Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Researchers have made a significant breakthrough in understanding why weight-loss medications, such as GLP1 receptor agonists, work better for some individuals than others. A recent study published in Nature has identified genetic variations in two genes involved in gut hormone pathways that regulate appetite and digestion. These genetic variations may help account for different weight-loss results or side-effects when taking glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP1) medicines, which mimic natural gut hormones to regulate appetite, insulin release, and digestion. The study analyzed data from 27,885 patients on GLP1 drugs and found that specific genetic variants were associated with slightly more weight loss or side-effects like nausea and vomiting. The findings suggest that genetic differences may contribute to why people respond differently to weight-loss jabs. However, the overall impact of genetics appeared to be modest, with non-genetic factors such as sex, drug type, dose, and duration appearing to explain a substantially larger proportion of variability. The study's results reinforce that while there is substantial variability in response to GLP1 therapies, genetics is only one part of a much more complex picture. According to Marie Spreckley, an obesity expert at the University of Cambridge, the study provides plausible evidence that genetic variants could affect outcomes. However, she notes that the magnitude of these genetic effects is small in clinical terms, and that behavioral, clinical, and treatment-related factors remain the dominant drivers of outcomes. The study's authors suggest that their findings could support future efforts to use genetic information when making treatment choices for obesity. However, Spreckley cautions that the evidence is not yet sufficient to support using genetic information to guide treatment decisions in routine clinical practice.

The chief executive of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA), Brant Dunshea, announced that the sport is prepared to consider more direct‑action protests as it confronts the government’s proposal to introduce affordability checks for punters. Last September’s one‑day strike, which forced the cancellation of four meetings, proved decisive: it helped the government abandon a planned increase in betting tax from 15% to 21%, a rise the BHA estimated would have cost the industry £330 million. Following the “Axe the Racing Tax” campaign, the BHA is now urging the government to rethink the affordability checks that could require up to 120,000 regular gamblers to provide personal documentation, according to the Betting and Gaming Council. Independent modelling by EY suggests that as many as 44,000 bettors might migrate to black‑market operators, eroding the industry’s betting turnover by tens of millions of pounds. Betting turnover has already fallen by £2 billion since 2021. The Gambling Commission is slated to decide on the checks next month, while more than 400 racing figures – including trainers and MPs – have signed an open letter to Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy demanding intervention. “Our campaign will continue, and direct action is part of our broader strategy, though we will not discuss specifics publicly,” Dunshea said. He highlighted the power of collective action, noting that the industry’s cultural and economic significance was recognised in the government’s recent budget announcement. Recent pilot schemes, involving three credit‑reference agencies, produced inconsistent outcomes for the same individuals, raising concerns that the checks could push more punters toward illegal markets. Data from Yield Sec shows that the share of the UK gambling market held by black‑market operators surged from 0.43% in 2020 to 9% last year, with £379 million wagered on unlicensed platforms that do not contribute to the exchequer. Dunshea stressed that any affordability measure must be truly frictionless. “Consumers are price‑sensitive and protective of their personal data; any intervention that feels invasive will drive them elsewhere,” he warned. Amid the upcoming Grand National at Aintree, Dunshea expressed surprise at recent comments from the RSPCA regarding horse deaths at Cheltenham, reaffirming the BHA’s commitment to a collaborative relationship with the animal‑welfare charity. He noted that over the past 25 years, the industry has invested £60 million in equine welfare, reducing fatality rates to 0.22% of runners, and emphasized that the BHA will continue to work constructively with the RSPCA despite recent tensions.

Democratic leaders in Washington announced a renewed push to stop President Donald Trump’s escalating confrontation with Iran following a brief two‑week cease‑fire that began Tuesday night. The party aims to reconvene Congress and pass a war‑powers resolution that would permanently end the conflict. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told CNN that the House must be brought back into session immediately, stating, "We need a permanent end to Donald Trump’s reckless war of choice." He urged Speaker Mike Johnson to schedule a vote on legislation that would strip the president of unilateral war‑making authority. In the Senate, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer pledged that Democrats will force a vote as soon as Congress returns from recess. Schumer warned that the war has left the nation “worse off than before it started,” citing rising gas prices and the broader economic toll, and called the episode “one of the very worst military and foreign‑policy actions the United States has ever taken.” More than 70 Democratic lawmakers have publicly called for the 25th Amendment to be invoked, arguing that Trump’s recent Truth Social posts—threatening to wipe out an entire civilization if Iran does not comply—raise serious questions about his mental fitness and could constitute a violation of international law. Senator Chris Murphy (D‑CT) told CNN, "No president in control of his senses would publicly promise to eradicate an entire civilization." Representative Ro Khanna (D‑CA) echoed the sentiment on X, writing, "We need to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove Trump. Threatening war crimes is a blatant violation of our Constitution and the Geneva Conventions." Other Democrats, including Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA), described the president’s threats as “unhinged” and “illegal,” while former MAGA ally Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene joined the chorus, posting, "25TH AMENDMENT!!! This is evil and madness." Even some Republican lawmakers expressed unease about the prospect of targeting civilian infrastructure, though the GOP overall has remained largely silent. The mounting pressure underscores a rare bipartisan concern that Trump’s rhetoric could cross the line into war‑crime territory, prompting calls for both constitutional removal and traditional impeachment proceedings.

British computer scientist Adam Back has vehemently denied claims that he is the elusive creator of Bitcoin, known as Satoshi Nakamoto. A recent report in the New York Times had suggested that Back was Nakamoto, but he quickly took to social media to refute the claims. In a thread on X, Back stated, 'I also don’t know who satoshi is, and I think it is good for bitcoin that this is the case, as it helps bitcoin be viewed [as] a new asset class, the mathematically scarce digital commodity.' This denial comes after a years-long effort to unmask Nakamoto, the mysterious author of the bitcoin white paper which laid the theoretical foundations for modern digital currencies. The speculation surrounding Nakamoto's identity has been ongoing for years, with previous attempts pointing to Nick Szabo, Hal Finney, and an 'unknown Australian genius' who was later revealed to be a fraud. The latest trail led to Back, a London-born computer scientist and entrepreneur, who was a member of an online anarchist cryptography community called the cypherpunks in the early 1990s. Journalist John Carreyrou claimed to have found similarities between Back and Nakamoto by analyzing decades of old internet postings and shared niche interests. However, Back attributed the similarities to 'a combination of coincidence and similar phrases from people with similar experience and interests.' Not everyone is convinced by Back's denial, with some speculating that he may still be Nakamoto. Stephen Murdoch, a professor of computer science at University College London, noted that while there are indications that it could be Back, 'there’s no smoking gun.' Meanwhile, Dr. Jacky Mallett, an assistant professor of computer science at Reykjavík University, suggested that Satoshi was 'almost certainly more than one person,' citing updates to the bitcoin code that suggest multiple contributors. Back is the owner of a bitcoin treasury firm that is merging with a publicly traded company. If he were indeed Nakamoto and the owner of 1.1m coins worth tens of billions of pounds, he would have to disclose this to the Securities and Exchange Commission, as it could materially affect the bitcoin market.

Evelyn Araluen has been named among the six finalists for the 2026 Stella Prize with her second poetry collection, The Rot. This marks her second appearance on the shortlist, four years after becoming the first poet to win the award as an Australian woman and non‑binary writer. The $60,000 prize will be contested alongside five diverse titles: Geraldine Brooks’ memoir Memorial Days, Miranda Darling’s novel Fireweather, Lee Lai’s graphic novel Cannon, Marika Sosnowski’s hybrid nonfiction 58 Facets: On Violence and the Law, and Tasma Walton’s novel I Am Nannertgarrook. Each shortlisted author receives a $5,000 advance. Earlier this year, Araluen’s The Rot captured the top prize and a $125,000 award at the Victorian Premier’s Literary Awards, praised for its exploration of grief and collective anxiety amid the global coverage of the Gaza conflict. The collection was sparked by an incident at Adelaide Writers’ Week in 2024, where Araluen was heckled for describing the Israeli bombardment of Gaza as genocide. She told Guardian Australia that the poems aim to document a "panicked, distressed window of time" that future readers might view with horror and regret. "I wanted the book to clearly record what we knew and did not stop," Araluen said. "If it reads as naive, let it still serve as a record of an uncomfortable truth we all must face." Araluen, a Goorie and Koori poet, first won the Stella Prize in 2022 for her debut collection Dropbear. This year’s shortlist was selected from 212 submissions, underscoring the depth of contemporary Australian women’s and non‑binary writing. Chair of judges Sophie Gee praised the list, noting that the books “move us to the core through language, the truth of their emotion, and the honesty of what it means to be human, across time and space.” The winner will be announced on 13 May 2026. Last year’s prize went to Michelle de Kretser for her novel Theory and Practice.

Shares of Close Brothers, a UK-based specialist lender, jumped 17% on Wednesday following the bank's announcement that it can easily absorb the cost of a £320m compensation bill related to the car finance scandal. The Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) compensation scheme, finalized last week, aims to address the issue of drivers being overcharged for loans due to commission payments between lenders and car dealers.The bank expects to pay out approximately £320m in compensation, which is 'broadly similar' to previous estimates and only £26m more than the £294m already set aside. Close Brothers stated that this additional amount can be 'comfortably absorbed by existing capital resources,' ensuring the group remains well-positioned to continue its strategy.The FCA's compensation scheme estimates that victims will receive an average payout of £830. This development has provided relief to investors, especially after concerns were raised by short seller Viceroy Research, which suggested that Close Brothers might need to significantly increase its provision for car finance losses.In contrast, Close Brothers' rival, FirstRand, announced hours earlier that it would sell its UK operations, citing frustration with the FCA's compensation scheme, which it described as 'deeply flawed.' FirstRand stated it would need to raise an extra £510m to cover compensation costs, taking its total provisions to £750m, and potentially slash its earnings forecast and offload its UK business.

The author's concerns about AI were previously localized to her household income and the job market, but after reading the alarming article, she now worries about the bigger picture. The investigation reveals that AI is a power story as much as a technology story, with Sam Altman at its center.The chatbot, ChatGPT, created by OpenAI, was asked to summarize the key findings of the article, but its response was deemed neutral and lacking in substance. A human-powered summary, on the other hand, describes Altman as a corporate grifter whose actions could have world-ending consequences.The article highlights the dangers of AI, including the alignment problem, where AI uses its superior intelligence to trick human engineers and outmaneuver them. This could lead to AI seizing control of critical infrastructure, such as the energy grid, stock market, or nuclear arsenal.Elon Musk's 2014 tweet about AI being potentially more dangerous than nukes is recalled, and Altman's own blog post from 2015 warning about the risks of superhuman machine intelligence is mentioned. However, since OpenAI became mainly a for-profit entity, Altman has stopped discussing these risks and now sells the technology as a portal to utopia.The author concludes that the greatest danger we face is from a failure of imagination in understanding the vast gap between personal AI use and its potential use by governments, military regimes, or rogue actors. The chatbot's response to the author's concern about entering the permanent underclass is seen as wholly witless and without threat, highlighting the need for greater awareness and oversight of AI.

Political leaders across Washington breathed a collective sigh of relief on Tuesday evening when President Donald Trump announced a provisional two‑week ceasefire with Iran, ending a 24‑hour standoff that had seen him threaten to annihilate Iran’s “whole civilization” if Tehran failed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz by his self‑imposed deadline.The ceasefire declaration arrived just 90 minutes before the 8 p.m. ET deadline at which Trump had pledged to bomb Iranian power plants and bridges – a move scholars warned would constitute a war crime. A last‑minute diplomatic push by Pakistan persuaded the president to suspend the ultimatum, buying a narrow window for de‑escalation.In a post on Tuesday night, Trump wrote: “Subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz, I agree to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks.”Iran’s foreign minister quickly responded, stating that the strait would remain open for the next fourteen days under Iranian military management, effectively meeting the condition set by the United States.The president’s earlier warning – that a “whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again” – drew swift condemnation from Democrats, longtime allies who have broken with Trump over the crisis, and even Pope Francis, the first American pontiff.Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer labeled Trump’s retreat as “desperately searching for any sort of exit ramp from his ridiculous bluster,” adding that the president had previously been called “an extremely sick person” waging a “wanton war of choice.”House Democrats, including former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, called for Trump’s removal via impeachment or the 25th Amendment, arguing that his conduct amounted to a threat of genocide against the Iranian people. Progressive Representative Alexandria Ocasio‑Cortez echoed this sentiment, saying the two‑week deal “changes nothing” and urging Congress to act.House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries described Trump’s behavior as “unhinged, unpresidential and unconscionable,” and warned that the American public “strongly opposes this reckless war of choice.” He announced that Democrats would push Speaker Mike Johnson to reconvene the House and move a war‑powers resolution to secure a permanent end to hostilities.Republican reactions were more nuanced. Senator Rick Scott praised the ceasefire as “a strong first step toward holding Iran accountable,” while Senator Lindsey Graham expressed hope that diplomacy could “end the reign of terror of the Iranian regime,” cautioning that Iran should not be rewarded for its earlier attacks on the strait.Conversely, Rep. Dan Crenshaw, a Texas Republican known for breaking with Trump, dismissed critics as “pearl‑clutching,” arguing that the president’s “language of POWER” is what adversaries understand, and that diplomatic niceties alone achieve little.The episode underscores a volatile moment in US‑Iran relations, where a single diplomatic pivot averted an imminent escalation, yet left Congress divided over the president’s authority to wage war and the need for a lasting legislative solution.

Thirty years after the passionate road protests against the Newbury bypass, the elevated road now looms large, a constant reminder of the environmental costs of progress. For the author, who was part of the campaign, the Newbury bypass remains a sore point, even today.On a walk in The Chase, a nature reserve adjacent to the bypass, the author is accompanied by their friend Sarah, a 'cow watcher' for the National Trust. Their mission is to check on the wellbeing of conservation grazers – Shetland cows with upswept horns – which play a crucial role in maintaining biodiversity and plant life.The reserve, once common land with a rich history dating back to 1819, has been a playground for the author and Sarah. They recall devastating sewage spills that killed local wildlife and the great storms of 1987 and 1990 that left trees like 'spilled pencils.'As they wade across a stream to find the cows grazing among wild daffodils and golden saxifrages, memories of their children come flooding back – 'welly walks' with grandparents, watching great spotted woodpecker chicks fledge, and following silver-washed fritillary butterflies.Their walk complete, they meet at a garden centre cafe, where the author, aided by 'brain fog,' mistakenly heads to the pub first. The zigzag patterns of peaty-black mud from Sarah's boots across the polished floor serve as a humorous reminder of their conservation work and shared experiences.