Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

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.

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”.

Judith Rapoport, a leading child psychiatrist, passed away at 92, leaving a legacy defined by her groundbreaking work on obsessive‑compulsive disorder (OCD). Her 1989 book, The Boy Who Couldn’t Stop Washing, translated into more than twenty languages, presented complex research in a clear, jargon‑free style that resonated with a broad audience. OCD is characterized by compulsive rituals—re‑tying shoelaces, repeatedly checking switches, or incessant hand‑washing—that can dominate a person’s daily life. Before Rapoport’s book, many sufferers concealed their symptoms out of shame, unaware that they were not alone. Rapoport’s research demonstrated that OCD has a neurological foundation and may affect up to 2% of the population, challenging prevailing beliefs that it stemmed from overly strict parenting. She proved that the disorder can be hereditary and responsive to medication. In a pivotal 1989 double‑blind trial, she showed that the antidepressant clomipramine significantly reduced OCD symptoms, prompting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to approve its use for the condition—a landmark moment in psychiatric treatment. Patients and colleagues credit her work with reducing stigma. "Reading Rapoport’s book washed away my shame," recalled Charles Gentz, who lives with OCD, while Professor Gabrielle Shapiro of the Icahn School of Medicine noted that the book “reduced the stigma for these people.” Rapoport herself reflected, “If my work alleviated just part of their pain, then it was not wasted time.” Born in New York City to a schoolteacher mother and a businessman father, she grew up with a literary lineage—her grandfather translated Ibsen into Yiddish. She excelled academically, graduating magna cum laude from Swarthmore College in 1955** and earning her medical degree from Harvard Medical School in 1959, where she met her husband, Stanley Rapoport. After early positions at Mount Sinai and the Massachusetts Mental Health Center, she and her husband secured fellowships in Sweden, conducting research at Uppsala University and the Karolinska Institute on women seeking abortions abroad. Returning to the United States, Rapoport joined the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) in 1976. There she led the institute’s child psychiatry branch from 1984, steering American psychiatry away from Freudian models toward a **biology‑focused** approach. Beyond OCD, she made significant contributions to the understanding of attention‑deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and childhood schizophrenia. Her 1978 study revealed that amphetamine improved concentration in both hyperactive and control children, contradicting the notion that stimulants only calm hyperactivity. Using MRI, she showed that childhood schizophrenia is progressive, involving loss of brain matter—a finding that shifted the focus from parenting to neurobiology. Rapoport’s expertise reached mainstream audiences through appearances on shows hosted by Oprah Winfrey and Larry King, further amplifying her message. By the time she retired in 2017, she had authored over 300 scientific papers, several books, and earned prestigious honors, including fellowship in the Institute of Medicine (1991) and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2000). Colleague Gabrielle Shapiro described her as “a pioneer who turned child psychiatry into a modern, evidence‑based discipline.” Outside the laboratory, she enjoyed music, theatre, hiking, and gardening. She is survived by her husband, two sons, and four grandsons.

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."

The Artemis II crew, fresh from a record‑breaking lunar flyby, received an unexpected call from former President Donald Trump on Monday night. Facilitated by NASA administrator and Trump ally Jared Isaacman, the 12‑minute conversation was punctuated by long silences, anecdotes about Canadian hockey legend Wayne Gretzky, and the president’s claim that he had "saved NASA" from closure. Trump’s assertion sparked eyebrows among the astronauts, who had just set a new milestone as the farthest‑traveled humans from Earth. The president recounted a decision he allegedly faced in his first term: whether to revive or shut down the agency. "We’ve spent what we had to do," he said, implying the agency’s survival rested on his judgment. While Trump has publicly championed the Artemis program, his administration has repeatedly pursued deep cuts to NASA’s overall budget. In early 2025, the White House proposed a 24% reduction—bringing the budget down to $18.8 billion, the lowest level in a decade. Experts warned such cuts would constitute "extinction‑level" reductions to critical science programs. Congress, in a rare bipartisan move, rejected the proposed slashing and approved a near‑full budget of $24.4 billion in January. Yet, on 3 April 2026—just two days after Artemis II launched on the first crewed mission beyond low‑Earth orbit in over 50 years—Trump unveiled his FY 2027 budget request, again proposing a steep cut of 23% to NASA’s funding. Democratic leaders denounced the proposal as "morally bankrupt," while Isaacman issued a statement supporting the president’s fiscal stance, urging NASA staff to "leave the politics for the politicians and remain focused on the mission." During the call, Trump praised the crew’s "incredible journey into the stars" and claimed their mission had "inspired the entire world." He reiterated America’s ambition to lead space exploration, promising a permanent lunar base and eventual crewed missions to Mars. The conversation also featured a brief exchange with Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen, who highlighted the United States’ "intentional decision" to lead by example and collaborate with allies like Canada. Trump responded by recalling conversations with Gretzky, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, and other Canadian friends, emphasizing national pride. After a minute of awkward silence, Isaacman returned for a "comm‑check," and Trump reiterated his stories about Canadian contacts. The Artemis II commander, Reid Wiseman, acknowledged the president’s remarks with a polite, "Yes, Mr. President, we heard that." Trump concluded by extending an invitation to the four astronauts for an Oval Office reception following their scheduled splashdown in the Pacific on Friday. "I’ll ask Jared to bring you over, and I’ll ask for your autograph, because you deserve that," he said, adding he would "find the time" to salute the crew on behalf of the American people. Pilot Victor Glover responded enthusiastically, "When you want us, we will be there," and thanked the president for what he called a "really special" call. He highlighted the mission’s significance, noting it was made possible by both the American and Canadian peoples.

James Gunn's early feature film Slither, initially released in 2006, is being re-released in cinemas ahead of its 20th anniversary. The film, a comedy horror with a heavy focus on body horror, was Gunn's first feature-length project. At the time, it was met with commercial disappointment but has since garnered attention due to Gunn's subsequent success with major franchises such as Guardians of the Galaxy and Superman.The film's plot revolves around an alien lifeform that crash-lands on Earth and takes over a small town in South Carolina. The alien larvae, resembling flaccid phallic worms, infect the townspeople through various orifices, turning them into evil minions or hideously swollen incubators. The movie features Michael Rooker, Elizabeth Banks, and Nathan Fillion in key roles.Despite its thinly conceived science fiction elements and reliance on rubbery practical effects and lame jokes, which align more closely with the style of Troma, a production company where Gunn got his start, the film does showcase Gunn's early experimentation with comic timing and musical cues. A notable scene features a killing spree set to Air Supply's 'Every Woman in the World', a technique Gunn would later refine in his Guardians of the Galaxy films.The cast, including Michael Rooker and Elizabeth Banks, appears to be enjoying the film's humor, bringing some bright spots of wit and amusement to the movie. Slither is set to re-release in UK cinemas on April 10 and will be available on digital platforms from May 1.

In the run-up to the state assembly election in Assam, India, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is employing a strategy that combines Hindu nationalism with welfare schemes to woo voters.The party, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has been accused of pursuing a hardline Hindu supremacist agenda in Assam, coupled with a xenophobic campaign targeting the state's Muslim population, which constitutes 34% of Assam's 31 million people.At a recent election rally in Morigaon district, BJP leaders highlighted the welfare schemes launched by Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma's government, including a direct benefit transfer scheme called Orunodoi, which provides financial aid to women. Nitin Nabin, the BJP's national president, claimed these schemes benefited the Assamese people, especially women.The BJP's strategy in Assam has been described as a 'cocktail of Hindutva and welfarism' by Akhil Ranjan Dutta, a political science professor at Assam's Gauhati University. 'The BJP is experimenting with a brand of Hindutva by co-opting Indigenous armed struggle and cultural nationalism, while solidifying Hindu identity and othering the Bengali Muslims.'The party's election promises have heightened anxiety among Bengali-speaking Muslims, who fear more crackdowns on their community, including a proposal to implement a Uniform Civil Code, which critics say will override Muslim personal laws.Opposition parties and analysts argue that the BJP is mainly milking two cash transfer schemes – Orunodoi and Udyamita – to influence voters in this election. Economist Joydeep Baruah estimates that at least 10 to 15% of the scheme's four million women beneficiaries could vote for the BJP.The BJP's tactics have been criticized by opposition parties and human rights groups, who accuse the party of vote buying and polarizing the electorate along communal lines.

The B Corp certification, a coveted ethical status for companies, has undergone its biggest overhaul in 19 years. B Lab, the organisation behind the certification, has raised the standards required to qualify, putting dozens of companies at risk of losing their status. Previously, companies could make up for poor performance in one area by scoring highly in another. However, the new system requires companies to meet 'non-negotiable' standards in every one out of seven categories, with attainment verified by a third-party audit. The overhaul has been partly motivated by changes to EU law that require companies boasting of any ethical standard, including B Corp status, to be rubber-stamped by an external organisation. Sources familiar with the process said that some of the 10,000 companies that have the status will need to improve ethical standards to recertify, which they must do every three years. Analysis by the Guardian of the publicly available B Corp database suggests hundreds are already at, or close to, the 80-point threshold required, even under the old, less onerous system. Of more than 2,000 UK B Corps, more than 60 score exactly 80 points, including the Kent-based digital marketing agency Sleeping Giant Media and VoucherCodes, a website that provides details of discount offers from leading brands. Larger companies will face more extensive requirements under the new standard, including declaring their tax policies and setting science-based emissions targets across all areas of the business. One source said the changes could even affect companies that now score highly, such as the private bank Coutts, which has a score of 107.6 and does not have to recertify until 2028. B Lab UK said: 'Our goal is not for every business to become a B Corp, but for every business to behave like one.'

Utah has enacted a law that effectively shields fossil fuel companies from legal accountability for climate damages. The legislation, signed by Republican Governor Spencer Cox, limits the ability of residents to sue these companies for their role in contributing to climate change. The new law is part of a broader effort by the fossil fuel industry and its allies to secure legal immunity in statehouses and Congress. This push is aimed at countering a wave of litigation filed by states, subnational governments, and individuals who claim that fossil fuel companies knew their products would cause climate damages but sold them anyway. Critics argue that the law prioritizes profits for the biggest polluters over communities already suffering from climate impacts. The law requires challengers to provide 'clear and convincing evidence' that damage or injury has resulted directly from a violation, making it virtually impossible to successfully sue polluters for climate damages. The legislation was sponsored by Republican Representative Carl Albrecht, who has received funding from oil and gas interests. Albrecht's ties to the industry have raised concerns about the bill's motivations. The law closely mirrors a model policy called the Energy Freedom Act, circulated by the conservative group Consumers Defense, which has financial ties to a group linked to Leonard Leo, a key figure in the far-right takeover of the Supreme Court. The passage of Utah's law comes as climate lawsuits against big oil companies are inching closer to trial. Seventy cities, states, and individuals have sued energy majors for allegedly deceiving the public about the climate crisis. New York and Vermont have also passed climate 'superfund' laws requiring major polluters to pay for damages caused by their past planet-heating pollution. Lawmakers and advocates have amassed evidence that oil companies intentionally covered up the climate harms of their products. Climate science continues to warn that fossil fuels are the primary cause of dangerous global warming. Critics argue that the fossil fuel industry is pushing for immunity because it knows it cannot win on the merits of its case.