Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Opening new oil and gas fields in the North Sea would send a shock wave around the world, senior climate diplomats warned, saying the move would imperil international climate targets, erode the United Kingdom’s reputation as a climate leader and embolden developing countries to exploit their own fossil‑fuel reserves.The UK government faces intense lobbying from the oil industry, Conservative MPs, Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party, certain trade unions and factions within the Treasury. Yet research shows that new drilling would do little to lower energy prices and would have almost no impact on gas imports.Two of the remaining large North Sea prospects – the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields – sit in a basin that is over 90% depleted and increasingly costly to develop. Even if fully exploited, they would displace only about 1% and 2% of the UK’s gas imports respectively, according to recent analysis.Senior figures in international climate diplomacy described the prospect of new drilling as dangerous for global emissions‑reduction efforts and a step back from the phase‑out of fossil fuels.Lord Nicolas Stern, professor at the London School of Economics, warned that “new drilling and a slowdown in climate action would be bad for growth and for energy security in the UK, and a damaging signal for the world.” He added that the UK’s pioneering climate legislation and its role as the first G7 nation to commit to net‑zero by 2050 give its actions “extra weight” on the global stage.An anonymous senior African negotiator reacted angrily to the proposal, stating that Africa would “reject any proposal for the UK to expand oil drilling” because it is “fundamentally inconsistent with both the letter and spirit of the Paris Agreement” and would “weaken trust with climate‑vulnerable nations”.Christiana Figueres, former UN climate chief and co‑founder of the Global Optimism think‑tank, argued that true energy independence lies in “scaling clean, domestic energy, not in extending the life of declining industries”. She cautioned that reverting to old‑fashioned oil expansion would lock in infrastructure at odds with the direction of the global energy system.The UK has been a vocal supporter of an upcoming conference in Colombia on the “transition away from fossil fuels”, a pledge made three years ago at COP28 that remains largely unfulfilled. However, the Guardian learned that Ed Miliband, the UK secretary of state for energy security and net‑zero, will not attend; the government’s climate envoy, Rachel Kyte, will travel in his place.Campaigners had urged Miliband’s presence, citing his pivotal role in securing a last‑minute deal at COP30 in Brazil last November.Experts caution that licensing new fields before the Colombian summit could undermine progress in persuading developing nations to forgo fossil‑fuel‑based economies and adopt cleaner energy pathways.Mohamed Adow, director of the Power Shift Africa think‑tank, warned that a UK approval would “send a shock wave around the world that short‑term interests are being prioritised over long‑term responsibility”. He stressed that many African countries are being asked to leapfrog to clean energy with limited financial support, and that wealthy nations continuing to invest in fossil fuels “undermine this message and diminish their credibility”.Several developing‑country officials echoed this concern, asking, “Why shouldn’t we tap into our own fossil‑fuel resources if the UK is doing so?” They argued that leadership on climate must be consistent with actions.An ally of Miliband praised the UK’s stance, calling “no new exploration licences” a “landmark global leadership position” that shows a major oil‑producing country can align policy with climate science to avoid a 3‑4°C warming scenario.A government spokesperson reaffirmed the administration’s commitment, stating that the UK has placed “clean energy and climate at the heart of its agenda”, and that it will continue to “stop issuing licences to explore new fields, in line with the science and in securing a just transition in the North Sea”.

Tens of thousands of people have been hired by Scale AI – a firm 49% owned by Meta – to train artificial‑intelligence models by scraping Instagram accounts, harvesting copyrighted artwork and transcribing pornographic soundtracks, according to the Guardian.Scale AI promotes its Outlier platform as a flexible, expert‑driven marketplace, recruiting professionals from medicine, physics and economics to "become the expert that AI learns from."Workers, however, say the reality diverges sharply from high‑level model refinement. They describe tasks that involve massive personal‑data scraping and content that many find morally uncomfortable.Outlier is managed by Scale AI, which holds contracts with the U.S. Pentagon and other defense companies. Its chief executive, Alexandr Wang, is hailed by Forbes as the world’s youngest self‑made billionaire, while former managing director Michael Kratsios served as science adviser to former President Donald Trump.One contractor noted that users of Meta platforms would be shocked to learn their photos and friends’ images are being harvested for AI training, with workers manually reviewing profiles to extract data.The Guardian interviewed ten Outlier contributors – many also journalists, graduate students, teachers or librarians – who took the gig work out of economic desperation. One said, "A lot of us were really desperate" and felt compelled to accept the unstable, low‑pay assignments.These gig workers, dubbed “taskers,” often feel they are training their own replacements, expressing “internalised shame and guilt” over contributing to the automation of creative professions.Law firm Clarkson, representing AI gig workers, estimates that hundreds of thousands of people worldwide now labor on platforms like Outlier. Taskers report bait‑and‑switch recruitment tactics, where advertised high salaries are replaced by lower‑paid projects after onboarding.All contributors are monitored through a tool called Hubstaff, which can screenshot browsers to verify work. While Scale AI claims the software is only for accurate payment, workers describe it as constant surveillance.Assignments have ranged from transcribing pornographic audio and labeling photos of dead animals or dog faeces, to annotating diagrams of infant genitalia and violent police scenarios. One doctoral student recounted being promised “no nudity” only to receive explicit porn clips.Scale AI says it shuts down any task flagged as inappropriate and does not accept projects involving child sexual‑abuse material or pornography, though workers note that publicly available images of minors have been used for training.Social‑media scraping tasks required workers to tag individuals by name, location and age, sometimes pulling data from accounts of users under 18. One task asked contributors to order Facebook photos by the subject’s age, prompting ethical unease.In addition to personal data, taskers were asked to harvest copyrighted artwork, with strict instructions to avoid AI‑generated images and select only hand‑drawn pieces. Scale AI maintains it does not ask workers to violate copyright standards.Scale AI’s client list includes major tech firms such as Google, Meta and OpenAI, as well as the U.S. Department of Defense and the government of Qatar, highlighting the growing demand for labelled data as AI models scale.Some workers reported interacting with ChatGPT and Claude, and speculated they might be training Meta’s upcoming model, code‑named “Avocado.”OpenAI announced it ended its partnership with Scale AI in June 2025, citing its supplier code of conduct that mandates ethical treatment of all workers.Despite irregular pay, occasional mass layoffs and the unsettling nature of many tasks, many taskers remain on the Outlier platform, hoping the AI future will eventually improve conditions. One said, "I have to be positive about AI because the alternative is not great."In response, a Scale AI spokesperson stated, "Outlier provides flexible, project‑based work with transparent pay. Contributors choose when and how they participate, and we regularly hear from highly skilled contributors who value the flexibility and opportunity to apply their expertise on the platform."

Apple is escalating its legal war with Epic Games by petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to review the court's ruling on App Store fees. This move signals a critical juncture in the tech giant's defense of its revenue model, as it attempts to overturn a decision that limits its ability to charge developers for external payments. The Strategic Shift to the Highest Court After losing its appeal at the Supreme Court in a previous phase of the case, Apple is now taking its fight to the highest level of the U.S. judiciary. The tech giant filed a petition to review the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling, which found Apple in contempt for charging a 27% fee on external payments—a slight discount from its standard 30% fee. Current Status: Apple secured a temporary stay on the Ninth Circuit's ruling on April 6, 2026, effectively pausing the enforcement of the lower court's decision. Epic's Response: Epic Games immediately challenged this stay, arguing it is merely a delay tactic to prevent the court from establishing permanent bounds on Apple's fees. Legal Timeline: The battle began in 2020 when Epic bypassed Apple's fees, leading to a 2021 ruling where Apple was not deemed a monopoly but was ordered to allow external payment links. The Economics of the 27% External Fee The core of Apple's legal strategy revolves around the justification of its fee structure. While Apple reduced its commission to 27% for external transactions, Epic argues this effectively defeats the purpose of the court order, as developers still do not save significant money due to processing fees. Apple's Stance: The company argues the fee covers more than just payment processing; it includes hosting, discovery, software, and developer tools, reflecting the value of the ecosystem. Competitor Benchmark: Google settled with Epic Games last month, dropping its Play Store commissions to 20%, highlighting the pressure Apple faces to lower its rates. Developer Impact: Only a few developers, including Spotify, Kindle, and Patreon, have been willing to utilize the external payment links due to Apple's aggressive tactics. Erosion of the App Store Moat This legal battle represents a significant threat to Apple's primary revenue stream. If the Supreme Court upholds the lower courts' rulings, it could force Apple to lower its commissions or abandon its current fee structure entirely. Market Dynamics: As consumers increasingly turn to AI chatbots and agents for transactions, the traditional gatekeeper role of the App Store is being challenged. Regulatory Pressure: The court's decision will set a precedent for how tech giants can regulate commerce within their ecosystems, potentially opening the door for more developer freedom. A High-Stakes Legal Verdict Looking ahead, the Supreme Court's willingness to hear this case is uncertain. The Court previously declined to hear a similar appeal regarding Apple's monopoly status. If they reject this petition, the Ninth Circuit's decision stands, and Apple will be forced to comply with the lower fee structure. However, if the Court agrees to hear it, Apple will push to convince judges that courts should not have the authority to limit the fees it charges for its services, potentially reshaping the digital economy for years to come.

The US war on Iran has now entered its sixth week, with the conflict showing no signs of abating. What was initially touted as a 'precise, overwhelming military campaign' to eliminate 'an imminent nuclear threat' has instead become a protracted and costly endeavor. The war has resulted in rising costs for the US in military equipment and personnel, and has had a significant impact on energy markets, with forecasts of a potential global economic recession in the event of a prolonged conflict.The conflict has also highlighted the Iranian regime's capacity for asymmetric warfare, with the country deploying cheap drones and missiles to disrupt energy facilities and compromise economies in the Gulf region. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway for global oil shipments, has also had a significant impact on the war effort, with the US and its allies struggling to reopen it.The US's failure to understand the Iranian regime's subjective complex dynamics has been a significant factor in the conflict's prolongation. The regime's ability to withstand pain and prolonged escalation without a clear scenario of military victory against a superpower has been underestimated, and its proxy groups, such as Hezbollah and the Houthis, have proven to be effective in advancing its interests and preventing outcomes that weaken or isolate it further.The conflict has also highlighted the diverging definitions of victory between the US and Iran, with the US seeking a swift and decisive victory, while Iran is focused on maintaining its viability on its own terms in the face of American hegemony. As the war continues, the question remains: how will this conflict end?

The notion that war is more profitable than peace may seem counterintuitive, but it is a concept that has been explored by economists and political scientists. David Keen, a renowned expert in the field, sheds light on the complex relationship between conflict and economics. In a world where wars are often funded by governments and fueled by industries such as arms manufacturing, the financial stakes are high.Keen's work challenges the conventional wisdom that war is solely a destructive force. Instead, he argues that war can be a lucrative business for certain individuals and groups. The production and sale of weapons, for instance, can generate significant profits. Moreover, the reconstruction efforts that follow a conflict can also be a lucrative venture.However, the human cost of war cannot be overstated. The devastating impact on civilians, infrastructure, and the environment is well-documented. As such, the question remains as to whether the economic benefits of war outweigh the humanitarian costs.

Behrooz Ghamari‑Tabrizi draws parallels between the protracted Iran‑Iraq war (1980‑1988) and the emerging strategic calculus of a potential US‑Israeli confrontation with Tehran. He argues that the historical conflict offers cautionary insights on regional alliances, war economics, and the limits of external intervention. The analysis underscores how prolonged attrition, shifting loyalties, and the impact on civilian populations could shape any future engagement involving the United States and Israel against Iran.

Donald Trump’s demand that Iran reopen the Strait of Hormuz has an immediate impact on U.S. gasoline prices, but analysts warn that a prolonged conflict will push energy costs higher across the globe, far beyond the fuel pump. Systemic increases in power prices and disrupted supply chains are set to compress margins for industries worldwide; in the United States, the effect could be especially damaging to the fragile economics of the AI boom. Oil‑importing nations in the Global South are already feeling the strain: Egypt has imposed curfews, Indonesia is trialling work‑from‑home Fridays, and the Philippines has declared a national energy emergency. While the United States, as a major oil exporter, can partially insulate itself, the country cannot escape the global rise in energy costs. Experts predict that price pressure will linger for months even if the strait reopens within days. Companies are revisiting cash‑flow forecasts, and the AI sector—characterised by energy‑intensive model training and debt‑laden expansion—faces a particularly acute risk. OpenAI chief Sam Altman attempted to downplay environmental concerns, likening the energy required to train an AI model to the cumulative food intake over a human’s 20‑year development. The Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee warned that rising energy costs could depress AI share prices, noting that investors were already uneasy about the sector’s heavy reliance on debt financing and uncertain return prospects before the war began. "The conflict could increase these concerns, particularly given the energy‑intensive nature of the supply chain for key components and the operation of datacentres," the committee said. World Trade Organization chief economist Robert Staiger echoed this view, cautioning that a prolonged period of high energy prices could "crimp" AI investment. He highlighted that AI‑related goods accounted for 70% of U.S. investment growth in the first three‑quarters of last year. A forensic note from US law firm Quinn Emanuel revealed that the AI sector generated roughly $60 billion in revenue last year while committing $400 billion to capital expenditure. The financing structure mirrors the 2008 crisis, with off‑balance‑sheet special purpose vehicles and asset‑backed securities playing a central role. Leading "hyperscalers" and infrastructure providers such as CoreWeave are borrowing enormous sums to build out datacentres, although some analysts argue that many projects lag behind their lofty promises. Much of this borrowing comes from private‑credit lenders, making total liabilities opaque and challenging for regulators—an issue the Bank of England has repeatedly flagged. Complex financing arrangements see datacentres owned by special purpose vehicles, debt pooled and sold to pension funds, and other layered structures that obscure true exposure. Quinn Emanuel estimates that $120 billion of datacentre debt has been moved off‑balance sheets in the past two years. The firm warns that distress at any single node could cascade through the tightly interconnected AI ecosystem. Extended higher energy costs, combined with volatile interest rates and weaker consumer demand—both likely fallout from the Middle East war—could trigger that distress. The fundamental question remains: can the AI sector generate sufficient revenue to justify its sky‑high valuations? Even modest energy price hikes may force a market rethink, with potential spill‑over effects across U.S. markets and beyond. As the article concludes, the economic fallout may be yet another unintended consequence of Trump’s aggressive stance on Iran, unleashing forces beyond his control.

American consumers are watching gasoline and airline fares climb, while economists warn that the war in Iran will keep pressure on prices across the U.S. economy.“The good old days are gone,” said Christopher Tang, a professor at UCLA’s Anderson School of Management who studies global supply chains. “We see gasoline prices rising now, but that’s only the tip of the iceberg; everything will become more expensive.”Since the conflict began in late February, crude oil has surged past $110 a barrel. The rally is tied to Iran’s leverage over the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow chokepoint through which roughly 20% of the world’s oil passes.In a recent address, President Donald Trump claimed the United States is “totally independent of the Middle East” and has “plenty of gas.” However, Brookings Institute’s energy‑security director Samantha Gross reminded listeners that oil is a globally traded commodity and the U.S. still imports significant volumes, meaning American consumers will face the same high prices as the rest of the world.Iran has either halted shipments through the strait or imposed a toll of up to $2 million per vessel. Tankers are forced to take longer routes or pay the fee, inflating logistics costs for all downstream users.Major logistics players are already passing those costs on. Amazon announced a 3.5% surcharge for third‑party sellers, while UPS and FedEx have introduced fuel surcharges exceeding 25%. The United States Postal Service will add an 8% surcharge to transportation rates starting 27 April, noting the charge is “less than one‑third of what our competitors charge for fuel alone.”When the prices go up, they rarely come back down— Christopher Tang, UCLACountries have dipped into strategic oil reserves to blunt the shock, but economists such as Virginia Tech’s David Bieri warn that refilling those stockpiles will require buying oil at today’s elevated prices, keeping the upward pressure on the market.Higher oil costs ripple beyond fuel. Crude is a key feedstock for chemicals, pharmaceuticals and fertilizers, meaning the surge could translate into higher prices for prescription drugs and groceries.Cornell University’s agricultural economics professor Christopher Wolf explained that diesel, a major input for farm equipment and fertilizer production, is also climbing, raising the cost of both crop cultivation and livestock raising.Retailers and food processors are already adjusting. “If we anticipate higher costs, we start raising prices early to avoid a sudden shock later,” Wolf said, describing a “rational expectations” approach.The Independent Grocers Alliance warned that a 10‑15% rise in fuel costs could lift food prices by 2‑4% by mid‑summer, underscoring the broader impact on household budgets.Although President Trump expects the United States to exit the Iran conflict within two to three weeks, experts agree that even a swift resolution will not instantly reverse the price spikes.The strait’s strategic importance means the political risk premium on oil will linger. “You never know when this could flare up again,” said Northeastern University’s Ravi Ramamurti, adding that the effect is likely to be persistent.As Tang summed up, “When the prices go up, they rarely come back down.”

Leeds United travel to West Ham for an FA Cup quarter‑final that both clubs would prefer to avoid, yet manager Daniel Farke is clear about his priorities. With an MA in economics and a diploma in sporting directorship, he stresses that Premier League survival is the club’s "bread and butter" and must come first.Off the pitch, the German‑born coach unwinds by immersing himself in literary fiction, counting Gabriel García Márquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude among his favourites.Farke’s dual role as a tactician and a storyteller raises the question of whether he can engineer a season that delivers both survival and cup glory. A successful double could make it hard for the Elland Road hierarchy to deny him the new contract he desires."I’m a big believer in cup competitions," Farke said, emphasizing that Leeds will approach the West Ham tie "very, very seriously". He added that the squad will start strong unless a player shows a physical issue, in which case they will be protected.The risk of fielding a first‑choice XI against a relegation rival mirrors the 2013 Wigan experience, when the club won the FA Cup but suffered relegation three days later – a bittersweet double that highlighted the fine line between triumph and disaster.Leeds have failed to win any of their last six Premier League matches, drawing four, a run that has stalled momentum. A victory could act as a catalyst to change the narrative as the season draws to a close.Injury concerns loom over striker Dominic Calvert‑Lewin, who is undergoing a hamstring scan. The England international, who netted seven goals in six games at the end of 2025, has managed only two league goals this season. A fit Calvert‑Lewin could revive Leeds’ hopes of reaching their first FA Cup semi‑final since 1987 and keep his World Cup aspirations alive.The goalkeeping position also remains unsettled. After losing his starting spot to Karl Darlow, Lucas Perri has featured solely in the FA Cup this year, leaving the decision on who starts for the West Ham tie open.Financial pressures add urgency to Farke’s decisions. Leeds’ latest accounts reveal a £49.2 million pre‑tax loss for the year ending June 2025, and a costly stadium expansion project that would be jeopardised by relegation. This backdrop explains the psychological blow of a 1‑0 loss to an under‑strength Sunderland side earlier in the month.Farke believes a deep FA Cup run could erase lingering self‑doubt. "If we secure Premier League survival and go further in the FA Cup, we can write a special chapter for this club," he said, urging his squad to seize the chance to make history.