Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Australian GPs are increasingly turning to AI scribes to record patient notes, with 40% now using the technology, according to a Royal Australian College of GPs (RACGP) online poll. This represents a significant increase from 22% in August 2024.AI tools, such as those offered by Australian company Heidi, record, transcribe, and summarize conversations between doctors and patients for medical notes. Dr. Max Mollenkopf, a GP based in Newcastle, emphasizes the importance of transparency with patients, stating, “We make a big effort to let patients know we are using AI, and give them the option to opt out.”While AI scribes can help relieve doctors' administrative burden, experts point to concerns about consent, privacy, and accuracy. Dr. Elizabeth Deveny, chief executive of the Consumer Health Forum, notes that not all practices are having explicit conversations about the tools with patients.Some GPs see AI scribes as a way to better connect with patients during consultations, allowing them to focus on the patient directly rather than typing notes. However, Dr. Caitlin Curtis, a University of Queensland researcher, warns that outsourcing note-keeping to AI may lead to doctors failing to retain and recall patient conversations.The RACGP president, Dr. Michael Wright, is optimistic about AI tools helping patients and GPs work more closely together, but emphasizes the need for patient consent and verification of AI output. Heidi co-founder Dr. Tom Kelly assures that data is processed securely and not used to train the AI or sold to others.

Recent headlines suggesting a Christian revival in Britain, based on a YouGov survey claiming increasing church attendance, have been dramatically undermined by the revelation that the data was fraudulent and subsequently withdrawn. This incident has sparked serious concerns about the integrity of polling data in an era of advancing artificial intelligence.The Bible Society's 2024 report, which claimed church attendance was rising particularly among young people, has become a case study in how AI-generated bogus responses are infesting online surveys. Researchers warn that this vulnerability extends beyond religious statistics to potentially distort our understanding of broader social trends.David Voas, a quantitative social scientist at University College London, emphasized the difficulty of correcting such misinformation once it spreads. "The amount of effort required to correct it is an order of magnitude higher than the effort needed to disseminate it in the first place," he stated, noting that this problem affects polling companies beyond just YouGov.The growth of AI has exacerbated this issue, according to Sean Westwood, an associate professor at Dartmouth College. "The assumption with survey research – that someone gives coherent, logical answers, they're a real person – that assumption is now broken," he explained. Westwood warned that AI models pose an existential threat to our understanding of society.Westwood detailed how AI can be weaponized: "A single sentence of instruction is enough to systematically bias its answers on political polls or geopolitical questions, while keeping its demographic profile intact so the manipulation is invisible to standard screening." Even without explicit instructions to cheat, AI can identify what a researcher is testing and produce data that confirms the hypothesis.The problem is particularly acute with surveys targeting younger demographics. Courtney Kennedy, vice-president of methods and innovation at Pew Research Center, noted that "bogus respondents tend to respond in the affirmative, no matter what is asked" – a positivity bias that inflates estimates. Younger respondents are also more likely to be misrepresented by fraudulent participants.As AI technology rapidly evolves, researchers face a constant challenge. "A researcher might design a clever new trap that catches today's models, but model development moves so fast that the fix is likely obsolete within months," Westwood cautioned.In response, YouGov has implemented detection methods including identity checks, device fingerprinting, and real-time threat scoring. However, the incident serves as a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities in modern polling systems as AI continues to advance.

Sarah Strong, the 6ft 2in UConn forward, is chasing her second championship in as many years with an undefeated squad that hasn’t lost in 52 games dating back to last year. As a freshman, Strong thrived defensively in the 2025 NCAA tournament, while scoring the most points by a freshman in tournament history with 114.In her second season, Strong has been even more dominant. Her impact on both sides of the ball is so deep that she was named the Big East Player of the Year and the Big East Defensive Player of the Year. She’s the favorite to win the National Player of the Year award next month.This season Strong averaged 18.4 points, 7.5 rebounds, 4.1 assists, and 3.3 steals all while shooting 60.0% from the field. UConn coach Geno Auriemma praised her unique ability to play like a guard and play like a big guy.Unlike other collegiate women’s players with similar talent, such as Caitlin Clark, there is nothing flashy about Strong. She plays with certainty and lets her game do the talking. Her media commitments are increasing, but she remains uncomfortable with the spotlight.Strong’s poise, calm, and off-the-charts IQ have produced results impossible to ignore. Her parents, including former WNBA player Allison Feaster, instilled in her a respect for the game and family values.UConn assistant Jamelle Elliott quietly scouted Strong in ninth grade before the hype arrived and she became the country’s top recruit. Auriemma agreed with Elliott’s assessment, noting that Strong already had the skills that great players learn over time.With her star growing rapidly, Strong has inked NIL deals with Jordan Brand, Unrivaled, and Madison Reed. She had 18 points in each game as UConn rolled to first- and second-round wins last week, setting up Friday’s Sweet 16 matchup with North Carolina.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has pledged to take on social media companies in a bid to protect children from addiction, as new guidelines recommend limiting screen time for children under five to no more than an hour a day. The guidelines, developed by a panel led by the children's commissioner, Rachel de Souza, and children's health expert Prof Russell Viner, advise that children under two should avoid screen time except for shared activities. Ministers are also exploring Australia-style measures to limit or ban social media for under-16s, as part of a broader effort to regulate social media companies and protect children. Starmer emphasized that regulating social media companies will require a 'fight' to ensure they do not prioritize profits over children's well-being. 'Some of this will require a fight,' he said. 'If we're going to do more to protect children, we're going to have to fight some of the platforms that are putting the material up there because they're putting this addictive stuff up there for a reason.' The guidelines advise families to avoid fast-paced social media-style videos and toys or tools that use artificial intelligence for children aged two to five. They also recommend screen-free bedtimes and mealtimes, and encourage shared screen activities like video calling or looking through photos together. According to the government, about 98% of children watch screens daily by the age of two. Infants with high screen time are less likely to be read to or go on outdoor trips, which can impact language development. Experts have welcomed the guidelines, with Dr. Mike McKean, vice-president for policy at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, saying they will help parents protect 'short, but developmentally crucial early years.'

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced plans to address addictive features in social media platforms, signaling a potential regulatory shift following a significant US court ruling that held Meta and YouTube accountable for harms caused by their technology designs.The prime minister emphasized that the recent California court verdict reflects rising public expectations for more aggressive regulation of social media platforms. "I'm absolutely clear that we need to go further," Starmer stated, adding that "the status quo isn't good enough" in terms of protecting children online.Starmer specifically mentioned that the government is consulting about banning social media for under-16s and expressed strong commitment to addressing addictive features within social media platforms. These remarks come amid growing international pressure on tech companies to address the potential harms of their products on young users.In the landmark US case, a California jury found Meta and YouTube negligent for failing to provide adequate warnings about the potential dangers of their platforms. The plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman who claimed she became addicted to social media during her childhood, was awarded $6 million (£4.5 million) in damages, with Meta responsible for 70% of the payment and YouTube covering the remainder.The Duke and Duchess of Sussex welcomed the verdict as "a reckoning" for tech companies, stating in a joint statement: "For too long, families have paid the price for platforms built with total disregard for the children they reach." They emphasized that "today, the truth has been heard and precedent has been set" regarding children's safety versus corporate profits.Both Google, which owns YouTube, and Meta have indicated they will challenge the decision. Google claimed the case "misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site," while Meta stated it "respectfully disagrees with the verdict and is evaluating our legal options." The verdict came after nine days of deliberation in the first lawsuit concerning social media's alleged harm to young people to reach trial.The ruling has resonated beyond the courtroom, with European Commission digital chief Henna Virkkunen noting that such cases send "a very clear message" to online platforms about the risks they pose. Campaigners for safer social media have celebrated the decision as a potential watershed moment in regulating platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and X.The Molly Rose Foundation, established after the death of 14-year-old Molly Russell who was exposed to harmful content on Instagram, called for legislation that would make "safety and wellbeing the price for tech firms to pay for doing business in the UK." Thomas Lancaster, a computing expert at Imperial College London, emphasized that policies must be effectively enforced to protect those they're designed to safeguard.Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, declared that "the era of big tech invincibility is over," suggesting that the verdict validates concerns about tech platforms' impact on young people that have been raised for years.

The WNBA has taken a major step forward with the unanimous ratification of a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) by its board of governors. This landmark deal, which has also been approved by the players, will run through 2032 and marks a significant improvement in player compensation. Under the terms of the new agreement, the minimum salary for players will be $270,000, a substantial increase from the maximum salary of about $250,000 last season. Top players will see their earnings rise dramatically, with the supermax salary set at $1.4 million. Additionally, the salary cap for each team will be $7 million, up from $1.5 million in 2025. WNBA Commissioner Cathy Engelbert hailed the agreement as the beginning of a 'bold new era' for the league, made possible by the collaboration of players, team owners, and the broader WNBA community. The league is set to capitalize on its growing momentum as it approaches its 30th season, which will tip off in May. With the CBA in place, teams are now gearing up for the regular season starting on May 8. This includes an expansion draft for new teams Toronto and Portland, followed by free agency and the college draft on April 13. Teams will begin training camp on April 19, leaving them little time to prepare for the season.

The United Kingdom's growing fascination with doodle breeds may require reconsideration following new research indicating that certain designer crossbreed dogs display more behavioral problems than their purebred ancestors.Crossbreeds between poodles and other canine varieties have surged in popularity across the UK, driven by the belief that these dogs will be hypoallergenic, healthy, and child-friendly.However, the study published in Plos One has discovered that cockapoos (cockerspaniel-poodle mixes) and cavapoos (cavalier king charles spaniel-poodle mixes) demonstrate more undesirable behaviors than their respective purebred parent breeds.The research team, led by scientists at the Royal Veterinary College, analyzed comprehensive data from 3,424 crossbreed and 5,978 purebred dogs through owner questionnaires focusing on cockapoo, labradoodle, cavapoo, cocker spaniel, labrador retriever, cavalier king charles spaniel, and poodle owners.The questionnaire assessed owner demographics, expectations, training methods, and included 73 behavioral questions that generated ratings across 12 different behavior scales.Cockapoos exhibited significantly more problematic behaviors than poodles on six different scales, including owner-directed aggression, stranger-directed aggression, dog rivalry, non-social fear, separation-related problems, and excitability.When compared to cocker spaniels, cockapoos additionally showed increased undesirable behaviors in dog-directed aggression, stranger-directed fear, dog-directed fear, and trainability.Cavapoos demonstrated different behavioral patterns compared to poodles on three scales and performed worse than cavalier king charles spaniels on eight of the nine scales where differences were observed.Labradoodles showed better behavioral scores than poodles across all six differing scales but performed worse than labradors on all five scales where differences were found.Professor Daniel Mills of the University of Lincoln, not involved in the study, emphasized that behavior results from the complex interaction between genetics and environment. He noted that cultural factors, including differences in owner behavior and training approaches between breeds, likely contribute significantly to the observed variations.The study authors recommend that potential dog owners should thoroughly investigate breed characteristics during pre-purchase research to avoid making uninformed decisions about breed selection.