The address bar/ChatGPT input window in OpenAI's browser ChatGPT Atlas "could be targeted for prompt injection using malicious instructions disguised as links," reports SC World, citing a report from AI/agent security platform NeuralTrust: NeuralTrust found that a malformed URL could be crafted to include a prompt that is treated as plain text by the browser, passing the prompt on to the LLM. A malformation, such as an extra space after the first slash following "https:" prevents the browser from recognizing the link as a website to visit. Rather than triggering a web search, as is common when plain text is submitted to a browser's address bar, ChatGPT Atlas treats plain text as ChatGPT prompts by default.

An unsuspecting user could potentially be tricked into copying and pasting a malformed link, believing they will be sent to a legitimate webpage. An attacker could plant the link behind a "copy link" button so that the user might not notice the suspicious text at the end of the link until after it is pasted and submitted. These prompt injections could potentially be used to instruct ChatGPT to open a new tab to a malicious website such as a phishing site, or to tell ChatGPT to take harmful actions in the user's integrated applications or logged-in sites like Google Drive, NeuralTrust said.
Last month browser security platform LayerX also described how malicious prompts could be hidden in URLs (as a parameter) for Perplexity's browser Comet. And last week SquareX Labs demonstrated that a malicious browser extension could spoof Comet's AI sidebar feature and have since replicated the proof-of-concept (PoC) attack on Atlas.

But another new vulnerability in ChatGPT Atlas "could allow malicious actors to inject nefarious instructions into the artificial intelligence (AI)-powered assistant's memory and run arbitrary code," reports The Hacker News, citing a report from browser security platform LayerX: "This exploit can allow attackers to infect systems with malicious code, grant themselves access privileges, or deploy malware," LayerX Security Co-Founder and CEO, Or Eshed, said in a report shared with The Hacker News. The attack, at its core, leverages a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) flaw that could be exploited to inject malicious instructions into ChatGPT's persistent memory. The corrupted memory can then persist across devices and sessions, permitting an attacker to conduct various actions, including seizing control of a user's account, browser, or connected systems, when a logged-in user attempts to use ChatGPT for legitimate purposes....

"What makes this exploit uniquely dangerous is that it targets the AI's persistent memory, not just the browser session," Michelle Levy, head of security research at LayerX Security, said. "By chaining a standard CSRF to a memory write, an attacker can invisibly plant instructions that survive across devices, sessions, and even different browsers. In our tests, once ChatGPT's memory was tainted, subsequent 'normal' prompts could trigger code fetches, privilege escalations, or data exfiltration without tripping meaningful safeguards...."

LayerX said the problem is exacerbated by ChatGPT Atlas' lack of robust anti-phishing controls, the browser security company said, adding it leaves users up to 90% more exposed than traditional browsers like Google Chrome or Microsoft Edge. In tests against over 100 in-the-wild web vulnerabilities and phishing attacks, Edge managed to stop 53% of them, followed by Google Chrome at 47% and Dia at 46%. In contrast, Perplexity's Comet and ChatGPT Atlas stopped only 7% and 5.8% of malicious web pages.
From The Conversation: Sandboxing is a security approach designed to keep websites isolated and prevent malicious code from accessing data from other tabs. The modern web depends on this separation. But in Atlas, the AI agent isn't malicious code — it's a trusted user with permission to see and act across all sites. This undermines the core principle of browser isolation.
Thanks to Slashdot reader spatwei for suggesting the topic.

OpenAI has introduced Aardvark, a GPT-5-powered autonomous agent that scans, reasons about, and patches code like a human security researcher. "By embedding itself directly into the development pipeline, Aardvark aims to turn security from a post-development concern into a continuous safeguard that evolves with the software itself," reports InfoWorld. From the report: What makes Aardvark unique, OpenAI noted, is its combination of reasoning, automation, and verification. Rather than simply highlighting potential vulnerabilities, the agent promises multi-stage analysis -- starting by mapping an entire repository and building a contextual threat model around it. From there, it continuously monitors new commits, checking whether each change introduces risk or violates existing security patterns.

Additionally, upon identifying a potential issue, Aardvark attempts to validate the exploitability of the finding in a sandboxed environment before flagging it. This validation step could prove transformative. Traditional static analysis tools often overwhelm developers with false alarms -- issues that may look risky but aren't truly exploitable. "The biggest advantage is that it will reduce false positives significantly," noted Jain. "It's helpful in open source codes and as part of the development pipeline."

Once a vulnerability is confirmed, Aardvark integrates with Codex to propose a patch, then re-analyzes the fix to ensure it doesn't introduce new problems. OpenAI claims that in benchmark tests, the system identified 92 percent of known and synthetically introduced vulnerabilities across test repositories, a promising indication that AI may soon shoulder part of the burden of modern code auditing.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from ZDNet: Even before Azure had a global failure this week, Austria's Ministry of Economy had taken a decisive step toward digital sovereignty. The Ministry achieved this status by migrating 1,200 employees to a Nextcloud-based cloud and collaboration platform hosted on Austrian-based infrastructure. This shift away from proprietary, foreign-owned cloud services, such as Microsoft 365, to an open-source, European-based cloud service aligns with a growing trend among European governments and agencies. They want control over sensitive data and to declare their independence from US-based tech providers.

European companies are encouraging this trend. Many of them have joined forces in the newly created non-profit foundation, the EuroStack Initiative. This foundation's goal is " to organize action, not just talk, around the pillars of the initiative: Buy European, Sell European, Fund European." What's the motive behind these moves away from proprietary tech? Well, in Austria's case, Florian Zinnagl, CISO of the Ministry of Economy, Energy, and Tourism (BMWET), explained, "We carry responsibility for a large amount of sensitive data -- from employees, companies, and citizens. As a public institution, we take this responsibility very seriously. That's why we view it critically to rely on cloud solutions from non-European corporations for processing this information."

Austria's move and motivation echo similar efforts in Germany, Denmark, and other EU states and agencies. The organizations include the German state of Schleswig-Holstein, which abandoned Exchange and Outlook for open-source programs. Other agencies that have taken the same path away from Microsoft include the Austrian military, Danish government organizations, and the French city of Lyon. All of these organizations aim to keep data storage and processing within national or European borders to enhance security, comply with privacy laws such as the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and mitigate risks from potential commercial and foreign government surveillance.

Trevor McNally posts videos of himself opening locks. The former Marine has 7 million followers and nearly 10 million people watched him open a Proven Industries trailer hitch lock in April using a shim cut from an aluminum can. The Florida company responded by filing a federal lawsuit in May charging McNally with eight offenses. Judge Mary Scriven denied the preliminary injunction request in June and found the video was fair use.

McNally's followers then flooded the company with harassment. Proven dismissed the case in July and asked the court to seal the records. The company had initiated litigation over a video that all parties acknowledged was accurate. ArsTechnica adds: Judging from the number of times the lawsuit talks about 1) ridicule and 2) harassment, it seems like the case quickly became a personal one for Proven's owner and employees, who felt either mocked or threatened. That's understandable, but being mocked is not illegal and should never have led to a lawsuit or a copyright claim. As for online harassment, it remains a serious and unresolved issue, but launching a personal vendetta -- and on pretty flimsy legal grounds -- against McNally himself was patently unwise. (Doubly so given that McNally had a huge following and had already responded to DMCA takedowns by creating further videos on the subject; this wasn't someone who would simply be intimidated by a lawsuit.)

In the end, Proven's lawsuit likely cost the company serious time and cash -- and generated little but bad publicity.

ArsTechnica: When graphic design platform-provider Canva bought the Affinity image-editing and publishing apps early last year, we had some major questions about how the companies' priorities and products would mesh. How would Canva serve the users who preferred Affinity's perpetually licensed apps to Adobe's subscription-only software suite? And how would Affinity's strong stance against generative AI be reconciled with Canva's embrace of those technologies.

This week, Canva gave us definitive answers to all of those questions: a brand-new unified Affinity app that melds the Photo, Designer, and Publisher apps into a single piece of software called "Affinity by Canva" that is free to use with a Canva user account, but which gates generative AI features behind Canva's existing paid subscription plans ($120 a year for individuals).

This does seem like mostly good news, in the near to mid term, for existing Affinity app users who admired Affinity's anti-AI stance: All three apps' core features are free to use, and the stuff you're being asked to pay for is stuff you mostly don't want anyway. But it may come as unwelcome news for those who like the predictability of pay-once-own-forever software or are nervous about where Canva might draw the line between "free" and "premium" features down the line.

[...] There's now a dedicated page for the older versions of the Affinity apps, and an FAQ at the bottom of that page answers several questions about the fate of those apps. Affinity and Canva say they will continue to keep the activation servers and downloads for all Affinity v1 and v2 apps online for the foreseeable future, giving people who already own the existing apps a way to keep using the versions they're comfortable with. Users can opt to link their Serif Affinity store accounts to their new Canva accounts to access the old downloads without juggling multiple accounts. But those older versions of the apps "won't receive future updates" and won't be able to open files created in the new Canva-branded Affinity app.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from 404 Media: Someone recently managed to get on a Microsoft Teams call with representatives from phone hacking company Cellebrite, and then leaked a screenshot of the company's capabilities against many Google Pixel phones, according to a forum post about the leak and 404 Media's review of the material. The leak follows others obtained and verified by 404 Media over the last 18 months. Those leaks impacted both Cellebrite and its competitor Grayshift, now owned by Magnet Forensics. Both companies constantly hunt for techniques to unlock phones law enforcement have physical access to.

"You can Teams meeting with them. They tell everything. Still cannot extract esim on Pixel. Ask anything," a user called rogueFed wrote on the GrapheneOS forum on Wednesday, speaking about what they learned about Cellebrite capabilities. GrapheneOS is a security- and privacy-focused Android-based operating system. rogueFed then posted two screenshots of the Microsoft Teams call. The first was a Cellebrite Support Matrix, which lays out whether the company's tech can, or can't, unlock certain phones and under what conditions. The second screenshot was of a Cellebrite employee. According to another of rogueFed's posts, the meeting took place in October. The meeting appears to have been a sales call. The employee is a "pre sales expert," according to a profile available online.

The Support Matrix is focused on modern Google Pixel devices, including the Pixel 9 series. The screenshot does not include details on the Pixel 10, which is Google's latest device. It discusses Cellebrite's capabilities regarding 'before first unlock', or BFU, when a piece of phone unlocking tech tries to open a device before someone has typed in the phone's passcode for the first time since being turned on. It also shows Cellebrite's capabilities against after first unlock, or AFU, devices. The Support Matrix also shows Cellebrite's capabilities against Pixel devices running GrapheneOS, with some differences between phones running that operating system and stock Android. Cellebrite does support, for example, Pixel 9 devices BFU. Meanwhile the screenshot indicates Cellebrite cannot unlock Pixel 9 devices running GrapheneOS BFU. In their forum post, rogueFed wrote that the "meeting focused specific on GrapheneOS bypass capability." They added "very fresh info more coming."

PC Mag's Michael Kan writes: A "Keep Android Open" campaign is pushing back on new rules from Google that will reportedly block users from sideloading apps on Android phones. It's unclear who's running the campaign, but a blog post on the free Android app store F-Droid is directing users to visit the campaign's website, which urges the public to lobby government regulators to intervene and stop the upcoming restrictions. "Developers should have the right to create and distribute software without submitting to unnecessary corporate surveillance," reads an open letter posted to the site. [...]

Google has described the upcoming change as akin to requiring app developers to go through "an ID check at the airport." However, F-Droid condemned the new requirement as anti-consumer choice. "If you own a computer, you should have the right to run whatever programs you want on it," it says. Additionally, the rules threaten third-party app distribution on F-Droid, which operates as a "free/open-source app distribution" model.

In its blog post, F-Droid warns about the impact on users and Android app developers. "You, the creator, can no longer develop an app and share it directly with your friends, family, and community without first seeking Google's approval," the app store says. "Over half of all humankind uses an Android smartphone," the blog post adds. "Google does not own your phone. You own your phone. You have the right to decide who to trust, and where you can get your software from."

OpenAI is reportedly preparing for a massive IPO that could value the company at up to $1 trillion. It follows a recent corporate restructuring that loosened its dependence on Microsoft and aligned its nonprofit foundation with financial success. Reuters reports: OpenAI is considering filing with securities regulators as soon as the second half of 2026, some of the people said. In preliminary discussions, the company has looked at raising $60 billion at the low end and likely more, the people said. They cautioned that talks are early and plans -- including the figures and timing - could change depending on business growth and market conditions. Chief Financial Officer Sarah Friar has told some associates the company is aiming for a 2027 listing, the people said. But some advisers predict it could come even sooner, around late 2026.

[...] An IPO would open the door to more efficient capital raising and enable larger acquisitions using public stock, helping to finance CEO Sam Altman's plans to pour trillions of dollars into AI infrastructure, according to people familiar with the company's thinking. With an annualized revenue run rate expected to reach about $20 billion by year-end, losses are also mounting inside the $500 billion company, the people said. During a livestream on Tuesday, Altman addressed the possibility of going public. "I think it's fair to say it is the most likely path for us, given the capital needs that we'll have," he said.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Since launching Google Play (nee Android Market) in 2008, Google has never made a change to the US store that it didn't want to make -- until now. Having lost the antitrust case brought by Epic Games, Google has implemented the first phase of changes mandated by the court. Developers operating in the Play Store will have more freedom to direct app users to resources outside the Google bubble. However, Google has not given up hope of reversing its loss before it's forced to make bigger changes. Epic began pursuing this case in 2020, stemming from its attempt to sell Fortnite content without going through Google's payment system. It filed a similar case against Apple, but the company fell short there because it could not show that Apple put its thumb on the scale. Google, however, engaged in conduct that amounted to suppressing the development of alternative Android app stores. It lost the case and came up short on appeal this past summer, leaving the company with little choice but to prepare for the worst.

Google has updated its support pages to confirm that it's abiding by the court's order. In the US, Play Store developers now have the option of using external payment platforms that bypass the Play Store entirely. This could hypothetically allow developers to offer lower prices, as they don't have to pay Google's commission, which can be up to 30 percent. Devs will also be permitted to direct users to sources for app downloads and payment methods outside the Play Store. Google's support page stresses that these changes are only being instituted in the US version of the Play Store, which is all the US District Court can require. The company also notes that it only plans to adhere to this policy "while the US District Court's order remains in effect." Judge James Donato's order runs for three years, ending on November 1, 2027.

An anonymous reader shares a report: The International Criminal Court will switch its internal work environment away from Microsoft Office to Open Desk, a European open source alternative, the institution confirmed to Euractiv. The switch comes amid rising concerns about public bodies being reliant on US tech companies to run their services, which have stepped up sharply since the start of US President Donald Trump's second administration.

For the ICC, such concerns are not abstract: Trump has repeatedly lashed out at the court and slapped sanctions on its chief prosecutor, Karim Khan. Earlier this year, the AP also reported that Microsoft had cancelled Khan's email account, a claim the company denies. "We value our relationship with the ICC as a customer and are convinced that nothing impedes our ability to continue providing services to the ICC in the future," a Microsoft spokesperson told Euractiv.

An anonymous reader shares a report: The FCC adopted a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to rescind and revise certain rules attached to consumer broadband labels. The measure passed on a two-to-one vote, with Commissioner Anna Gomez, the lone Democrat on the FCC, voting no and calling the notice "one of the most anti-consumer items I have seen."

The vote was held at the Commission's open meeting for the month of October. As per a draft notice circulated earlier this month, the FCC is looking to roll back several rules, including requirements that service providers read the label to consumers via phone, itemize state and local pass-through fees, and display labels in consumer account portals, among others. Advocates at Public Knowledge urged the Commission to reconsider, saying in a recent filing that "the Commission could create a permission structure for ISPs to continue to act without accountability."

In her remarks during Tuesday's open meeting, Commissioner Gomez appeared to concur, depicting the move as "anti-consumer" and counter to the goals of Congress. The FCC was mandated via the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) to create rules for implementing consumer broadband labels. After a lengthy rulemaking process and discussions with industry and consumer groups, ISPs were required to start displaying labels in 2024.

"I typically vote in favor of notices of proposed rulemaking because I believe in asking balanced questions, even on proposals that I dislike, so that we can encourage fruitful and helpful public comment. Answers to tough questions help us strike the right balance so that our rules can both encourage competition and serve consumers. However, the questions posed in this NPRM are so anti-consumer that I could not bring myself to even agree to them," said Gomez.

Gomez stressed that the notice will harm consumers by enabling ISPs to hide add-on fees and stripping people of their ability to access information in their own language. Moreover, added Gomez, it's unclear why the FCC is doing this. "What adds insult to injury is that the FCC does not even explain why this proposal is necessary. Make it make sense," she added.

At TechCrunch Disrupt 2025, Waymo co-CEO Tekedra Mawakana said society will ultimately accept a fatal robotaxi crash as part of the broader tradeoff for safer roads overall. TechCrunch reports: The topic of a fatal robotaxi crash came up during Mawakana's interview with Kristen Korosec, TechCrunch's transportation editor, during the first day of the outlet's annual Disrupt conference in San Francisco. Korosec asked Mawakana about Waymo's ambitions and got answer after answer about the company's all-consuming focus on safety. The most interesting part of the interview arrived when Korosec brought on a thought experiment. What if self-driving vehicles like Waymo and others reduce the number of traffic fatalities in the United States, but a self-driving vehicle does eventually cause a fatal crash, Korosec pondered. Or as she put it to the executive: "Will society accept that? Will society accept a death potentially caused by a robot?"

"I think that society will," Mawakana answered, slowly, before positioning the question as an industrywide issue. "I think the challenge for us is making sure that society has a high enough bar on safety that companies are held to." She said that companies should be transparent about their records by publishing data about how many crashes they're involved in, and she pointed to the "hub" of safety information on Waymo's website. Self-driving cars will dramatically reduce crashes, Mawakana said, but not by 100%: "We have to be in this open and honest dialogue about the fact that we know it's not perfection."

Circling back to the idea of a fatal crash, she said, "We really worry as a company about those days. You know, we don't say 'whether.' We say 'when.' And we plan for them." Korosec followed up, asking if there had been safety issues that prompted Waymo to "pump the breaks" on its expansion plans throughout the years. The co-CEO said the company pulls back and retests "all the time," pointing to challenges with blocking emergency vehicles as an example. "We need to make sure that the performance is backing what we're saying we're doing," she said. [...] "If you are not being transparent, then it is my view that you are not doing what is necessary in order to actually earn the right to make the roads safer," Mawakana said.

NVIDIA has introduced NVQLink, an open system architecture that directly connects quantum processors with GPU-based supercomputers. The Quantum Insider reports: The new platform connects the high-speed, high-throughput performance of NVIDIA's GPU computing with quantum processing units (QPUs), allowing researchers to manage the intricate control and error-correction workloads required by quantum devices. According to a NVIDIA statement, the system was developed with guidance from researchers at major U.S. national laboratories including Brookhaven, Fermi, Lawrence Berkeley, Los Alamos, MIT Lincoln, Oak Ridge, Pacific Northwest, and Sandia.

Qubits, the basic units of quantum information, are extremely sensitive to noise and decoherence, making them prone to errors. Correcting and stabilizing these systems requires near-instantaneous feedback and coordination with classical processors. NVQLink is meant to meet that demand by providing an open, low-latency interconnect between quantum processors, control systems, and supercomputers -- effectively creating a unified environment for hybrid quantum applications.

The architecture offers a standardized, open approach to quantum integration, aligning with the company's CUDA-Q software platform to enable researchers to develop, test, and scale hybrid algorithms that draw simultaneously on CPUs, GPUs, and QPUs. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) -- which oversees several of the participating laboratories -- framed NVQLink as part of a broader national effort to sustain leadership in high-performance computing, according to NVIDIA.

The Python Software Foundation rejected a $1.5 million U.S. government grant because it required them to renounce all diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. "The non-profit would've used the funding to help prevent supply chain attacks; create a new automated, proactive review process for new PyPI packages; and make the project's work easily transferable to other open-source package managers," reports The Register. From the report: The programming non-profit's deputy executive director Loren Crary said in a blog post today that the National Science Founation (NSF) had offered $1.5 million to address structural vulnerabilities in Python and the Python Package Index (PyPI), but the Foundation quickly became dispirited with the terms (PDF) of the grant it would have to follow. "These terms included affirming the statement that we 'do not, and will not during the term of this financial assistance award, operate any programs that advance or promote DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion], or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws,'" Crary noted. "This restriction would apply not only to the security work directly funded by the grant, but to any and all activity of the PSF as a whole."

To make matters worse, the terms included a provision that if the PSF was found to have voilated that anti-DEI diktat, the NSF reserved the right to claw back any previously disbursed funds, Crary explained. "This would create a situation where money we'd already spent could be taken back, which would be an enormous, open-ended financial risk," the PSF director added. The PSF's mission statement enshrines a commitment to supporting and growing "a diverse and international community of Python programmers," and the Foundation ultimately decided it wasn't willing to compromise on that position, even for what would have been a solid financial boost for the organization. "The PSF is a relatively small organization, operating with an annual budget of around $5 million per year, with a staff of just 14," Crary added, noting that the $1.5 million would have been the largest grant the Foundation had ever received - but it wasn't worth it if the conditions were undermining the PSF's mission. The PSF board voted unanimously to withdraw its grant application.

Jensen Huang unveiled NVQLink at Nvidia's Washington conference on Tuesday. The interconnect links quantum processors to the AI supercomputers they require to function effectively. Nvidia is not building its own quantum computers but is positioning itself as critical infrastructure for the technology's future. Quantum processors harness principles of quantum physics to solve problems classical computers cannot address, but they need classical supercomputers to perform calculations beyond their capability and to correct the errors that naturally occur in their outputs.

Tim Costa, Nvidia's general manager of industrial engineering and quantum, said AI will be necessary for full-scale error correction. Earlier attempts to integrate quantum processors with AI supercomputers failed to deliver the speed and scale needed for fast error correction at scale. Nvidia developed NVQLink with more than a dozen quantum companies including IonQ, Quantinuum and Infleqtion and worked with national labs including Sandia, Oak Ridge and Fermi. The interconnect operates on open architecture and works across different quantum modalities including trapped ion, superconducting and photonic systems.

Costa declined to predict when quantum computing will produce meaningful commercial value, though some quantum companies estimate two to four years.

America's largest university system, with 460,000 students, is the 22-campus "Cal State" system, reports the New York Times. And it's recently teamed with Amazon, OpenAI and Nvidia, hoping to embed chatbots in both teaching and learning to become what it says will be America's "first and largest AI-empowered" university" — and prepare students for "increasingly AI-driven" careers.

It's part of a trend of major universities inviting tech companies into "a much bigger role as education thought partners, AI instructors and curriculum providers," argues the New York Times, where "dominant tech companies are now helping to steer what an entire generation of students learn about AI, and how they use it — with little rigorous evidence of educational benefits and mounting concerns that chatbots are spreading misinformation and eroding critical thinking..."

"Critics say Silicon Valley's effort to make AI chatbots integral to education amounts to a mass experiment on young people." As part of the effort, [Cal State] is paying OpenAI $16.9 million to provide ChatGPT Edu, the company's tool for schools, to more than half a million students and staff — which OpenAI heralded as the world's largest rollout of ChatGPT to date. Cal State also set up an AI committee, whose members include representatives from a dozen large tech companies, to help identify the skills California employers need and improve students' career opportunities... Cal State is not alone. Last month, California Community Colleges, the nation's largest community college system, announced a collaboration with Google to supply the company's "cutting edge AI tools" and training to 2.1 million students and faculty. In July, Microsoft pledged $4 billion for teaching AI skills in schools, community colleges and to adult workers...

[A]s schools like Cal State work to usher in what they call an "AI-driven future," some researchers warn that universities risk ceding their independence to Silicon Valley. "Universities are not tech companies," Olivia Guest and Iris van Rooij, two computational cognitive scientists at Radboud University in the Netherlands, recently said in comments arguing against fast AI adoption in academia. "Our role is to foster critical thinking," the researchers said, "not to follow industry trends uncritically...."

Some faculty members have pushed back against the AI effort, as the university system faces steep budget cuts. The multimillion-dollar deal with OpenAI — which the university did not open to bidding from rivals like Google — was wasteful, they added. Faculty senates on several Cal State campuses passed resolutions this year criticizing the AI initiative, saying the university had failed to adequately address students using chatbots to cheat. Professors also said administrators' plans glossed over the risks of AI to students' critical thinking and ignored troubling industry labor practices and environmental costs.

Martha Kenney, a professor of women and gender studies at San Francisco State University, described the AI program as a Cal State marketing vehicle helping tech companies promote unproven chatbots as legitimate educational tools.
The article notes that Cal State's chief information officer "defended the OpenAI deal, saying the company offered ChatGPT Edu at an unusually low price.

"Still, California's community college system landed AI chatbot services from Google for more than 2 million students and faculty — nearly four times the number of users Cal State is paying OpenAI for — for free."

"Snippets of proprietary or copyleft reciprocal code can enter AI-generated outputs, contaminating codebases with material that developers can't realistically audit or license properly."

That's the warning from Sean O'Brien, who founded the Yale Privacy Lab at Yale Law School. ZDNet reports: Open software has always counted on its code being regularly replenished. As part of the process of using it, users modify it to improve it. They add features and help to guarantee usability across generations of technology. At the same time, users improve security and patch holes that might put everyone at risk. But O'Brien says, "When generative AI systems ingest thousands of FOSS projects and regurgitate fragments without any provenance, the cycle of reciprocity collapses. The generated snippet appears originless, stripped of its license, author, and context." This means the developer downstream can't meaningfully comply with reciprocal licensing terms because the output cuts the human link between coder and code. Even if an engineer suspects that a block of AI-generated code originated under an open source license, there's no feasible way to identify the source project. The training data has been abstracted into billions of statistical weights, the legal equivalent of a black hole.

The result is what O'Brien calls "license amnesia." He says, "Code floats free of its social contract and developers can't give back because they don't know where to send their contributions...."

"Once AI training sets subsume the collective work of decades of open collaboration, the global commons idea, substantiated into repos and code all over the world, risks becoming a nonrenewable resource, mined and never replenished," says O'Brien. "The damage isn't limited to legal uncertainty. If FOSS projects can't rely upon the energy and labor of contributors to help them fix and improve their code, let alone patch security issues, fundamentally important components of the software the world relies upon are at risk."

O'Brien says, "The commons was never just about free code. It was about freedom to build together." That freedom, and the critical infrastructure that underlies almost all of modern society, is at risk because attribution, ownership, and reciprocity are blurred when AIs siphon up everything on the Internet and launder it (the analogy of money laundering is apt), so that all that code's provenance is obscured.

25 years ago today on Slashdot...

Hemos linked to a site called Joystick101 describing the crowd camping out to buy the limited number of just-released PlayStation 2 consoles (and games). "500,000 lucky members of the American gaming public are sneaking a few minutes of playing Madden 2001, Tekken, or Ridge Racer V before school or work..." wrote Joystick101. That same day CmdrTaco posted reports PS2s were selling for over $1,000 on eBay. And then Timothy updated that post to note someone saw one selling for $5,000.

But there was a third PS2 link posted on October 26, 2000... Hemos wrote a post titled "The PS2 — A Betamax In the Making?" — linking to an article by Mark Pesce (co-inventor of VRML and, in 1993, an Apple consulting engineer). "Microsoft promises Xbox will deliver ten times the performance of the PS2," Pesce wrote, noting Microsoft had partnered with Intel and "upstart video-chip developer Nvidia": The strangest thing about this battle of giants is that Microsoft has become a champion of open standards, encouraging developers to write Xbox titles without requiring them to pay any licensing fees. In comparison, Sony charges a minimum of $25,000 for access to the documentation and technology of the PlayStation2, plus a hefty license fee on every game sold. In the video-game industry, the Big Three — Sony, Nintendo, and Sega — sell the hardware at a loss (the PS2 costs nearly the $300 it will retail for) and recover their investment in the stiff licensing fees paid by game developers for the "key" that allows their software to work on Sony's platform...

Having committed an astounding $500 million to market the Xbox next Christmas, it's clear that Microsoft doesn't mind taking a short-term loss to ensure an eventual win. If Sony's not careful, this could turn into "Betamax, the Sequel." Twenty years ago, Sony tightly controlled the titles made available for its technically superior videocassette player — specifically, no adult content — and found themselves quickly locked out of an incredibly lucrative market for adult and family content. If Sony keeps a tight grip on the PS2, they may actually help Microsoft create the new VHS. But even if Sony loses this round (and no one wants to wager which way this battle will turn), they've already set their sights on the PlayStation3, to be released five years from now. Sony promises it will be a thousand times faster than the PS2.
Ironically, Pesce's warning about possible threats to the PS2's longevity was published by online magazine Feed-- which seven months later went out of business.

And this week it was announced that even Microsoft's Halo Campaign Evolved will now be coming to PlayStation 5, with Slashdot publishing six PlayStation-related stories in just the last three months in 2025.

Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader crunchy_one for suggesting a "25 Years Ago" Slashdot post.

alternative_right shares a report from France 24: [Sweden's] latest contribution to the war effort is Glimt, an innovative project launched by the Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI) earlier this year. Glimt is an open platform that relies on the theory of "crowd forecasting": a method of making predictions based on surveying a large and diverse group of people and taking an average. "Glimt" is a Swedish word for "a glimpse" or "a sudden insight." The theory posits that the average of all collected predictions produces correct results with "uncanny accuracy," according to the Glimt website. Such "collective intelligence" is used today for everything from election results to extreme weather events, Glimt said. [...]

Group forecasting allows for a broad collection of information while avoiding the cognitive bias that often characterizes intelligence services. Each forecaster collects and analyses the available information differently to reach the most probable scenario and can add a short comment to explain their reasoning. The platform also encourages discussion between members so they can compare arguments and alter their positions. Available in Swedish, French and English, the platform currently has 20,000 registered users; each question attracts an average of 500 forecasters. Their predictions are later sent to statistical algorithms that cross-reference data, particularly the relevance of the answers they provided. The most reliable users will have a stronger influence on the results; this reinforces the reliability of collective intelligence. "We used this method and research, and we suggested to the Ukrainians that it could improve their understanding of the world and its evolution," said Ivar Ekman, an analyst for the Swedish Defence Research Agency and program director for Glimt. "If you have a large group of people, you can achieve great accuracy in assessing future events. Research has shown that professional analysts don't necessarily have a better capacity in this domain than other people."

Counter-Strike has long been known for two things: tight tactical FPS gameplay and a thriving player marketplace effectively valued at literal billions of dollars. Now, thanks to a recent update from Valve, the latter is in a downward spiral, having lost 25% of its value -- or $1.75 billion -- overnight. Polygon: First, some context. Counter-Strike is a free-to-play multiplayer shooter. As with most other F2P games, it generates revenue from selling cosmetics. They arrive in lootbox-like Cases, which are opened by Keys purchased with real-world currency. They can also be obtained through trading with other players and purchasing from Steam Community Market. Beyond Steam, unofficial third-party marketplaces for CS cosmetics have also popped up as channels for buying and selling items.

Because items are obtained at random through opening Cases, rarer items fetch the highest value on the open marketplaces. Items of lower-rarity tiers can also be traded in at volume for an item of a higher tier via trade up contracts. Previously, Knives and Gloves could not be obtained through trade up contracts, exponentially increasing their value as highly sought-after items. Prior to the most recent update, some Knives, like a Doppler Ruby Butterfly Knife, could fetch around $20,000 on third-party storefronts like CSFloat.

Following Valve's Oct. 22 update to Counter-Strike, the second-highest-tier, Covert (Red), can now be traded up and turned into Knives and Gloves. Essentially, this means that a previously extremely rare and highly sought-after cosmetic is going to be much more obtainable for those who increasingly want it, reducing the value of Knives and Gloves on the open marketplace. And this is where the market descends into a freefall. Now, that Butterfly Knife mentioned above? It's going for around $12,000, as people are essentially dumping their stock, with 15 sold over the past 16 hours at the time of this writing.