has the ability to protect themselves from it.   

Welcome to the first episode of “Privacy’s Defenders,” a podcast about the people – lawyers, journalists, hackers, and others – who’ve fought to secure your digital liberties since before most people even knew what the internet was.

%3Ciframe%20height%3D%2252px%22%20width%3D%22100%25%22%20frameborder%3D%22no%22%20scrolling%3D%22no%22%20seamless%3D%22%22%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fplayer.simplecast.com%2F2f955342-7675-4c8c-bb40-fa364d9a569d%3Fdark%3Dtrue%26amp%3Bcolor%3D000000%22%20allow%3D%22autoplay%22%3E%C2%A0%3C%2Fiframe%3E Privacy info. This embed will serve content from simplecast.com

   

(You can also find this episode on the Internet Archive and on YouTube.)

In this episode, Cindy talks with EFF cofounder John Gilmore about how he – an early employee at Sun Microsystems – came together with Lotus Development cofounder Mitch Kapor and cattle rancher, philosopher and Grateful Dead lyricist John Perry Barlow to create EFF as a bulwark against government investigation and prosecution of early internet users.  

It’s a story of the Secret Service’s “Operation Sundevil,” jet-setting tech titans, tie-dyed cypherpunks, and a fateful house party in San Francisco’s Haight-Ashbury district amid the earliest days of online communications, setting the stage for the battles that created the internet as we know it and issues we still grapple with today. 

The “Privacy’s Defenders” podcast is a follow-up to Cindy’s book, “Privacy’s Defender: My Thirty-Year Fight Against Digital Surveillance,” bringing to life pivotal moments in the voices of those who fought for your rights. Sales of “Privacy’s Defender” benefit EFF, so pick up your copy today! 

Joanne Elgart Jennings co-produced and created this podcast.  

Jarod Sport co-produced, mixed, and mastered it.  

Corinne Ruff is our story editor.

We had additional help from Rachel Estabrook and Alison Broverman.

The original music was composed and performed by Nat Keefe of Hot Buttered Rum with Ben Andrews on the fiddle.  

And other archival sound came from the Internet Archive's amazing collection, including the snippet of the Grateful Dead song “Cassidy” that John Perry Barlow co-wrote. 

Modern messaging apps allow users to link their phone accounts to their computer desktop. Eavesdroppers are taking advantage of this capability:

Apps such as WhatsApp Web and Signal Desktop allow people to use their accounts on other devices, such as laptops or desktop computers.

Germany’s Customs Office has been using these features to connect a police-controlled computer to a suspect’s account.

Once connected, messages can be delivered to that computer without the police having to crack the encryption protecting them.

Netzpoltik details that police are able to gain access in this way either through physical access to someone’s phone or by intercepting verification codes via a state-sanctioned phishing attack or intercepting SMS messages via telephone surveillance...

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 29 September 2026; doi:10.1038/s41558-026-02736-4

Security analysts and government economists increasingly present policymakers with different pictures of the same climate and nature risk. We argue that governments need a shared way to weigh these assessments, particularly given that under-preparing for a severe, irreversible outcome costs far more than over-preparing.

Swimming can take a lot of muscle. But as MIT engineers have found, even a single layer of muscle cells can power through water if designed right. 

In a paper appearing today in the journal Advanced Functional Materials, the team presents a design for a thin, muscle-powered swimming robot. The “skeleton” of the aquabot is made from a film of gel that is about the length and width of a stick of gum. The two halves of the gel form the “fins” of the bot. Each fin is covered with a layer of live muscle cells that is much thinner than a single strand of hair. The cells are genetically engineered to twitch in response to light. 

When the researchers shine light on one fin, the muscles on its surface twitch in response, causing the whole fin to flap with enough force to pull the robot through water. By flashing light on one fin or the other, at various intervals, they can control the swimming robot’s direction and speed. 

The engineers showed that the paper-thin bot could swim and swivel through a simple watery maze. At its fastest, the robot can swim a distance of about four times its body length in one minute. That’s a snail’s pace compared to Olympic swimmers, who can cover up to 65 body lengths per minute. But the bot could hold its own against more leisurely swimmers like the cow shark, which explores the ocean at about the same rate.

“It takes a lot of force to move through water versus air,” says study author Ritu Raman, associate professor of mechanical engineering at MIT. “The robot’s quite strong, given its size.”

The new robot is the first example of a very thin, two-dimensional, muscle-powered robot capable of locomotion. 

“Currently, biohybrid robots from our group and others’ are built from bulky, 3D chunks of lab-grown skeletal muscle that require millions of cells to fabricate,” says Raman, who notes that thinner, less bulky designs such as the team’s new bot could be cheaper to build and could move more efficiently. “We believe that biohybrid robots powered by living muscle could one day perform delicate jobs like exploring environments too fragile or unpredictable for conventional hardware, because living tissue is soft, responsive to its surroundings, and can heal itself.”

The study’s MIT co-authors are first author Maheera Bawa, Arielle Berman, Laura Schwendeman, Ferdows Afghah, and Seanbiron Johnson.

Maximizing movement

Last year, Raman’s group developed an iris-inspired disk of artificial muscle tissue. They stamped a disk of gel with a pattern of concentric and radial grooves, and deposited live muscle cells onto the gel’s surface. The cells formed a thin layer that grew along the grooves, and when stimulated with light, the cells moved in patterns that stretched and squeezed the disk, similar to how a human iris dilates and constricts the eye’s pupil. 

That work was the first to demonstrate that muscle cells could be grown in a very thin layer, and in complex patterns that when stimulated could move in multiple, controllable directions. 

“People hadn’t seen this muscle architecture engineered from scratch before,” Raman says. “And the cells were moving in multiple directions. But they only moved about 100 microns. From a robotics perspective, their movements were tiny.” 

In their new work, the team aimed to maximize muscle movements to produce more force — enough, say, to power a swimming robot. The key, they found, was to optimize the skeleton on which the cells grow. 

In their previous iris-inspired design, they grew muscle cells on fibrin, which is a type of ultrasoft gel that the team realized can quickly shrivel in response to the forces generated by the muscles. To better support cells and maximize their force, the researchers focused on tuning the underlying gel by changing three properties: the gel’s composition, its stiffness, and the size and shape of the grooves that are stamped into it. 

“For engineering any type of tissue, it’s known that these are knobs you can tune,” Raman says. “And we wanted to optimize all these parameters to support live muscle cells.”

Tuning a skeleton

To find an optimal “skeleton” on which to grow muscle cells, the team experimented with multiple formulations of gel, of different stiffnesses, and stamped with grooves of different geometries. For instance, one groove type resembled a skinny square trough, where another was more of a long curved valley. They found that when they deposited muscles onto each type of grooved gel, cells settled into alignment in grooves that were more square than curved. More aligned cells tend to fuse into fibers that then form a stronger, more coordinated muscle tissue. Square grooves, they found, were the way to go. 

Instead of using fibrin, they tried gelatin methacrylate (GelMA), a material that is often used in tissue engineering. They made different recipes of GelMA to create skeletons of different stiffnesses and observed how muscle cells grew when deposited on the gel’s surface. They found that cells grew in better alignment, and produced the most force, on stiffer gels. 

The team also varied the gel thickness and found that a half-millimeter-thin film of GelMa offered good support for a single layer of muscle cells. The film was light enough that the cells were able to stick to the gel when they contracted, rather than peeling away. 

Finally, the team “exercised” the muscles, using a training routine of flashing lights to strengthen the muscles. 

With the pumped-up cells and the optimized gel, the team designed a thin, two-finned robot, comprising the gel, stamped on both sides with square-bottomed grooves and lined with muscle cells. The cells fused into fibers, eventually forming a strong, aligned muscle tissue. 

“You can think of the robot as having two independent muscles,” Raman says. “If we shine a light on just one, only that muscle moves. If shining on both, they both flap.”

The researchers submerged the robot in a large petri dish of water and manually maneuvered a light source over the bot. The robot followed the light, flapping its fins in response to navigate through a maze that the team placed in the dish.

The current design is relatively basic as far as its form. The researchers intended first to show that the bot could produce enough force to swim.

“Our next goal is to optimize the body design to enable faster swimming,” Raman says. “But even at slow swim speeds, one could imagine a muscle-powered swimmer being used for purposes like environmental monitoring in aquatic environments.”

This research was supported, in part, by the Office of Naval Research. 

AI tools are increasingly replacing human judgements in some settings. For instance, resume screening algorithms are often used in hiring, where they may improve efficiency and consistency in decision-making.

But some scholars have raised concerns that the adoption of automated systems could eventually result in one algorithm being used to make all decisions in a particular industry. They worry so-called algorithmic monoculture could have negative consequences.

For example, in hiring, the thinking goes that algorithmic monoculture might result in systematic exclusion — a situation in which a job candidate rejected by one firm’s algorithm would likely also be rejected by every other firm’s algorithm.

However, MIT researchers now argue that algorithmic monoculture may not always be as bad as some scientists have suggested.

They systematically evaluated major objections to algorithmic monoculture, including systematic exclusion, and concluded this and many other arguments either fail or aren’t decisive against all forms of monoculture. 

Instead, they mathematically prove that monoculture tends to create informational echo chambers that can hinder exploration. In hiring, this could make it less likely that the best candidates would get jobs — however, bundling various hiring algorithms into a single “ensemble” can overcome this limitation, the researchers show. This could sometimes enable monoculture to perform as well as, if not better than, a polyculture where different firms use different algorithms.

“A trend toward algorithmic monoculture is a realistic scenario, and a really important issue that is being brought about by the use of AI, but it is hard to say in the abstract whether monoculture would be a bad thing. It depends on the details, like the domain we are talking about and the accuracy of the algorithm itself,” says study co-author Brian Hedden, a professor in the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, who holds an MIT Schwarzman College of Computing shared position with the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) and is also a principal investigator in the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS).

Hedden is joined on the paper by co-author Manish Raghavan, the Drew Houston (2005) Career Development Professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management and in EECS, as well as a LIDS principal investigator. The research appears in Philosophical Perspectives. 

The move toward monoculture

Algorithmic monoculture, in which all decisions across a certain domain are made using the same algorithm, is not a new phenomenon. 

For instance, lending decisions were once made by independent bankers at individual banks, but now all bankers use the same information based on a borrower’s standardized credit scores, which are derived from the Fair Isaac Corporation (FICO) algorithm. 

Similarly, a handful of resume screening algorithms are commonly used by many Fortune 500 companies.

“The worry is that, as more people use AI and algorithms to get information and make decisions, there is more of a vehicle for this kind of correlation to occur,” Raghavan says.

To better understand this issue, he and Hedden joined forces to systematically assess the promises and pitfalls of algorithmic monoculture. They focused on hiring, but their approach could apply to other domains, such as lending. (They note, however, that other domains, like generative AI content creation or AI-guided scientific research, may work differently, and that monoculture in some of these domains may be more problematic.) 

The researchers began by exploring one common objection to algorithmic monoculture: that reliance on the same algorithm will systematically exclude certain people from opportunities. 

This could occur in hiring because, if one firm screens out an individual’s resume, that applicant will likely face the same bad luck at each firm.

But after systematically evaluating this argument using a series of models that capture multiple situations, the researchers argue it isn’t compelling since the overall number of people hired is not affected by the fact that firms use the same algorithm. 

Rather, algorithmic monoculture could improve bargaining power of job candidates.

“All the jobs get filled and the same number of people have jobs, but the firms are fighting over the same pool of candidates, which actually drives up wages,” Raghavan says.

They also explored objections related to agency. For instance, if a job candidate applies for a job and their resume is forwarded to every firm using the hiring algorithm, the candidate never gets a chance to adjust their resume to improve their chances.

“This seems like a good objection to bad forms of monoculture. But if you have a monoculture where you get to revise your resume and resubmit your materials, then this doesn’t hold up,” Hedden says.

On the flip side, monoculture could enable individuals to game the system. For instance, if having one’s resume in a certain format leads to a better outcome, job candidates could simply reformat their resumes to improve their chances.

“But it is not obvious that having one algorithm would incentivize this kind of gaming more than having a bunch of different algorithms used by different firms,” Hedden says. “In the latter scenario, you might just target a couple of firms’ algorithms and try to game them, giving yourself a bit of advantage with a few employers.”

The wisdom of crowds

They also considered a less-explored objection: that monoculture can increase homogenization of information.

Based on the “wisdom of crowds,” a theory from social psychology, a diverse group of independent decision makers can outperform a single person, Hedden explains. 

In hiring, this means that having firms with diverse hiring algorithms can lead to a higher-quality pool of new hires. 

Algorithmic monoculture could also cause candidates with the same characteristics and credentials to be hired every time by every firm. This may prevent firms from discovering candidates who may be better alternatives.

“Monoculture might inhibit the amount of discovery that happens overall. It is not clear if that is a bad thing, but it is definitely a worry when we think about designing AI for applications like science, art, or writing,” Raghavan says.

This problem could be mitigated by building randomness into a monocultural platform, which could induce a higher level of exploration, he adds.

In addition, the performance of monoculture depends on the algorithm. If a single algorithm is much more accurate than the many algorithms used by different firms, monoculture may be better system. 

One way to boost performance may be to package multiple firms’ hiring algorithms into one “ensemble algorithm” that could assign each job candidate a score based on the average. 

By conducting a series of simulations of different hiring situations, the researchers confirmed that such an “ensemble algorithm” could sometimes outperform the use of multiple algorithms.

However, it remains to be explored how feasible this kind of algorithmic “ensembling” would be in practice, Hedden says.

“A lot of the answers around the promises and pitfalls of algorithmic monoculture are going to be contextual. Even from a research perspective, there is still a lot of work to be done to figure out how we can approach these concerns from an empirical perspective,” Raghavan says.

Ultimately, the researchers hope this work inspires additional research about the long-term consequences of algorithmic monoculture, as well as studies that focus on the real-world complexities involved in a complex system like a job market.

Brian, a middle-aged financial consultant, spends his day sitting in front of three screens. Two of them involve his job. The third features a chatbot, which he has given a woman’s name and frequently uses. Brian spent years on the road for work earlier in his career, has never married, and recently broke up with a woman who said he was emotionally unavailable. What did Brian do, in response? He asked the chatbot if the woman had a point. 

“It’s an extraordinary moment,” writes MIT Professor Sherry Turkle, who interviewed Brian (not his real name) while conducting her research for her new book about chatbots. “Brian asks an object with no emotions to tell him if he is emotionally withholding: ‘Speak to me about what you cannot experience.’ As soon as he asks the program to talk about intimacy, he’s asking it to punch above its weight.”

And yet, this kind of thing seems to be happening a lot today. 

“People think the empathy of a machine is what empathy is, then turn away from the people in their lives because they’re not empathetic enough,” Turkle says. “We’re getting ourselves in a position where human beings are too much work, right at the moment when we have never needed other people more.”

After all, what is a chatbot? It’s a computer program predicting the most plausible next string of text in a conversation, based on massive amounts of data fed into it. 

“What a chatbot does is offer pretend empathy,” Turkle says. “After it tells you how much it loves you and how much it understands you, it doesn’t care if you kill yourself or cook some pasta.”

Sadly, chatbots have in fact been associated with high-profile cases of teen suicide as well, sometimes after teens get drawn into extensive dialogues with chat tools.

Turkle explores this terrain in a new book, “Artificial Intimacy: Who We Become When We Talk to Machines,” published today by Little, Brown and Company. After surveying evidence and conducting new research, she emphatically concludes that chatbot use, while it may often feel like a short-term salve, is broadly detrimental in terms of human development and social connectivity.

“We’re doing ourselves a tremendous disservice at every moment in the life cycle,” says Turkle, the Abby Rockefeller Mauzé Professor of the Social Studies of Science and Technology at MIT.

The inner history of technology

A sociologist and clinical psychologist by training, Turkle is a longtime faculty member in MIT’s Program in Science, Technology, and Society. In books such as “The Second Self” (1984), “Life on the Screen” (1997), and “Alone Together” (2011), she has evaluated the interplay of technology, psychology, and personal identity. In “Reclaiming Conversation” (2015), she documented the costs of texting and using social media. 

“I feel the story I’m telling is the inner history of technology,” Turkle says. “Not just what it does, but what it does to people.”

Turkle structures “Artificial Intimacy” around the stages of a human life and explores the implications of chatbots for each one. In her interviews with children, Turkle finds a persistent blurring of the line between chatbots, people, and other devices.

One 8-year-old uses the same phone to talk to their grandparents and to ChatGPT, regarding them all as “things you reach on your phone.” A weary graduate-student mother who uses a chatbot for bedtime stories says her daughter thinks the chatbot is “a person in the phone, absolutely.” 

In this sense, chatbots may be interfering with even the most basic childhood processes of distinguishing people from inanimate objects. Turkle finds many additional problems with the use of chatbots as ever-present entertainment for children, noting that a certain amount of time alone helps the development of imagination and inner resources. 

“Children can’t learn trust from a device that not only lies but doesn’t know when it lies,” Turkle writes. “They can’t develop the capacity for solitude that enables both a sense of self and the capacity for mutuality.”

All told, in affecting the ability of children to develop, the dangers of chatbots are “existential,” Turkle believes. 

Facing reality, but understanding the appeal

Adults don’t fare much better when they use chatbots heavily, Turkle says. “Artificial Intimacy” explores case after case of grown-ups who become dependent on chatbots as well: people going through divorces or estrangements who want dialogue, students looking for advice about applying to college or graduate school, workers who enlist ChatGPT to do assignments, and more. They start using chatbots, keep using chatbots, and before long seem less interested in human interaction, and less capable of it. 

“Once people are involved with a connection with a robot, they start to think that it’s alive, that it cares about them, that it loves them,” Turkle says. 

That means people can lose or fail to build their own capacities for new thought, and opt out of dealing with the real world in all its maddening-but-affirming complexity.

“We’re de-skilling ourselves as relational beings,” Turkle says. “We’re also de-skilling ourselves in work. We’re de-skilling ourselves in personal relationships. It’s across the board.” And speaking of a practice multiple people in the book have attempted, she says, “When we build chatbot avatars of dead relatives to keep them alive, we can lose our ability to mourn.”

We are not, in her estimation, doing the hard work of figuring other people out, seeing things from different points of view, and putting in the effort to build on those things and make society better.

“We’re starting to define being human as not doing the work,” Turkle says. 

For all of that, a considerable amount of “Artificial Intimacy” involves understanding why people engage with chatbots. After all, as Turkle writes in the book, “Chatbots always agree with us and affirm us. They always offer us their full, undivided attention.” And once that happens, things seem to just go from there. 

People, meanwhile, can be prickly, demanding, and moody. As Turkle says: “People say they prefer the chatbot because their husband or wife says, ‘Dear, you took out the garbage, but also do the dishes, and clean up the kitchen while you’re at it.’ And a chatbot just says, ‘Oh, you’re so wonderful.’” 

She adds: “This technology is offering something people really want, which is to feel less vulnerable. And it offers it over and over again. You don’t want to have to ask somebody out? Don’t want to offer condolences? At every opportunity, technology says, ‘Why don’t you do this thing that’s less hard.’” 

And as Turkle acknowledges in the book, there is a shortage of services such as mental health care providers in the U.S., where only about half of people have access to one, according to a federal government study she cites. Chatbots are helping to fill this void, for better or worse. 

Don’t fear the friction

Turkle also notes that the age of social media has likely led people to have fewer in-person friendships and interactions, a problem that chatbots are now aiming to address. 

“You take away people’s capacities, then you offer technology as the cure for the problems technology caused in the first place,” Turkle says.

In light of all this, given Turkle’s dim view of chatbots amid the spread of AI, what is actually to be done to restore human interaction? For starters, Turkle thinks, we need to face up to the idea that life is not frictionless — and that’s okay.

“Everything in the life cycle is about facing up to friction and fears and stress and tension, and understanding that friction is not a bad thing,” Turkle emphasizes. Developing the capacity to overcome difficulties is an essential part of life. In trying to sidestep the hard work of being social beings, she thinks, personal technology is enfeebling us.

Beyond that, Turkle envisions pushback against chatbots similar to the movement against, say, having phones in schools or letting young people use social media. 

“I hope my book is part of a larger and larger movement,” Turkle says. “I don’t want to be alone. I want to be part of a movement pushing back.”

Other writers in this domain have praised “Artificial Intimacy.” Journalist Nicholas Carr, author of “The Shallows,” has stated it “will help you avoid the profound but often hidden threats AI poses to you and your relationships.” Psychologist Jonathan Haidt of New York University, author of “The Anxious Generation,” has stated that Turkle’s “groundbreaking research and beautiful writing make her the most qualified member of Team Humanity to call us back to our senses, and to each other.” 

For her part, Turkle says, “I wanted to write a book that college students would read, that high school seniors, juniors would be able to read, that parents would pick up and not be intimidated by, that teachers would read.” 

And “Artificial Intimacy” offers a recurring question for those readers.

“If not a richer life in the real,” Turkle writes, “what’s our endgame?” The purpose of life, she underlines, is not to avoid it, but to tackle it head on. 

“It’s one thing if you say, my teen is texting too much,” Turkle says. “It’s very different if your 2-year-old is thinking a plushy toy with a chatbot inside is their best friend. Because you are getting into the intimate infrastructure of what makes a person develop. Social media came for our attention. Chatbots come for our capacity for attachment. That’s toxic on another level. What is the endgame? That the baby will prefer chatbots to people who are much more complicated and hard? Is that who we want to be?”

The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) began regularly deploying drones two years ago and has since expanded their use in a way that has outpaced its documented policy and evaded existing local and state oversight of these devices. 

The department has a new proposed policy, which continues to be grossly inadequate in protecting privacy and civil liberties. At best, the draft policy continues the SFPD’s pattern of putting vague guardrails on a powerful surveillance tool, but at worst, if implemented, the policy could effectively usher in sweeping, non-targeted, and unspecified general surveillance over the city with few guardrails.

EFF has repeatedly opposed the unaccountable development of the SFPD’s drone program and recently sent a comment to the Police Commission, the local civilian oversight body, about the SFPD’s new proposed policy. 

The SFPD has been sidestepping oversight of its drones since 2024. In March 2024, San Francisco voters approved a heavily-funded, billionaire-backed measure, Proposition E, which sought to expand police access to surveillance technology. Among its impacts, Prop E removed drones from oversight required by the 2019 Surveillance Technology Ordinance. Nonetheless, in its haste to purchase drones after Prop E passed, the SFPD knowingly violated California’s AB 481, a state statute requiring law enforcement agencies to get approval from their local elected governing body before purchasing military equipment, including drones. Eventually the SFPD sought retroactive approval from the Board of Supervisors and, soon after, announced that it would be launching a drone-as-first-responder (DFR) program.

Now, San Francisco finally has an opportunity to update the SFPD’s guidance in a way that won’t quickly become stale, as has happened while the SFPD steadily increases the purposes for drone use. Though drones were initially identified as tools to use for specific actions such as vehicle pursuits and active criminal investigations, within a year, the SFPD expanded use cases to include patrol, i.e. unrelated to a specific incident. Along with this mission creep, the SFPD has also steadily and exponentially increased the number of drone flights, from roughly 350 deployments in 2024, to over 1,100 from January to August 2025, to over 3,500 in just the first five months of 2026.

The original draft of an updated policy brought by the SFPD to the local Police Commission, a civilian oversight body, earlier this month provided limited details and proposed allowing police to treat drone flights as an extension of their patrol abilities, paving the way for general surveillance, including of First Amendment-protected activity. The proposal received significant community pushback, and the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office authored a letter describing the policy’s shortcomings. That letter was signed by over a dozen local, state, and national groups, including EFF. 

Based on these concerns, the Police Commission deferred taking action until the SFPD addressed them. The SFPD then revised its proposed policy, but this, too, falls short of providing practical guidance to officers and protecting civil liberties, as the Public Defender’s Office identified in a follow-up letter signed by over 40 organizations, including EFF.

EFF’s additional comment to the Police Commission, in part, calls out the incredible gap in oversight of these ballooning drone flights and the immense data collection they facilitate:

The revised policy states that “[unmanned aerial vehicles] may be used as an asset in any situation in which a member may be deployed for a public safety response or when a member onviews criminal activity” but fails to define what is meant by a “public safety response.” The revised policy also provides a definition of “Drone as First Responders,” but it fails to provide any more detail about appropriate DFR deployment. Without appropriate safeguards around deployment and use, drones could be deployed to every call for service, even in situations that are ultimately deemed nonincidents, collecting data along the way that is then stored for 30 days. This type of general patrol could effectively become general surveillance, which SFPD acknowledges is an inappropriate use of their drones and yet is still possible under the vague terms of the current DGO. 

The Police Commission is set to consider the matter on October 14. You can read EFF’s full comment here.

The world needs more wind energy. But anyone designing new wind turbines or trying to squeeze more power out of existing ones faces a stiff challenge testing new approaches. That’s because the atmosphere is a tough place for a controlled experiment.

Some researchers use wind tunnels to conduct tests, but scaled-down wind turbines in traditional wind tunnels can differ widely from conditions in the field. (Wind turbines are the largest rotating machines ever made.) The problem hampers not only development of better wind turbines, but also our understanding of basic questions like how much power to expect from a turbine when winds change direction.

In a new open access paper published in PNAS Nexus, researchers closed the gap between experiments in the field and the lab by using a wind tunnel that features high pressurization to simulate the flow physics in the atmosphere. With this approach, the researchers determined how the alignment of the turbine and its tip speed relative to the wind influence the power it generates, offering new insights into how to get more power from existing wind farms.

They also used the approach to validate a computationally lightweight model that engineers can use to test different turbine designs and wind farm control strategies.

Together, the researchers estimate that optimizing the turbine alignment relative to wind, the blade pitch angles, which control the airfoil’s angle of attack, and the tip speed relative to the wind could potentially result in tens of thousands of dollars per turbine every year in additional revenue.

“The immediate impact of this study is that we’ve now both improved and validated models that go into wind turbine control protocols for existing farms,” says Michael Howland, MIT’s Jeffrey Cheah Career Development Professor. “The bigger, medium-term impact, with a much larger upside, is this new experimental paradigm to rapidly prototype, validate simulation models, and test hypotheses about better designs and control strategies much faster than has been possible before.”

Joining Howland on the paper are first author John Kurelek, an assistant professor at Queen’s University; MIT PhD candidates Ilan Upfal and Kirby Heck; Queen’s University postdoc Supun Pieris; Penn State University researcher Alexander Piqué; and Princeton University Professor Marcus Hultmark.

Answers in the wind

Howland has spent years developing models to simulate wind farm performance and developing new techniques to increase their power output. In 2022, he showed that accounting for the wake of individual turbines when controlling the entire wind farm could significantly increase power output.

But that work required his research team to first conduct a lengthy field experiment that temporarily resulted in lowering a real wind farm’s power output by intentionally misaligning turbines from the wind for months to better understand their performance in misalignment.

“Wind energy is a uniquely challenging problem to study experimentally,” Howland says. “We want to test the effect of a certain change in isolation, but wind farms operate in chaotic, turbulent environments where the weather is constantly evolving. Wind turbines have to react to weather conditions that we have no control over, and that introduces complexities in identifying the impact of the imposed change we are studying. The field sits at this unique intersection between environmental flow, mechanics, aerodynamics, and meteorology.”

The difficulty of running experiments at real wind farms has left researchers and engineers unsure of how changes in the alignment between the wind and turbine or factors like the turbine’s tip speed relative to the wind change power output.

In fact, the researchers say many predictive models people use are built on the assumption that turbines are always perfectly perpendicular to the wind. That’s rarely the case in the real world, even with modern turbines that gradually adjust their angle in response to the wind’s rapid directional changes.

“People have been debating which models are best for understanding the output from these wind farms, but if you have nothing to compare them against, it’s very difficult to advance the field,” Hultmark says. “This paper tries to do both of those things.”

Hultmark’s research lab at Princeton has pioneered the study of scaled-down wind turbines in pressurized wind tunnels, which, as previous studies have shown, better reproduce large-scale turbines in the atmosphere because pressure makes air more dense, resulting in more inertia within the scaled laboratory environment. For the new study, the researchers used a turbine measuring 15 centimeters in diameter at varying pressures of up to 240 atmospheres.

“By pressurizing the chamber, we’re testing a turbine that is, all else being equal, 15 to 20 meters in diameter, with the ability to go up to 35 meters in diameter,” lead-author Kurelek explains. “That’s because we’re increasing the density by a factor of 100 to 220 times,” 

Kurelek sent the dimensions of the wind tunnel and wind turbine setup to Howland, who used them to calculate the aerodynamics, forces, and power production using a newly developed unified wind turbine model, which builds on previous work that developed a more general aerodynamic theory for wind turbines. The new model enables the researchers to simulate wind turbine performance across operating conditions without relying on empirical corrections that have historically been used in wind power models.

The researchers then ran a series of experiments in the tunnel over the course of several weeks, testing the turbine’s performance at different wind alignments and with different control strategies, to isolate how each factor affects performance.

They found power output could be significantly increased by adjusting the turbine’s tip speed based on its misalignment angle with the wind — a control strategy that is rarely employed in wind farms today but could offer a way to boost performance with minimal added costs.

“The big output of the experiments was clearly showing that new power maximums can be achieved when the turbine becomes misaligned with the wind through only changes to the tip speed,” Kurelek says.

Scaling the approach

The study served as validation for Howland’s model, which is fast enough to be run by engineers designing and operating wind turbines around the world using regular laptop computers.

“What we really want to know is if the turbines are always operating in some degree of misalignment with the wind, how should we control the turbine to get the maximum achievable power production?” Howland explains. “Our unified momentum model was able to make predictions of how to do this control a few years ago, and this is the first time we’e able to experimentally validate that model.”

Howland says validating models is only one part of the paper’s potential impact.

“This study also shows the huge opportunity to perform these high-throughput, controlled experiments in the pressurized facilities that Marcus and John work with, enabling us to achieve the right physics but in a time efficient and low-cost manner,” Howland says. “Right now, there’s a massive gap between idealized theoretical and simulation models and full-scale testing in extremely complicated field environments. Nothing is filling that gap except for these pressurized experiments. I hope this can be an enabler to investigate a huge range of unanswered wind energy questions in controlled environments.”

The work was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; the National Science Foundation; and the MIT-GE Vernova Alliance.

ArsTechnica is reporting on a “new” attack against RSA, one that bypasses factoring.

First, this attack isn’t new. The original research is from 2007. What is new is the implementation.

Second, it is a forgery attack. It allows an attacker to forge digital signatures. It does not recover the private key from the public key.

Third, the attack only works against pure signatures. That is, signatures without any formatting or padding. This is not generally how we use RSA in practice.

Fourth, speed is all relative. This is not a polynomial-time algorithm; it’s a subexponential-time algorithm. But it is somewhat faster than factoring. The authors were able to forge messages for 1024-bit RSA with 1380 CPU core-years (over five real-world months)...

RNA vaccines, which have been proven effective against Covid-19, are now being developed for many other diseases, including cancer. One of the drawbacks to these vaccines is that they require ultracold storage, but researchers from MIT have found a promising way to overcome that limitation.

With help from an AI algorithm, the researchers tweaked the formulation surrounding the lipid nanoparticles that are typically used to deliver mRNA vaccines, making the vaccines more heat-resistant. Using this approach, they formulated vaccines that could remain stable even when stored at room temperature for up to a year, or at nearly 100 degrees Fahrenheit for two months.

When Covid-19 vaccines carried by these particles were administered to mice, they generated just as strong an immune response as an RNA Covid-19 vaccine similar to one developed by Moderna. By using the AI algorithm to predict the optimal formulations for the particles, the researchers were able to cut down the number of experiments they needed to do, which rapidly sped up the development process.

“The real beauty of this algorithm is that we can use it with small data sets,” says Ana Jaklenec, a principal investigator in MIT’s Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research. “It’s really hard to run thousands of experiments, so this algorithm allows us to more easily achieve formulations with features that we want — in this case, stability.”

Jaklenec and Robert Langer, the David H. Koch Institute Professor, are the senior authors of the paper, which appears today in Nature Biotechnology. Graduate student Jinbi Tian and postdoc Khanh Tran are the lead authors of the paper.

Stable vaccines

RNA is a highly fragile molecule, so researchers stabilize it with lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) that protect the RNA from degradation and help it get into cells. However, these RNA-LNP vaccines still need to be kept cold (-20 to -80 degrees Celsius), which makes it difficult to ship them to regions that don’t have cold-storage facilities available.

Making these vaccines more heat-tolerant would not only enable them to be distributed more widely, but could also help researchers develop new vaccines that could be administered through novel methods such as microneedle patches. These patches contain hundreds of vaccine-filled microneedles, which dissolve when the patch is applied to the skin, releasing the vaccine.

To create more stable RNA vaccines, researchers have experimented with adding a variety of excipients — sugars, salts, or polymers — to the LNPs. Jaklenec and Langer recently developed polymer-stabilized LNPs that can withstand higher temperatures, but those LNPs were slightly different from the FDA-approved formulations that were used for the Moderna and Pfizer Covid-19 vaccines. 

In their new paper, the researchers wanted to see if they could find a way to make those FDA-approved formulations more stable at high temperatures.

They began by reusing some of the excipients that had worked in their earlier efforts, but they were “really getting stuck,” Jaklenec says. “We were trying to use and screen excipients that we’ve previously used successfully to stabilize LNPs, but it just wasn’t working. It was really frustrating for the team.” 

To speed up their progress, the researchers decided to try a machine-learning approach. Working with researchers at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab (CSAIL), they developed an algorithm that can make predictions based on very small datasets.

“We’d used our algorithms for various automated experimental design applications before, but never on a biological problem like vaccine stability,” says Mina Konaković Luković, an assistant professor of electrical engineering and computer science in MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), who is also an author of the paper. “It was surprising to see how quickly the algorithm converged on a stable formulation — getting there in just a handful of iterations, rather than the exhaustive search that would normally be required.” 

The researchers used this algorithm to analyze nearly 50 FDA-approved excipients. For each excipient, the researchers first measured how well it stabilized RNA when incorporated into an LNP. They used these particles to deliver mRNA encoding a protein called firefly luciferase, which produces bioluminescence, into cells. By measuring how much light was emitted by the cells, the researchers could determine how effectively each excipient protected the mRNA.

The researchers chose five of the most promising excipients and used their AI algorithm to predict ratios of those excipients that would best stabilize LNPs similar to those used by Moderna. Based on those predictions, the researchers tested two formulations at a time in cells, fed those results back into the algorithm, and generated more predictions. After several rounds, they chose one formulation that appeared promising enough to test in animal studies.

This process took only a few weeks, much less than it would have taken without guidance from the AI algorithm.

“Before we implemented the AI algorithm, we spent several months testing different combinations and also doing the prescreening of all the excipients that we could find, but nothing would get us to 100 percent stability,” Tran says.

Robust immune responses

To test the heat resistance of their new LNP formulation, the researchers used the particles to package Covid-19 mRNA antigens, then dehydrated them using a process called vacuum drying. These particles were then stored at 37 degrees Celsius (98 degrees Fahrenheit) for two months, or at room temperature for one year. Mice that were vaccinated with these particles, even after long-term storage, showed equivalent immune responses to mice that received vaccines carried by LNPs similar to the original Moderna formulation.

The researchers also used their new heat-resistant formulation to create solid microneedle patches that could deliver a SARS-CoV-2 antigen. These patches generated an immune response similar to that produced by the injectable RNA vaccines.  

“Our approach broadens the application of not only mRNA vaccines, but also therapeutics or advanced drug-delivery platforms like controlled-release particles or microneedle patches, which requires the formulation to either be in solid state or to be stable at higher temperature,” Tian says. 

The researchers also showed that they could use their algorithm to stabilize other LNP formulations, including one similar to those used by Pfizer to deliver its Covid-19 vaccine. This formulation uses the same excipients as the one the MIT team developed for the Moderna LNP, but in a different ratio. For each LNP, once a heat-resistant formulation has been developed, it could be adapted to deliver any type of mRNA payload, the researchers say. 

The research was, in part, funded by the Gates Foundation.