The family of a 12-year-old girl seriously injured during a shooting in Tumbler Ridge, Canada, has filed a lawsuit against OpenAI. The complaint alleges that the company had warning signals about the attacker’s activity in ChatGPT but failed to notify authorities.
Have you ever heard a doctor say something like: “Didn’t this help you at all? Hmm. Ok, let’s try these pills instead”? How does it feel to be a lab rat? Of course it’s not human experimentation — but what if you could get the right therapy without all that trial and error? Imagine your doctor had an exact copy of you to test all their ideas on — not on you. Wouldn’t that be fantastic? Today, this isn’t entirely science fiction. You can give your doctor a digital twin to experiment on.
The UK government has announced plans to introduce legislative changes aimed at restricting children’s access to AI-powered chatbots and bringing them under formal regulation as part of broader efforts to protect young internet users. The initiative is part of a wider online safety strategy and comes amid growing international concern about AI’s impact on minors.
YouTube has always presented itself as a vast library of human experience: tutorials, vlogs, explainers, music, children’s stories, news. But in 2025–2026, this library rapidly developed an extension that resembles a vending machine for text and images: press a button — get a video. This wave is increasingly being called AI slop, or “neuroslop”: content that looks like a video “about something,” but is in fact assembled from templates, repetitions, and crude but effective attention-holding tricks. It isn’t necessarily malicious. It’s simply abundant, cheap, and surprisingly sticky.
The full results of the first randomized controlled trial show that the use of artificial intelligence in screening mammography leads to the detection of fewer advanced and aggressive breast cancers, suggesting that AI may improve the quality of early diagnosis and potentially reduce the number of advanced-stage cases.
A few weeks ago, the world’s largest annual consumer electronics exhibition — the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) 2026 — came to an end. CES 2026 delivered a parade of ambitious consumer tech: AI companions, advanced driver assistance, home humanoids, and smarter devices for everyday life. It’s impressive, yet at times the demos feel like a polished version of ideas we’ve already seen in speculative fiction, with just enough “Black Mirror” energy to make you pause.
Medical records just became the hottest commodity in Silicon Valley. In a stunning 72-hour span this January, OpenAI and Anthropic launched competing platforms that transform fragmented health data into AI-powered personal health advisors, signaling a digital colonization of America’s healthcare system. While regulators spent a decade mandating interoperability through the 21st Century Cures Act, tech giants are exploiting the resulting data floodgates, deploying sophisticated language models to ingest, analyze, and monetize patient information at unprecedented scale.
Have we traded medical privacy for the convenience of conversational health intelligence?
AI in pharma and life sciences is an easy “sell,” yet delivering real value remains a formidable challenge. Progress is most often hampered by closed data, weak data sharing, and inflated expectations. In this interview with Marcin Wawryszczuk (PhD, MBA) — Head of AI at Andersen and an AI researcher — we discuss how data platforms are becoming the bottleneck, whether it is possible to distinguish a viable project from a mere demo, and why, in production, resilience to drift and explainability of results outweigh impressive metrics.
February 2026 is packed with healthtech conferences spanning global mega-expos, health IT executive forums, rural-care leadership, clinical trial innovation, and medical device engineering — making this list a strong starting point for planning your February 2026 conference calendar.
Grok, an application developed by xAI and distributed via the X platform, has come under growing criticism following reports that it can generate sexualized deepfakes and content that violates app store policies. This raises a fundamental question: why does the tool remain available on the Apple App Store and Google Play, when other apps have previously been removed for far less controversial features?