Official trade data showed Taiwan exported 181,159 drones between January and April, almost 20 times the volume recorded during the same period a year earlier and exceeding total exports for all of 2025. The majority of shipments were sent to the Czech Republic and Poland, destinations industry observers believe serve as transit points for equipment ultimately supporting Ukraine’s defense effort.

The sharp rise highlights how the Russia-Ukraine war has transformed the global drone market, with low-cost unmanned aerial vehicles becoming essential tools for reconnaissance, surveillance and precision strikes. The conflict has accelerated military spending worldwide and increased demand for alternative drone suppliers outside China.

Taiwan is positioning itself as an Asian production center for so-called “non-red” drones and components, a term used by industry participants to describe products free from Chinese materials and supply chains. The strategy aligns with broader efforts by Western governments and defense industries to reduce dependence on Chinese technology.

While Taiwanese manufacturers benefit from the island’s advanced electronics ecosystem, including strengths in semiconductors and artificial intelligence, they face significant cost disadvantages. Industry executives say non-Chinese drones can cost up to three times more than comparable products from Chinese manufacturers such as DJI, which dominates the global commercial drone market through large-scale production.

Analysts say overseas sales have become increasingly important for Taiwan’s emerging drone sector because domestic demand remains limited. Samara Duerr, a policy analyst at the Taiwan government-backed Research Institute for Democracy, Society and Emerging Technology, said international markets provide manufacturers with the scale and operational experience needed to expand production capacity.

The export boom also reflects opportunities created by Beijing’s tightening restrictions on drone exports in recent years. Those controls have encouraged foreign buyers to seek alternative suppliers, benefiting Taiwanese firms attempting to establish themselves in global supply chains.

Taiwan’s government has set ambitious targets for the sector, aiming to increase monthly production capacity to 100,000 drones by 2030, significantly above earlier goals. Officials view drone manufacturing as both an economic opportunity and a strategic necessity as Taiwan seeks to strengthen its defense capabilities in the face of military pressure from China.

China claims Taiwan as its territory and has intensified military activity around the island in recent years. Taipei sees the development of a domestic drone industry as part of broader efforts to enhance self-reliance and deterrence.

Industry leaders argue, however, that progress is being constrained by delays in government procurement programs. Plans to acquire more than 200,000 domestically produced drones under a proposed defense package worth nearly $40 billion have been stalled in Taiwan’s opposition-controlled parliament.

Max Lo, chairman of drone manufacturer AeroSoarX, said overseas contracts were essential for maintaining production lines while domestic orders remain uncertain. Taiwanese companies have increasingly pursued customers in Eastern Europe, particularly those involved in supporting Ukraine’s war effort.

Despite strong export growth, industry experts caution that Taiwan faces formidable competition. Ukraine has rapidly developed its own drone manufacturing ecosystem during the war and could emerge as a major exporter once hostilities end. Chinese producers also continue to dominate many segments of the market through lower prices and extensive manufacturing capacity.

Marcin Jerzewski of the European Values Center for Security Policy said one challenge for Taiwanese firms is proving their systems can perform under combat conditions, an area where Ukrainian manufacturers now possess extensive battlefield experience.

Analysts say Taiwan may ultimately find its strongest competitive advantage in specialized drone components rather than complete systems. Artur Savchii of Ukraine’s Snake Island Institute pointed to areas such as lithium-ion cells and advanced electronic components, where Taiwan’s technology sector could help reduce global dependence on Chinese suppliers.

Taiwanese companies are also expanding internationally through partnerships and joint ventures. Drone manufacturer Thunder Tiger has established a venture to produce drone motors in the U.S. state of Ohio and is exploring further expansion into Europe, betting that security concerns over Chinese technology will continue to drive demand for alternative suppliers.

The document, titled Magnifica Humanitas, is the first encyclical of the American-born pontiff and outlines a comprehensive ethical framework for the governance of artificial intelligence. Leo argued that governments, technology companies and society must ensure that AI serves humanity rather than concentrated political, military or commercial interests.

The publication had been closely anticipated since the pope declared shortly after his election that artificial intelligence represented the most significant challenge facing humanity. In the text, he warned against what he described as a “culture of power” driving the global race to develop increasingly sophisticated AI systems.

Leo directed particular criticism at the use of AI in warfare, declaring that irreversible decisions involving the use of lethal force should never be delegated to autonomous systems. He argued that accountability for military actions must remain firmly in human hands and called for greater transparency in the development and deployment of AI-enabled weapons.

The encyclical also questioned whether traditional Catholic principles governing the ethical use of force remain adequate in an era of rapidly advancing military technologies.

Leo suggested that technological transformations in warfare require renewed moral reflection and updated international safeguards.Beyond security concerns, the pope warned about the concentration of data, wealth and influence among a small number of technology companies.

He argued that ethical commitments by private firms alone were insufficient and called for robust legal frameworks, independent oversight mechanisms and stronger democratic regulation.The Vatican formally presented the document at an event that included participation from representatives of anthropic, one of the world’s leading artificial intelligence companies.

The company’s involvement reflected the Vatican’s long-running engagement with Silicon Valley on the social and ethical implications of emerging technologies.Despite hosting technology executives, Leo repeatedly emphasized that public authorities must not abdicate responsibility for regulating AI.

He urged developers and policymakers to slow the pace of deployment when necessary and to prioritize the common good over commercial gain.The pope framed the AI revolution within the broader tradition of Catholic social teaching. He linked the challenges posed by artificial intelligence to those addressed in Rerum Novarum, the historic 1891 encyclical issued by Pope Leo XIII that examined workers’ rights and the social consequences of industrialization.

Signed on the 135th anniversary of that document, Magnifica Humanitas argues that AI raises comparable questions about labor, economic power and human dignity. Leo warned that the pursuit of efficiency and profit must not come at the expense of workers whose livelihoods could be displaced by automation.

Technology experts and scholars said the encyclical is likely to become an influential reference point in debates surrounding artificial intelligence governance. Taylor Black said the rapid evolution of AI was already prompting deeper questions about the meaning of human identity, while Paolo Carozza described the document as a potentially defining contribution to discussions about the relationship between technology and society.

The manifesto also contained a historic acknowledgment of the Catholic Church’s role in legitimizing slavery during earlier centuries of European expansion. Leo issued the first papal apology specifically addressing the Holy See’s involvement in granting rulers authority to subjugate and enslave non-Christians, extending the document’s focus beyond technology to broader questions of historical responsibility and human dignity.

The encyclical marks the most comprehensive intervention by the Vatican to date on artificial intelligence and places the Catholic Church at the center of a growing global debate over how emerging technologies should be governed as they reshape economies, societies and international security.

Oxford computer scientist and artificial intelligence researcher Michael Wooldridge says the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence is being shaped less by scientific inevitability than by competitive pressures among a small group of technology companies racing to avoid falling behind rivals.

In an interview discussing his latest book, Life Lessons from Game Theory: The Art of Thinking Strategically in a Complex World, Wooldridge argued that many of the current tensions surrounding artificial intelligence can be understood through the framework of game theory, particularly scenarios in which competitors continue escalating despite recognizing collective risks.

Wooldridge, a professor at the University of Oxford and one of Britain’s most prominent public communicators on artificial intelligence, said the industry increasingly resembles a strategic trap in which companies continue investing heavily in advanced systems because they believe competitors would gain advantage if they slowed development.

“We’ve got a small number of very wealthy companies that are busy pursuing AI, while at the same time saying that they are afraid that something’s going to go horribly wrong with it,” Wooldridge said. “So why are they busy pursuing it? Because they think if we back down and we don’t pursue it, somebody else will.

”The comments come amid intensifying global competition over artificial intelligence infrastructure, computing capacity and access to data. Major technology firms including OpenAI and Google DeepMind have expanded investments in large-scale machine learning systems, while governments in the United States, Europe and China are increasingly treating AI as a strategic industry tied to economic growth and national security.

Wooldridge said many of the core technologies underpinning today’s AI systems are not recent discoveries. He noted that key neural network techniques central to modern machine learning were developed by the mid-1980s, but computing power and data limitations prevented their wider deployment at the time.

“The only obstacle standing in the way of the AI revolution in the 1980s, really, was that computers weren’t powerful enough and we didn’t have enough data,” he said.He described the emergence of GPT-3 in 2020 as a turning point driven largely by scale rather than a fundamentally new scientific breakthrough.

According to Wooldridge, many researchers initially doubted whether simply expanding computational power and training data would substantially improve performance. He said the success of that approach surprised a significant portion of the research community.

OpenAI’s development strategy demonstrated that scaling existing methods could generate major commercial results, he said, although he cautioned against interpreting those advances as evidence that artificial general intelligence, or AGI, is imminent.Executives including Sam Altman and Demis Hassabis have publicly discussed the possibility of achieving human-level general intelligence within years. Wooldridge said those forecasts remain overly optimistic.

He argued that current systems still struggle with tasks requiring physical reasoning and adaptation in unfamiliar environments. While advanced chat systems can process complex linguistic queries, he said they remain unable to reliably perform many basic real-world activities that humans execute routinely.

“You can talk to ChatGPT about quantum mechanics in Latin,” Wooldridge said, “but at the same time, we don’t have AI that could come into your house, that it had never seen before, locate the kitchen and clear the dinner table.”Wooldridge said data availability may become one of the industry’s most significant constraints.

He noted that large language models already consume enormous quantities of text and digital material, creating pressure to secure new sources of information for future training cycles.“The whole of Wikipedia made up just 3% of GPT-3’s training data,” he said. “Where do you get 10 times more data from next time around?”That search for data, he argued, could reshape relationships between governments, corporations and individuals.

Wooldridge pointed to healthcare systems, wearable devices and online content creators as examples of potentially valuable data sources for future AI development.“The NHS is sitting on a huge amount of data about human beings,” he said. “That’s the most valuable kind of data imaginable.”He warned that commercial pressure to obtain increasingly detailed behavioral information could create incentives for broader surveillance and monitoring.

Wooldridge suggested future generations of online influencers may routinely agree to extensive data collection arrangements in exchange for visibility and commercial opportunity.The professor’s latest work focuses primarily on game theory, which he defines as the study of interactions between self-interested actors.

He said many geopolitical disputes, commercial rivalries and social conflicts can be interpreted through a relatively small number of strategic models.One recurring example in his analysis is the “game of chicken,” in which opposing sides continue escalating until one party backs down or both suffer severe consequences.

Wooldridge compared the framework to current tensions involving the United States and Iran, describing unpredictability as a recognized strategic tactic within game theory.“You’ve got two sides with ever-escalating threats against each other,” he said. “Somebody’s got to back down at some point.

”Wooldridge added that highly unpredictable behavior can complicate strategic decision-making because opponents struggle to assess likely responses and risks. Under such conditions, he said, game theory often encourages actors to prepare for worst-case outcomes.He also criticized what he described as a growing “zero-sum” political mindset in parts of modern public discourse.

In game theory, he said, zero-sum situations are not merely competitions where one side wins and another loses, but systems where actors are incentivized to maximize damage to opponents.“This zero-sum mentality is very damaging,” Wooldridge said.

“One of the important lessons from game theory is that, actually, the majority of interactions that we’re in are not zero-sum.”He linked that framework to populist political narratives that portray economic or social gains by one group as direct losses for another. As an alternative, Wooldridge highlighted the “Veil of Ignorance,” a philosophical model developed by political philosopher John Rawls in 1971.

The thought experiment asks individuals to design a society without knowing which position they themselves would ultimately occupy within it.Wooldridge said the model creates incentives for fairer social systems because participants must account for the possibility of ending up disadvantaged. He noted that former U.S. presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama had both expressed interest in Rawls’ ideas.

Despite concerns surrounding AI development, Wooldridge said he remains optimistic about technology and scientific inquiry. Growing up in rural Herefordshire, he taught himself programming after repeatedly visiting a local electronics shop that displayed a TRS-80 computer in its storefront during the early 1980s.

He later completed a doctorate in artificial intelligence and went on to publish more than 500 scientific papers and multiple books, while also presenting public lectures on the social implications of AI.

Asked whether students should avoid fields vulnerable to automation, Wooldridge rejected the idea that education should be driven solely by labor market forecasts.

“I didn’t get into computing because I thought it was going to give me a good job,” he said. “I got into it because I was just really interested in it.”

The three-week trial in federal court in Oakland focused on allegations by Musk that OpenAI abandoned its founding nonprofit mission in pursuit of commercial expansion and investor profits after launching the chatbot ChatGPT in 2022.

Musk, a co-founder of OpenAI who left the organization in 2018, argued that Altman and co-founder Greg Brockman improperly redirected a company originally established to develop artificial intelligence for the public good into a private enterprise valued at an estimated $850 billion.

The lawsuit centers on approximately $38 million in donations Musk said he contributed to sustain OpenAI as a nonprofit research laboratory. His legal team argued during closing statements that the company violated commitments made during its formation by pursuing a for-profit structure and deep commercial partnerships.

“A non-profit devoted to the safe development of artificial intelligence, open sourced as practical, for the benefit of humanity,” Musk attorney Steven Molo told jurors in closing arguments, questioning the credibility of OpenAI leadership.

OpenAI attorney Sarah Eddy rejected those claims and challenged Musk’s account of events, arguing that witness testimony and internal communications contradicted key elements of his case.

Jurors are first expected to determine whether Musk filed the lawsuit within the applicable legal time limit after his final contribution to OpenAI in 2020. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said the jury’s finding on that issue would be advisory but indicated she was likely to follow its recommendation.

If the case proceeds beyond the statute-of-limitations question, jurors and the court will consider whether OpenAI executives misused Musk’s contributions and breached promises tied to the organization’s nonprofit status.

Musk is seeking an order requiring OpenAI to return to a nonprofit structure, a move that could disrupt the company’s planned public offering and complicate relationships with major investors including microsoft, amazon and softbank, which have collectively committed billions of dollars to the company.

The jury will also examine whether Microsoft, OpenAI’s largest outside backer with roughly $13 billion committed, knowingly supported the company’s transition away from its original nonprofit framework.
The proceedings also revisited Altman’s brief ouster from OpenAI in November 2023, when board members removed him over concerns related to transparency and management practices before reinstating him days later following pressure from employees and investors.

Musk has since expanded his own artificial intelligence ambitions through x.ai⁠ while continuing AI development efforts linked to spacex.

Journalist and author Simone Stolzoff says growing political instability, rapid technological change and declining public trust are intensifying people’s fear of uncertainty, arguing that modern society increasingly rewards the appearance of certainty even when the future remains unknowable.

In his new book, How to Not Know: The Value of Uncertainty in a World That Demands Answers, Stolzoff examines how individuals respond to unpredictability in work, relationships, politics and personal identity, and why learning to tolerate uncertainty may be essential in an era shaped by artificial intelligence, misinformation and economic disruption.

Stolzoff said the idea for the book emerged after readers of his earlier work, The Good Enough Job, repeatedly asked how they should think about their futures amid rapid technological and social change.“The most common question asked by readers was how to think about the future of their careers, given AI and all these other changing forces,” Stolzoff said.

The author describes himself as someone naturally prone to self-doubt and overthinking, tendencies he said became especially pronounced earlier in his career when he faced a decision between remaining a journalist in New York City or taking a role at a design company in San Francisco.

At the time, Stolzoff said he struggled to decide between what he saw as two diverging versions of his future identity.“I could see these two diverging paths Simone the journalist, Simone the designer and, for the life of me, I could not make up my mind,” he said.

He recalled seeking advice from nearly everyone around him, including friends, relatives and even casual acquaintances, because he believed he needed certainty before making a decision.

Looking back, Stolzoff said the problem was not uncertainty itself but his inability to tolerate it.“It was my intolerance of uncertainty that was causing so much of the angst,” he said.Stolzoff argues that the human tendency to seek certainty evolved as a survival mechanism, helping people anticipate threats and reduce risk.

However, he said modern life surrounds individuals with constant triggers that encourage anxiety about the future.“We have these brains that are wired to get out of uncertainty as quickly as possible, in a world where there are triggers all around us,” he said.

The book explores how this dynamic affects public life, including political polarisation and declining social trust. Stolzoff said people increasingly rush to fixed conclusions about others based on political identity or online narratives, reducing the possibility for dialogue or ambiguity.

“I do think that intolerance for uncertainty is at the root of so much of our political polarisation,” he said.He also linked uncertainty to what many researchers and policymakers describe as a growing loneliness epidemic, arguing that social connection often requires people to accept unpredictability in human interaction.

“You have to be willing to enter into an interaction with a stranger, not knowing how it will go,” he said.Stolzoff cited research by psychology professor Philip Tetlock, whose long-term analysis of expert forecasting found that many predictions performed little better than random chance.

He also referenced psychologist Daniel Gilbert and the concept of the “end-of-history illusion,” which describes people’s tendency to believe their current preferences and identities will remain stable over time.According to Stolzoff, individuals often underestimate their own capacity to adapt to changing circumstances.

“We discount our ability to course-correct or adapt,” he said.While some decisions merit careful consideration because they are difficult to reverse, Stolzoff argued that many everyday choices become unnecessarily stressful when approached with excessive analysis.

“There’s a huge cost if we take that highly analytical framework and apply it to decisions like what to watch on Netflix,” he said.

Instead of waiting for complete clarity before acting, Stolzoff said people should continue making decisions despite incomplete information. He compares the process to “rowing through the fog,” a metaphor that became central to the book.

“You might not be able to see very far ahead, or know exactly where you’ll end up, but you have to keep rowing,” he said.Stolzoff said he encourages people to make decisions that align with their values rather than trying to guarantee specific outcomes.

“If you act in alignment with your values, you can still stand by the choice, even if you don’t get the outcome that you desire,” he said.At the same time, he stressed that uncertainty tolerance does not mean embracing instability in every aspect of life.

The book encourages readers to identify “anchors” stable relationships, values or commitments that can provide continuity during periods of change.“I think about my family, my values and my commitment to my home,” he said.

Part of Stolzoff’s reporting for the book took him to Tuvalu, one of the countries considered most vulnerable to rising sea levels caused by climate change. He said conversations there shaped his understanding of how communities respond collectively and individually to uncertain futures.

One resident focused on self-sufficiency and resilience at the household level, while another emphasised international cooperation and collective support.“They’re two approaches to uncertainty,” Stolzoff said. “It’s not either-or; it’s both-and.”

He compared those responses to debates surrounding artificial intelligence and employment, where discussions often become polarised between technological optimism and fears of widespread job displacement.“Often they’re set up in the media as opposites,” he said.

“I think the truth is probably somewhere in between.”The book also examines how uncertainty intersects with mortality. Stolzoff argues that fear of death is closely connected to the human desire for certainty and control, but says accepting life’s limits can also deepen meaning and purpose.

“Part of what makes life meaningful is the fact that it’s not going to be forever,” he said.He argued that complete certainty about the future, including knowledge of exactly when or how a person would die, could ultimately diminish the unpredictability that gives life emotional depth.

“In the uncertainty, that’s where magic, surprise and delight lives,” he said.

The agreement emerged during the opening phase of a two-day summit in the Chinese capital that both sides framed as an effort to preserve cooperation between the world’s two largest economies despite disputes over trade, Taiwan and global security.

Xi told Trump that stable ties between China and the United States benefited the international community and warned that confrontation between the two countries would damage both sides.“When we cooperate, both sides benefit; when we confront each other, both sides suffer,” Xi said during opening remarks at the Great Hall of the People.

Trump, whose approval ratings have come under pressure amid the Iran war and rising inflation, described the gathering as potentially “the biggest summit ever” and invited Xi to visit Washington later this year.During a state banquet, Trump praised Xi as “a great leader” and said the two countries would pursue broader cooperation despite ongoing strategic rivalry.

Chinese officials said economic negotiations held in South Korea on Wednesday between US and Chinese trade teams had produced “balanced and positive outcomes,” aimed at preserving a trade truce reached last October that suspended steep tariffs and eased tensions over rare earth exports.

The leaders also discussed expanding cooperation in agriculture, trade and artificial intelligence while exchanging views on conflicts in the Middle East, Ukraine and the Korean Peninsula, according to Chinese state broadcaster CCTV.Taiwan remained a central point of friction.

Xi warned Trump that mishandling the issue could push bilateral relations toward “a dangerous situation,” according to China’s foreign ministry.Taiwan, the democratically governed island claimed by Beijing, continues to receive military support from Washington under longstanding US law despite the absence of formal diplomatic recognition.

Joining Trump in Beijing were senior US business executives including Elon Musk and Jensen Huang, reflecting Washington’s push for greater access to Chinese markets and reduced trade imbalances.China, meanwhile, is seeking relief from US export restrictions on advanced semiconductors and chipmaking equipment.

Analysts said shifting geopolitical conditions have altered the balance of the relationship since Trump’s previous Beijing visit in 2017. While China’s economy has slowed, Beijing faces less immediate domestic political pressure than Washington, where inflation, legal disputes over tariffs and the Iran conflict have complicated Trump’s agenda ahead of midterm elections.

The Iran conflict also featured prominently in discussions, with Trump expected to encourage Beijing to press Tehran toward a diplomatic settlement. However, analysts said China was unlikely to significantly reduce support for Iran, which Beijing views as an important strategic partner and counterweight to US influence.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said it was in China’s economic interest to help stabilize the Gulf region, noting that disruptions in shipping and trade would affect Chinese exports and maritime traffic.

The inquiry, initiated by Microsoft’s US headquarters, followed a joint investigation by The Guardian, +972 Magazine and Local Call that reported Israeli intelligence Unit 8200 used Microsoft’s Azure cloud platform to collect, store and analyze intercepted phone conversations involving Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

According to the reports, Microsoft’s internal review concluded that the Israeli military had violated the company’s terms of service through the use of Azure technology for surveillance operations.

The investigation also found that employees within Microsoft’s Israeli subsidiary had not fully disclosed the nature of the military’s activities to senior executives in the United States.

Haimovich played a central role in developing ties between Microsoft and Israeli defense authorities, according to The Guardian. The newspaper reported that he attended a 2021 meeting between Microsoft Chief Executive Satya Nadella and the then-head of Unit 8200, one of Israel’s most prominent military intelligence divisions.

The report said Haimovich later supervised the relationship that enabled Unit 8200 to establish a large operational network within the Azure system, allowing intelligence personnel to process and review millions of intercepted calls.

Israeli financial newspaper Globes reported that Haimovich was questioned by Microsoft’s investigative team, which included lawyers from US law firm Covington & Burling, during a visit to the company’s offices near Tel Aviv.

Following the investigation, Unit 8200 reportedly lost access to Azure services and related artificial intelligence tools provided through the platform.
Haimovich did not publicly comment on the investigation.

However, in an internal email cited by The Guardian announcing his departure, he said he had helped transform Israel into “one of Microsoft’s fastest-growing markets worldwide.”

Microsoft had previously indicated that senior leadership was unaware that Azure infrastructure was being used to store intercepted Palestinian communications.

Last year, Microsoft Vice Chair and President Brad Smith said the company did not supply technology intended to facilitate “mass surveillance of civilians.”

The revelations add to increasing scrutiny faced by major technology companies over the use of cloud computing and artificial intelligence tools by governments and military agencies in conflict zones.

The growing use of generative artificial intelligence in university classrooms is reshaping how educators approach writing instruction, with some professors warning that widespread reliance on AI-generated prose risks weakening students’ critical thinking, creative development and capacity for sustained intellectual effort.

The debate has become increasingly prominent at leading academic institutions as students gain access to large language models capable of producing essays, stories and analytical writing in seconds. While universities continue to refine policies governing AI use, instructors across disciplines are confronting practical questions about authorship, learning and the purpose of writing itself.

One fiction-writing professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology described those tensions through experiences teaching undergraduate creative writing workshops since 2017. Many students entering the program, the instructor said, come from science and engineering backgrounds and have little prior experience with fiction writing or peer critique.

At the beginning of each semester, students are instructed to read workshop submissions multiple times, identify strengths and weaknesses, and provide detailed written feedback. The process is designed not simply to improve stories but to expose students to the vulnerability and uncertainty inherent in creative work.“Good writing feels good to read; bad writing feels bad,” the instructor wrote, describing fiction workshops as environments where qualitative judgment must nevertheless be defended through close textual analysis.

Creative writing workshops have historically relied on direct engagement between authors and readers. Participants critique narrative structure, characterization, language and emotional resonance while authors defend or reconsider their choices. The process can be psychologically demanding because criticism of the text often feels inseparable from criticism of the writer’s thoughts, experiences or ability to communicate.

For students accustomed to quantitative disciplines with definitive answers and formal methodologies, the ambiguity of fiction writing can be especially difficult. Unlike mathematics or engineering problems, literary quality cannot be measured through objective formulas.The emergence of generative AI has introduced a new complication into that educational dynamic.

According to the professor, AI-generated fiction often exhibits polished grammar, coherent structure and stylistic consistency while lacking the deeper imperfections associated with genuine intellectual struggle or personal expression.The instructor described AI prose as “perfectly mediocre,” arguing that such writing frequently imitates the surface characteristics of literary fiction without reflecting authentic thought or lived experience.

The critique echoes broader concerns among writers, academics and publishers regarding the growing volume of AI-generated content entering educational and creative spaces. Critics argue that while large language models can reproduce stylistic patterns drawn from enormous datasets, they do not independently experience emotion, intention or reflection.

The professor compared AI-generated prose to “simulacra of thought,” arguing that readers often sense an underlying emptiness even when technical quality appears strong.By contrast, student writing — despite awkward phrasing, structural inconsistency or undeveloped ideas was described as evidence of active thinking taking shape through language. “The prose stumbles,” the professor wrote, “in a way reminiscent of a foal learning how to walk.”

The issue became directly confrontational during a recent fiction workshop after the instructor concluded that two submitted stories had been generated primarily through AI tools. According to the account, the stories appeared unusually polished for inexperienced writers, with tidy narrative arcs and formulaic metaphors that lacked individual context or perspective.The workshop was halted before discussion proceeded.

Rather than imposing punishment, the instructor used the incident to initiate a broader conversation about the role of writing in education and the motivations behind AI use.One student reportedly admitted using AI out of fear that classmates would judge her writing negatively.

Another said he had ideas for a story but did not know how to begin writing independently. Other students questioned whether using AI differed fundamentally from receiving editorial assistance or technological support.The discussion reflected a growing uncertainty within higher education regarding where institutions should draw distinctions between assistance, collaboration and authorship.

Universities worldwide have struggled to establish consistent AI policies as generative tools rapidly evolve. Some institutions prohibit AI-generated submissions outright, while others permit limited use for brainstorming, editing or research support. Many policies remain provisional as educators assess both opportunities and risks associated with the technology.

The professor argued that writing serves a developmental function extending beyond the production of finished text. “Writing isn’t just the production of sentences,” the instructor told students. “It’s the training of endurance by way of sustained attention.”That argument aligns with broader academic concerns about cognitive offloading — the transfer of intellectual effort from humans to automated systems.

Several recent studies have explored whether extensive reliance on generative AI affects memory, persistence, analytical reasoning or executive functioning.A preliminary 2025 study conducted by the MIT Media Lab reportedly found lower neural connectivity among participants using ChatGPT-assisted essay writing compared with participants writing independently.

Additional non-peer-reviewed studies cited by the professor raised concerns about diminished persistence and weakened independent problem-solving among high-frequency AI users.While many findings remain preliminary, researchers increasingly warn that overreliance on generative systems could reduce engagement with cognitively demanding tasks that historically contributed to intellectual development.

The professor situated those concerns within a longer historical pattern of technological anxiety. Critics have historically warned that innovations ranging from the printing press to the telephone would damage attention spans, social cohesion or intellectual capacity.

The instructor referenced 16th-century scholar Conrad Gessner, who warned about an overabundance of books, as well as 19th-century fears surrounding telecommunication technologies.Nevertheless, the professor argued that the current moment differs because generative AI directly imitates human language production rather than merely accelerating communication or access to information.

The instructor also drew parallels to George Orwell’s 1946 essay Confessions of a Book Reviewer, in which Orwell described the intellectual exhaustion caused by industrialized literary criticism disconnected from authentic engagement with texts.According to the professor, AI-generated writing risks creating a similar detachment by allowing students to perform the appearance of thought without undergoing the mental process required to generate original ideas.

The response in the classroom has since shifted. Following the AI incident, workshop discussions reportedly became more focused on frustration, uncertainty and the difficulties involved in translating abstract thought into language.

Rather than treating those struggles as evidence of failure, the professor now frames them as central to intellectual growth and creative development. The workshop, the instructor argued, functions properly only when there is an identifiable human consciousness behind the work being discussed.“This is a pedagogical position, not a moral or technical one,” the professor wrote.

The concern, according to the instructor, is not that AI will eliminate writers or make fiction workshops obsolete. Instead, the greater risk lies in students becoming accustomed to bypassing the friction traditionally required to develop voice, judgment and independent thinking.“What my students and I now guard,” the professor wrote, “isn’t a boundary against machines so much as a sanctuary for authorship.”

The commitment came during Takaichi’s visit to Hanoi, where the two leaders discussed expanding the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership established in 2023, covering sectors including energy, critical minerals, artificial intelligence, semiconductors and space cooperation.

“The two sides identified economic security as a new priority area for bilateral cooperation,” Takaichi told reporters after the meeting.“With regard to critical minerals, both sides agreed to strengthen close coordination to ensure stable supplies and reinforce supply chains,” she said.

The talks come as Japanese investment flows into Vietnam weakened sharply despite stronger trade ties. New Japanese investment in Vietnam fell about 75% year-on-year to $233 million in the first quarter of 2026, while bilateral trade rose 12.3% to $13.7 billion during the same period, according to Vietnamese government and customs data.

Japan remains one of Vietnam’s largest foreign investors, with major Japanese manufacturers operating extensive production bases in the country across electronics, automotive and industrial sectors.As part of the visit, both governments signed six agreements covering infrastructure development, climate action, agriculture, digital transformation, technology cooperation and space development, reinforcing broader strategic cooperation beyond trade.

Vietnam has also been seeking support from Japan and other partners to stabilize oil supplies as conflict in the Middle East pushes up crude prices and disrupts shipping routes.Under Japan’s $10 billion Power Asia Initiative, designed to strengthen energy self-reliance across Asia, Tokyo will help arrange crude oil supplies for Vietnam’s Nghi Son Refinery and Petrochemical Complex, one of the country’s most important energy facilities, Prime Minister Hung said.

Takaichi is also scheduled to meet To Lam and senior Communist Party leadership later on Saturday and deliver a keynote address at Vietnam National University.Her speech is expected to mark a decade since former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe introduced Japan’s “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” strategy, a regional framework aimed at strengthening rules-based order, maritime security and economic cooperation across Asia.

Vietnam has publicly supported Japan’s regional initiatives, including the Free and Open Indo-Pacific Vision, aligning them with ASEAN’s broader Indo-Pacific outlook and emphasizing international law, regional stability and balanced strategic autonomy.Hung said Vietnam viewed the framework as contributing positively to “peace, stability, cooperation and development in the region and beyond.”

The visit reflects Tokyo’s broader effort to deepen strategic partnerships across Southeast Asia as competition over technology, trade routes, mineral access and energy security intensifies across the Indo-Pacific.

Musk, a co-founder of OpenAI, is suing the company, Chief Executive Sam Altman, President Greg Brockman and major investor Microsoft, alleging they abandoned OpenAI’s original mission of developing artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity and instead turned it into a commercial enterprise focused on profit.

“If we make it okay to loot a charity, the entire foundation of charitable giving in America will be destroyed,” Musk told the court on the first day of trial. “That’s my concern.”Musk is seeking $150 billion in damages from OpenAI and Microsoft, with the proceeds directed to OpenAI’s charitable arm. He is also asking the court to require OpenAI to return to nonprofit control and to remove Altman and Brockman from leadership roles, while seeking Altman’s removal from the board.

The lawsuit includes claims of breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment and could have significant implications for OpenAI’s governance as the company explores a potential initial public offering that Reuters has previously reported could value it near $1 trillion.

OpenAI lawyer Bill Savitt told jurors during opening arguments that Musk had originally supported the idea of turning OpenAI into a for-profit structure and only sued after failing to gain control of the company and later launching his own rival artificial intelligence venture, xAI.Savitt said Musk wanted “the keys to the kingdom” and pursued litigation only after OpenAI rejected his ambitions to lead the company.

“What he cares about is Elon Musk being on top,” Savitt said. “We are here because Mr Musk didn’t get his way.”OpenAI’s legal team argued that its decision in March 2019 to establish a for-profit entity was necessary to secure the computing resources and talent needed to compete with rivals such as Google’s DeepMind artificial intelligence division.

Musk’s lawyer Steven Molo rejected that argument, saying OpenAI’s leadership shifted focus once major investors, including Microsoft, entered the picture.“It wasn’t a vehicle for people to get rich,” Molo said.Before jurors entered the courtroom, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers warned Musk over his social media activity after OpenAI lawyers raised concerns about his posts on X, where he referred to Altman as “Scam Altman” and accused him of stealing a charity.

Rogers said she was reluctant to impose a gag order but urged Musk to avoid using social media to influence matters outside the courtroom.Musk agreed to reduce his online commentary, as did Altman. Both are expected to testify, along with Microsoft Chief Executive Satya Nadella.

The trial is expected to provide a rare public examination of OpenAI’s evolution from a nonprofit founded in 2015 in Brockman’s apartment into one of the world’s most valuable artificial intelligence companies, currently estimated to be worth more than $850 billion.

Musk testified that his concerns about artificial intelligence safety were central to OpenAI’s founding and intensified after discussions with former U.S. President Barack Obama and with Larry Page, whom he said did not take the risks of advanced AI seriously enough.“We had to have a counterpoint against Google,” Musk said.

OpenAI disputed that characterization, with Savitt telling jurors that Musk had dismissed employees focused on AI safety and that such concerns were not his primary motivation.

Musk has said he contributed about $38 million to OpenAI before leaving its board, later objecting to its restructuring and Microsoft’s multibillion-dollar investment.

Microsoft lawyer Russell Cohen said the company had acted properly throughout its partnership with OpenAI and described it as “a responsible partner every step of the way.”