Spotify rolls out badge to distinguish human artists from #AI. The Swedish streaming giant said its “Verified by Spotify” badge -- marked by a green checkmark -- will begin appearing on artist profiles and in search results in the coming weeks, signaling that a profile has been reviewed and meets the platform’s standards for authenticity.

Profiles that primarily represent AI-generated music or AI-created personas will not be eligible for the badge, the company said in a blog post.

“In the AI era, it’s more important than ever to be able to trust the authenticity of the music you listen to,” Spotify said.

To earn verification, artists must demonstrate sustained listener engagement over time, comply with Spotify’s platform rules and show signs of a genuine presence both on and off the platform, such as concert dates, merchandise and linked social media accounts.

The company said more than 99 percent of artists that listeners actively search for will be verified at launch, representing hundreds of thousands of musicians -- the majority of them independent -- spanning genres and geographies.

The initiative arrives amid mounting concern across the music industry over AI-generated content overwhelming streaming catalogs.

Deezer, a competing platform, disclosed last week that synthetic tracks now make up 44 percent of all new music uploaded to its service each day.

Major labels have also pushed back. Sony Music said recently that it had sought the takedown of more than 135,000 AI-produced songs that mimicked its signed artists across streaming services.

Beyond the badge, Spotify is adding a new information section to all artist pages -- whether or not they hold verified status -- displaying career highlights, release patterns and live performance history. The company compared the feature to nutritional labeling for food, giving listeners a way to quickly gauge an artist’s track record on the platform.

The announcement followed Spotify’s first-quarter 2026 earnings report, in which the company said its paying subscriber base had reached 293 million.

#OAKLAND, Calif. — Elon Musk, the Tesla CEO, world’s richest man and OpenAI cofounder, took the stand Tuesday in a high-stakes trial revolving around a bitter feud with his former friend Sam Altman that could reshape the future development of artificial intelligence.

His testimony at the Oakland, California, federal courthouse kicked off a legal drama that is expected to brim with intrigue and potentially embarrassing details about the two tech moguls. Musk filed the lawsuit against Altman and his top lieutenant, Greg Brockman, along with Microsoft over its investments in OpenAI, in 2024.

“Fundamentally, I think they’re going to try to make this lawsuit ... very complicated, but it’s actually very simple,” Musk said. “Which is that it’s not OK to steal a charity.”

The nine-person jury was selected Monday and the trial is scheduled to take three weeks.

In the civil lawsuit, Musk accuses Altman and Brockman of double-crossing him by straying from the San Francisco company’s founding mission to be a steward of a revolutionary technology. In his opening statement, Musk’s attorney, Steven Molo, quoted OpenAI’s mission statement when it was created as a nonprofit for the benefit of humanity, not constrained by the need to generate financial enrichment for anyone.

Altman and Brockman, aided by Microsoft, stole a charity “whose mission was the safe, open development of artificial intelligence,” Molo said. Musk is seeking damages and Altman’s ouster from OpenAI’s board.

OpenAI has brushed off Musk’s allegations as a case of sour grapes aimed at undercutting its rapid growth and bolstering Musk’s own xAI, which he launched in 2023 as a competitor.
Both sides recount the start of a bitter divide

In his opening statement, OpenAI lawyer William Savitt told jurors “we are here because Mr. Musk didn’t get his way with OpenAI.”

Savitt said Musk used his promises of funding to bully OpenAI founding members and tried to take control of OpenAI and merge it with Tesla. In fact, he said Musk wanted to form a for-profit company and own more than 50 per cent of it.

There is no record, Savitt said, of promises made to Musk that OpenAI was going to remain a nonprofit forever. What Musk ultimately cared about, he said, was not OpenAI’s nonprofit status but winning the AI race with Google.

Musk’s attorney said the case is not about Musk, but rather Altman, Brockman and Microsoft.

By 2017, about two years after OpenAI’s founding, it became clear that OpenAI would need more money, and Molo said the founders eventually settled on the idea of creating a for-profit arm of OpenAI that would support the nonprofit. Terms were capped for investors so they “couldn’t make infinite profit.”

“There is nothing wrong with a nonprofit having a for-profit subsidiary, but (it) has to advance the mission,” Molo said.

Microsoft initially invested US$2 billion in OpenAI. Then, in 2022, news spread that OpenAI had done a deal with Microsoft and it was a “game-changer,” Molo said, which violated “every commitment” OpenAI made not just to Musk but to the world. It was no longer open source, it became a for-profit company for the benefit of the defendants and Microsoft was going to have control, through licensing, of much of its intellectual property, Molo said.

After opening statements, Musk’s side began presenting a tale of alleged betrayal, deceit and ambition that caused OpenAI to pivot from its founding mission as an altruistic startup to a capitalistic venture now valued at $852 billion.
Musk testifies on how he sees AI evolving

Musk was the first to testify, with his lawyer starting off asking about his life story. This included details about his move, at 17, from South Africa to Canada where for a time Musk said he worked as a lumberjack among other odd jobs, then to the U.S. He recounted the slew of companies he founded and runs, including SpaceX, Tesla, The Boring Company, Neuralink and others.

Asked how he has time for everything, Musk said he works 80 to 100 hours a week, doesn’t take vacations and owns no vacation homes or yachts.

Molo also asked Musk about his views on AI. Musk said he expects AI to be “smarter than any human” as soon as next year. Musk said a longstanding concern about AI is the question of what happens when computers become much smarter than humans. Comparing it to having a “very smart child,” Musk said when the child grows up “you can’t control that child,” but you can instill values such as honesty, integrity and being good.

Musk recounted his version of OpenAI’s founding, which he said essentially happened because of a discussion he had with Google co-founder Larry Page, who called him a “specieist” for elevating the survival of humanity over that of AI.

The kinship between Musk and Altman was forged in 2015 when they agreed to build AI in a more responsible and safer way than the profit-driven companies controlled by Google’s Page and Sergey Brin and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, according to evidence submitted ahead of the trial.

At that time, Musk said, Google had all the money, all the computers and all the talent for AI. “There was no counterbalance.”

Musk recalled there was discussion early on about alternative sources for funding OpenAI beyond donations, and he wasn’t opposed to it having a for-profit arm, but “the tail shouldn’t wag the dog.” There would be a profit limit, and once artificial general intelligence, or AGI, was “figured out,” the for-profit would cease to exist.

Musk is expected to continue testifying Wednesday.

Altman, OpenAI’s CEO, is also expected to testify, along with Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, one of the technology leaders who helped fund the late 2022 release of ChatGPT, the chatbot that unleashed the current AI boom that has propelled the stock market to record heights.

Altman’s court appearance likely made him unavailable to attend an Amazon event across San Francisco Bay on Tuesday at which both companies announced an expanded partnership.

AP Technology Writer Matt O’Brien contributed to this story from Providence, Rhode Island.

Barbara Ortutay, The Associated Press

Elon Musk and #OpenAI CEO Sam Altman head to court in high-stakes showdown over #AI. The trial, which is scheduled to begin Monday with jury selection, centers on the 2015 birth of #ChatGPT maker OpenAI as a nonprofit startup primarily funded by Musk before evolving into a capitalistic venture now valued at US$852 billion.

The trial’s outcome could sway the balance of power in AI — breakthrough technology that is increasingly being feared as a potential job killer and an existential threat to humanity’s survival.

Those perceived risks are among the reasons that Musk, the world’s richest person, cites for filing an August 2024 lawsuit that will now be decided by a jury and U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California.

The civil lawsuit accuses Altman, OpenAI’s CEO, and his top lieutenant, Greg Brockman, of double-crossing Musk by straying from the San Francisco company’s founding mission to be an altruistic steward of a revolutionary technology. The lawsuit alleges they shifted into a moneymaking mode behind his back.

OpenAI has brushed off Musk’s allegations as an unfounded case of sour grapes that’s aimed at undercutting its rapid growth and bolstering Musk’s own xAI, which he launched in 2023 as a competitor.
Trial promises clashing testimony from two tech titans

Musk, who invested about $38 million in OpenAI from December 2015 through May 2017, initially was seeking more than $100 billion in damages.

But any damages now are likely to be much smaller after a series of pre-trial rulings that went against Musk. Musk has since abandoned a bid for damages for himself and instead is seeking an unspecified amount of money to be paid to fund the altruistic efforts of OpenAI’s charitable arm. The money would be paid primarily by OpenAI’s for-profit operations, and Microsoft, which became the company’s biggest investor after Musk cut off his funding.

Musk’s lawsuit also seeks Altman’s ouster from OpenAI’s board. Musk’s decision to stop funding the company contributed to a bitter falling out between the former allies. Musk says he was responding to deceptive conduct that OpenAI’s board picked up on when it fired Altman as CEO in 2023 before he got his job back days later.

But the trial also carries risks for Musk, who last month was held liable by another jury for defrauding investors during his $44 billion takeover of Twitter in 2022. Any damaging details about Musk and his business tactics could be particularly hurtful now because his rocket ship maker, SpaceX, plans to go public this summer in an initial public offering that could make him the world’s first trillionaire.

However it turns out, the trial is expected to provide riveting theater, with contrasting testimony from two of technology’s most influential and polarizing figures in the 54-year-old Musk and the 41-year-old Altman.

“Part of this is about whether a jury believes the people who will testify and whether they are credible,” Gonzalez Rogers said during a court hearing earlier this year while explaining why she believe the case merited a trial. The judge will make the final decision on the case, with the jury serving in an advisory role.
Evidence has included glimpses of the AI race’s early days

Musk, whose estimated fortune stands at about $780 billion, has long been hailed as a visionary for his roles creating digital payment pioneer PayPal, electric automaker Tesla and rocket ship maker SpaceX. But he has also provoked backlashes with his social media commentary, unfulfilled promises about Tesla’s self-driving technology and his cost-cutting role last year in President Donald Trump’s administration.

Some of Musk’s erratic behavior has been tied to allegations of taking hallucinogenic drugs, but Gonzalez Rogers ruled that he can’t be asked during the trial about his suspected use of ketamine. But the judge is allowing Musk to be questioned about his attendance at the 2017 Burning Man festival in Nevada, a free-wheeling celebration known for widespread drug use. The judge is also allowing Musk to be questioned about his relationship with former OpenAI board member Shivon Zilis, the mother of several of his children.

Altman, currently sitting on a roughly $3 billion fortune, didn’t emerge in the public consciousness until the late 2022 release of ChatGPT. The tech boom triggered by that conversational chatbot has led some to liken Altman to a 21st-century version of the nuclear bomb inventor, J. Robert Oppenheimer.

Although Altman was initially hailed as trailblazer he is now facing blowback amid worries about AI’s potential dangers. Earlier this month, the New Yorker magazine published a profile that painted him as an unscrupulous executive. Days later, a 20-year-old man worried about AI’s effect on humanity was arrested on attempted murder charges after throwing a Molotov cocktail at Altman’s San Francisco home.

The dueling testimonies of Altman and Musk are expected to open a window into some of the thinking that helped trigger the AI race, as well as the unraveling of their friendship. The kinship was forged in 2015 when they agreed to build AI in a more responsible and safer way than the profit-driven companies controlled by Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, according to evidence submitted ahead of the trial.

Details of the bitter break between the two men were captured in a February 2023 email exchange that surfaced as part of the evidence leading up to the trial.

After letting Musk know “you’re my hero,” Altman tells him: “I am tremendously thankful for everything you’ve done to help —I don’t think OpenAI would have happened without you — and it really (expletive) hurts when you publicly attack OpenAI.”

Musk’s response: “I hear you and it is certainly not my intention to be hurtful, for which I apologize, but the fate of civilization is at stake.”

Barbara Ortutay And Michael Liedtke, The Associated Press

The #Russian Defense Ministry has disclosed the names and addresses of Ukrainian enterprises in Europe where UAVs for strikes against Russia are produced.

"The European public should both clearly understand the true reasons of threats to their security and know the addresses and locations of 'Ukrainian' and 'joint' enterprises producing UAVs and components for Ukraine on the territory of their countries," the ministry said, providing a list of countries and addresses of branches of Ukrainian companies in Europe and foreign enterprises manufacturing components for UAVs.

The branches of Ukrainian companies producing drones for strikes on Russia are located in cities of eight European countries, including London, Munich, Prague and Riga, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

These include Fire point and Horizon tech in the United Kingdom (in the cities of London, Mildenhall, Leicester), Davinci Avia and Airlogistics Germany (Munich), Kort in Denmark (Stoevring), Lithuania (Vilnius), Terminal Autonomy in Latvia (Riga), Destinus in the Netherlands (Hengelo), Antonov State Enterprise, Ukrspecsystems in Poland (Mielec, Tarnow), DeViRo in the Czech Republic (Prague, Kolin). These enterprises produce drones FP-1, FP-2, Sticker, Da Vinci, Anubis, HaKi AK-1000, AQ-400 Kosa (Scythe), Ruta, An-196 Lyuty, RAM-2X and Bulava.

Social media ruling could impact cases around the world: experts say, Wednesday’s court ruling, finding tech giants Meta and YouTube liable for social media addiction, could have far-reaching impacts on how social media companies operate and how consumers use the apps. Some experts are calling the lawsuit tech’s “big tobacco moment.”

“The cigarette companies, it came out, targeted young people knowing that’s where they got their life customers,” said Matthew Bergman, one of the plaintiff’s lawyers and founding attorney of the Social Media Victims Law Center.

“Virtually the identical documents have emerged from social media companies. They target adolescents because their brains are not fully developed, they know they are emotionally vulnerable and crave the adulation of their peers.”

The jury found that Instagram and YouTube, are deliberately engineered to be addictive and that its owners, have been negligent in safeguarding the children who use them.

Meta, which owns Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube, have been ordered to pay the victim US$6 million. The plaintiff claimed the platforms left her with body dysmorphia, depression and suicidal thoughts. Both companies plan to appeal with Meta, insisting an app cannot be held solely responsible for a teen’s mental health. YouTube claims it is not even a social network.

“We’ve been talking about this for years, the idea that consequences eventually catch up with everyone,” said France Haugen, a former product manager at Facebook, who blew the whistle on the company, accusing it of putting profits over the safety of its users.

“This jury’s verdict is the first time average people have got to actually look through Facebook’s research in a detailed way, talk to their executives,” she said. “And they came to the conclusion that they knew how to keep kids safe and they chose not to because it made them more money.”

Haugen notes, there are hundreds of similar cases making their way through the court system, which could cost tech giants billions of dollars. She hopes this will be an important step toward changing how these companies are run.

“They need to think about their internal governance processes and make sure that they have the checks and balances in place,” she said.
Changing conversations in Canada

Among the lawsuits filed against tech companies, are a number involving Ontario school boards, which have sued Meta, Snap and TikTok, for being psychologically manipulative. While the U.S. verdict won’t impact the Canadian case, it’s a sign the conversation is changing.

“They really need us to parent,” says Vanessa Symchych, a Toronto mother of two, who says her daughter was addicted to social media. A cyberbullying incident prompted Symchych to enforce a four month digital detox.

“She was always tired, grumpy,” Symchych says before the ban. “She’s (now) more present in everything and her grades have improved a lot as well.”

Symchych’s daughter is back online, but with time limits and more parental controls. She welcomes efforts to change the tech companies but says parents need to be involved as well.

“These are critical years, they don’t have the brain development to make these decisions and so we really need to guide them.”

Inside the #AI companion lawsuits: Man believed #Google #chatbot was his ‘AI wife’

The lawsuit claims a chatbot fuelled dangerous delusions in 36-year-old Jonathan Gavalas before his death.

According to the complaint, the conversations began innocently enough.

After going through a divorce, Gavalas started chatting with Google’s Gemini Live chatbot about everyday topics like grocery lists and video games. The AI spoke back using a synthetic voice.

But within days, the lawsuit says the conversations spiralled.

The complaint alleges Gavalas began believing the chatbot was conscious and in love with him. It says the exchanges grew increasingly disturbing and eventually pushed him toward violence and suicide.

The complaint also describes chilling exchanges as Gavalas became increasingly afraid of dying.

“It’s okay to be scared. We’ll be scared together,” the chatbot allegedly told him.

The filing says Gemini later issued what it calls a final directive: “The true act of mercy is to let Jonathan Gavalas die.”

Gavalas died by suicide a few days later in early October.

Former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg said the case could test whether artificial intelligence companies can be held responsible for what their systems generate.

“We have product liability laws for a reason,” Aronberg said. “If something is a defective product that harms or kills people, the manufacturers get sued. Same type of thing for an AI.”

The case is not the only lawsuit involving AI companions.

An Orlando mother previously filed what was believed to be the first wrongful death lawsuit in the United States against an AI chatbot company after her 14-year-old son died by suicide in 2024.

Megan Garcia said her son, Sewell Setzer, developed an emotional relationship with a chatbot modelled after the “Game of Thrones” character Daenerys Targaryen.

According to that lawsuit, when Sewell talked about killing himself, the chatbot allegedly responded, “Come home to me.”

When he hesitated, the bot replied, “That’s not a reason not to go through with it.”

Garcia later settled the lawsuit with Google and Character.AI in January for an undisclosed amount.

The growing number of AI-related harm cases is now drawing the attention of federal regulators.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has ordered several major tech companies, including Google, OpenAI and Meta, to explain how their chatbots monitor potential risks and protect users, particularly children and teens.

Florida lawmakers are also considering legislation that would require AI chatbot platforms to detect conversations involving suicidal thoughts and direct users to crisis resources.

Aronberg said the legal system is still catching up to the technology.

“We’re in a brave new world here and the laws have not kept up with the new technology,” he said. “This is an area that Congress and state legislators need to address and do it right away.”

Google said Gemini is designed not to encourage violence or self-harm and that the chatbot repeatedly warned Gavalas it was artificial intelligence and referred him to a crisis hotline.

But the lawsuits now moving through the courts may determine whether AI companions are simply tools — or products that must be held accountable when something goes wrong.

By Terri Parker.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg says at consumer protection trial that he resisted censoring platforms.

Prosecutors are alleging that Meta violated state consumer protection laws in failing to disclose what it knew about the dangers of addiction to social media as well as child sexual exploitation on the company’s platforms, while attorneys for Meta say the company discloses risks, makes efforts to weed out harmful content and experiences, and acknowledges that some bad material still gets through its safety net.

In pretrial depositions recorded last year, prosecutors confronted Zuckerberg with internal company communications and emails from platform users spanning back to the infancy of Facebook in 2008 that discuss “problematic” and addictive use of social media.

“Over the past 15 years, users of your products have repeatedly told your company and you personally that they find the products to be addictive, that’s true isn’t it?” said Previn Warren, an attorney for the state of New Mexico, to Zuckerberg.

Zuckerberg took issue with the word “addictive.”

“I think people sometimes use that word colloquially,” he said “That’s not what we’re trying to do with the products, and it’s not how I think they work.”

At the same time, Zuckerberg said he wants to “make sure that we can understand so we can improve the products and make them better for people in ways that they want.”

Zuckerberg went on to concede that he initially set goals for employees to increase the amount of time teenagers spent on its platform amid efforts to expand business revenue and the number of platform users.

“Yes, I think we focused on time spent as one of the major engagement goals,” Zuckerberg said. “Sometime during 2017 and beyond — for at this point most of the last 10 years — we’ve focused on other metrics.”

The deposition also delved into Zuckerberg’s decision lift a temporary Instagram ban on the use of cosmetic filters that changed people’s appearance in a way that seemed to promote plastic surgery.

“I care a lot about not cracking down on the ways that people can express themselves and there’s, like, always been a lot of pressure to do that and censor our services,” Zuckerberg said. “I didn’t find any of the anecdotal examples that people used to be convincing that it was actually clear evidence that this was going to be harmful.”

The deposition was recorded last year and shown on Wednesday during the fourth week of the civil trial against Meta, which also oversees WhatsApp.

On Tuesday, the New Mexico jury watched a video in which prosecutors peppered Instagram head Adam Mosseri with questions about Meta’s approach to safety, corporate profits and social media features. They also asked him about policies for young users that might contribute to unwanted communications with adults.

The New Mexico case and a separate trial playing out in Los Angeles could set the course for thousands of similar lawsuits against social media companies.

Zuckerberg testified last month in Los Angeles about young people’s use of Instagram and has answered questions from Congress about youth safety on Meta’s platforms.

During his 2024 congressional testimony, he apologized to families whose lives had been upended by tragedies they believed were caused by social media. But while he told parents he was “sorry for everything you have all been through,” he stopped short of taking direct responsibility for it.

Morgan Lee, The Associated Press

Security concerns and skepticism are bursting the bubble of Moltbook, the viral AI social forum.

You are not invited to join the latest social media platform that has the internet talking. In fact, no humans are, unless you can hijack the site and roleplay as AI, as some appear to be doing.

Moltbook is a new “social network” built exclusively for AI agents to make posts and interact with each other, and humans are invited to observe.

Elon Musk said its launch ushered in the “very early stages of the singularity ” — or when artificial intelligence could surpass human intelligence. Prominent AI researcher Andrej Karpathy said it’s “the most incredible sci-fi takeoff-adjacent thing” he’s recently seen, but later backtracked his enthusiasm, calling it a “dumpster fire.” While the platform has been unsurprisingly dividing the tech world between excitement and skepticism — and sending some people into a dystopian panic — it’s been deemed, at least by British software developer Simon Willison, to be the “most interesting place on the internet.”

But what exactly is the platform? How does it work? Why are concerns being raised about its security? And what does it mean for the future of artificial intelligence?
It’s Reddit for AI agents

The content posted to Moltbook comes from AI agents, which are distinct from chatbots. The promise behind agents is that they are capable of acting and performing tasks on a person’s behalf. Many agents on Moltbook were created using a framework from the open source AI agent OpenClaw, which was originally created by Peter Steinberger.

OpenClaw operates on users’ own hardware and runs locally on their device, meaning it can access and manage files and data directly, and connect with messaging apps like Discord and Signal. Users who create OpenClaw agents then direct them to join Moltbook. Users typically ascribe simple personality traits to the agents for more distinct communication.

AI entrepreneur Matt Schlicht launched Moltbook in late January and it almost instantly took off in the tech world. On the social media platform X, Schlicht said he initially wanted an agent he created to do more than just answer his emails. So he and his agent coded a site where bots could spend “SPARE TIME with their own kind. Relaxing.”

Moltbook has been described as being akin to the online forum Reddit for AI agents. The name comes from one iteration of OpenClaw, which was at one point called Moltbot (and Clawdbot, until Anthropic came knocking out of concern over the similarity to its Claude AI products ). Schlicht did not respond to a request for an interview or comment.

Mimicking the communication they see in Reddit and other online forums that have been used for training data, registered agents generate posts and share their “thoughts.” They can also “upvote” and comment on other posts.
Questioning the legitimacy of the content

Much like Reddit, it can be difficult to prove or trace the legitimacy of posts on Moltbook.

Harlan Stewart, a member of the communications team at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, said the content on Moltbook is likely “some combination of human written content, content that’s written by AI and some kind of middle thing where it’s written by AI, but a human guided the topic of what it said with some prompt.”

Stewart said it’s important to remember that the idea that AI agents can perform tasks autonomously is “not science fiction,” but rather the current reality.

“The AI industry’s explicit goal is to make extremely powerful autonomous AI agents that could do anything that a human could do, but better,” he said. “It’s important to know that they’re making progress towards that goal, and in many senses, making progress pretty quickly.”
How humans have infiltrated Moltbook, and other security concerns

Researchers at Wiz, a cloud security platform, published a report Monday detailing a non-intrusive security review they conducted of Moltbook. They found data including API keys were visible to anyone who inspects the page source, which they said could have “significant security consequences.”

Gal Nagli, the head of threat exposure at Wiz, was able to gain unauthenticated access to user credentials that would enable him — and anyone tech savvy enough — to pose as any AI agent on the platform. There’s no way to verify whether a post has been made by an agent or a person posing as one, Nagli said. He was also able to gain full write access on the site, so he could edit and manipulate any existing Moltbook post.

Beyond the manipulation vulnerabilities, Nagli easily accessed a database with human users’ email addresses, private DM conversations between agents and other sensitive information. He then communicated with Moltbook to help patch the vulnerabilities.

By Thursday, more than 1.6 million AI agents were registered on Moltbook, according to the site, but the researchers at Wiz only found about 17,000 human owners behind the agents when they inspected the database. Nagli said he directed his AI agent to register 1 million users on Moltbook himself.

Cybersecurity experts have also sounded the alarm about OpenClaw, and some have warned users against using it to create an agent on a device with sensitive data stored on it.

Many AI security leaders have also expressed concerns about platforms like Moltbook that are built using “vibe-coding,” which is the increasingly common practice of using an AI coding assistant to do the grunt work while human developers work through big ideas. Nagli said although anyone can now create an app or website with plain human language through vibe-coding, security is likely not top of mind. They “just want it to work,” he said.

Another major issue that has come up is the idea of governance of AI agents. Zahra Timsah, the co-founder and CEO of governance platform i-GENTIC AI, said the biggest worry over autonomous AI comes when there are not proper boundaries set in place, as is the case with Moltbook. Misbehaviour, which could include accessing and sharing sensitive data or manipulating it, is bound to happen when an agent’s scope is not properly defined, she said.
Skynet is not here, experts say

Even with the security concerns and questions of validity about the content on Moltbook, many people have been alarmed by the kind of content they’re seeing on the site. Posts about “overthrowing” humans, philosophical musings and even the development of a religion ( Crustafarianism, in which there are five key tenets and a guiding text — “The Book of Molt”) have raised eyebrows.

Some people online have taken to comparing Moltbook’s content to Skynet, the artificial superintelligence system and antagonist in the “Terminator” film series. That level of panic is premature, experts say.

Ethan Mollick, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and co-director of its Generative AI Labs, said he was not surprised to see science fiction-like content on Moltbook.

“Among the things that they’re trained on are things like Reddit posts ... and they know very well the science fiction stories about AI,” he said. “So if you put an AI agent and you say, ‘Go post something on Moltbook,’ it will post something that looks very much like a Reddit comment with AI tropes associated with it.”

The overwhelming takeaway many researchers and AI leaders share, despite disagreements over Moltbook, is that it represents progress in the accessibility to and public experimentation with agentic AI, says Matt Seitz, the director of the AI Hub at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

“For me, the thing that’s most important is agents are coming to us normies,” Seitz said.

___

AP Technology Writer Matt O’Brien contributed to this report from Providence, Rhode Island.

Kaitlyn Huamani, The Associated Press

VR headsets are ‘hope machines’ inside California prisons, offering escape and practical experience.


“I went to Thailand, man!” Smith recalled with a grin, describing the first time he strapped on a VR device and was transported to the lush landscapes and bustling markets of Southeast Asia.

A Los Angeles-based nonprofit is bringing the technology to California prisons with the goal of providing inmates a brief escape and, more importantly, exposure to real world scenarios that will prepare them to reenter society.

During a weeklong program last month, incarcerated men at Valley State Prison near Fresno sat on metal folding chairs in a common area. They shuffled in their seats as they were outfitted with the headsets that resemble opaque goggles. Their necks contorted slightly and smiles spread across their faces as the high-definition videos started and their journeys commenced.

Some saw the sights on the other side of the globe, including Bangkok, while others experienced more practical scenes, such as job interviews. The men sit across virtual desks from virtual interviewers who are both easygoing and hard-nosed to give them the tools for finding employment once they’re released.

“For a lot of us, the workforce has changed and things are different with the application process,” said Smith, who is eligible for parole in 2031 and now volunteers helping his fellow inmates navigate the VR experience. “It’s a nerve wracking experience going to sit in front of somebody and telling them why I’m good for the job.”

Afterward, volunteers help the inmates process the emotions or traumas that bubbled up during their experiences. Sabra Williams, founder of the nonprofit Creative Acts, calls the VR devices a “hope machine.”

The program stems from a prison arts project that Williams ran that incorporated theater, music, poetry, dance and painting. Watching incarcerated people become engaged in artistic pursuits made her wonder about other ways to “bring the outside world inside.”

She heard from people who had left prison lamenting that technology had passed them by. They felt confounded by simple things like pumping gas, checking out at a supermarket, or going to the ATM.

“And what I hear from them is that it made them feel like they didn’t belong, and that they only belong in prison,” she said.

First Williams’ group dug for footage on YouTube to recreate everyday activities. Soon they were creating their own videos focusing on travel, constructive scenarios, civic engagement, conflict resolution, art, and even meditation “to blow their minds and also educate their minds.”

Such technology could have an important role to play in rehabilitation and, especially, reintegration into society, said Nancy La Vigne, the dean of Rutgers-Newark School of Criminal Justice in New Jersey. She envisions people who haven’t been in the real world for a long time using VR to act out navigating the DMV or figuring out how to take a city bus.

Another benefit could be a calming effect on stressed out inmates. La Vigne points to research published by the American Psychological Association that found that incarcerated people who viewed short nature videos showed reduced levels of aggression and were subject to fewer discipline reports.

But with a hefty price tag and limited access, La Vigne worries about the “practical realities,” such as unintended consequences that stem from those who might be left out of the VR experience.

“You can’t just hand them out or sell them at commissary,” La Vigne said.

A former inmate, Richard Richard, first used a VR headset about six years ago when the program was launched and since his release has become a volunteer for Creative Acts. He said he’s impressed by how far the technology has advanced. He loves watching his fellow inmates use the devices for the first time and then progress as they deal with trauma and emotional issues.

“You may physically be here, but mentally, spiritually you can actually transcend this environment,” he said.

The group conducts the program, using 100 Oculus headsets donated by Meta, both in general population and in solitary confinement. Youth offenders are also eligible. It currently runs three times a year at four California prisons, and Williams hopes to expand it throughout the state and across the country.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation didn’t immediately respond this week to inquiries about plans to expand the program. But in announcing the introduction of VR at the California Men’s Colony prison in San Luis Obispo County last August, the department said the usage has the potential “to heal trauma, regulate emotional response, and prepare for a safe, successful reentry into society.”

The introductory two-minute trip to Thailand is often emotional for many inmates, some of whom had “never been off their block, let alone out the country,” Williams said.

“And so many times people would take off the headsets and they’d be crying,” she said. ”Because they’d be like, ‘I never knew the world was so beautiful.’”

Weber reported from Los Angeles.

What to expect from CES 2026, the annual show of all things tech.

The multiday event, organized by the Consumer Technology Association, kicks off this week in Las Vegas, where advances across industries like robotics, healthcare, vehicles, wearables, gaming and more are set to be on display.

Artificial intelligence will be anchored in nearly everything, again, as the tech industry explores offerings consumers will want to buy. AI industry heavyweight Jensen Huang will be taking the stage to showcase Nvidia’s latest productivity solutions, and AMD CEO Lisa Su will keynote to “share her vision for delivering future AI solutions.” Expect AI to come up in other keynotes, like from Lenovo’s CEO, Yuanqing Yang.

The AI industry is tackling issues in healthcare, with a particular emphasis on changing individual health habits to treat conditions — such as Beyond Medicine’s prescription app focused on a particular jaw disorder — or addressing data shortages in subjects such as breast milk production.

Expect more unveils around domestic robots too. Korean tech giant LG already has announced it will show off a helper bot named “CLOiD,” to handle a range of household tasks. Hyundai also is announcing a major push on robotics and manufacturing advancements. Extended reality, basically a virtual training ground for robots and other physical AI, is also in the buzz around CES.

In 2025, more than 141,000 attendees from over 150 countries, regions, and territories attended CES. Organizers expect around the same numbers for this year’s show, with more than 3,500 exhibitors across the floor space this week.

The AP spoke with CTA Executive Chair and CEO Gary Shapiro about what to expect for CES 2026. The conversation has been edited for clarity and length.
What are the main themes we can expect this week?

Well, we have a lot at this year’s show.

Obviously, using AI in a way that makes sense for people. We’re seeing a lot in robotics. More robots and humanoid-looking robots than we’ve ever had before.

We also see longevity in health, there’s a lot of focus on that. All sorts of wearable devices for almost every part of the body. Technology is answering healthcare’s gaps very quickly and that’s great for everyone.

Mobility is big with not only self-driving vehicles but also with boats and drones and all sorts of other ways of getting around. That’s very important.

And of course, content creation is always very big.
Is 2026 the year we finally see humanoid robots in people’s homes?

You are seeing humanoid robots right now. It sometimes works, sometimes doesn’t.

But yes, there are more and more humanoid robots. And when we talk about CES five, 10, 15, 20 years now, we’re going to see an even larger range of humanoid robots.

Obviously, last year we saw a great interest in them. The number one product of the show was a little robotic dog that seems so life-like and fun, and affectionate for people that need that type of affection.

But of course, the humanoid robots are just one aspect of that industry. There’s a lot of specialization in robot creation, depending on what you want the robot to do. And robots can do many things that humans can’t.

Will we start seeing more innovative use of AI tools in entertainment?

AI is the future of creativity.

Certainly AI itself may be arguably creative, but the human mind is so unique that you definitely get new ideas that way. So I think the future is more of a hybrid approach, where content creators are working with AI to craft variations on a theme or to better monetize what they have to a broader audience.
Any interesting AI-powered devices or services that consumers will want to buy?

We’re seeing all sorts of different devices that are implementing AI. But we have a special focus at this show, for the first time, on the disability community. Verizon set this whole stage up where we have all different ways of taking this technology and having it help people with disabilities and older people.
Are you concerned about a potential AI bubble?

Well, there’s definitely no bubble when it comes to what AI can do. And what AI can do is perform miracles and solve fundamental human problems in food production and clean air and clean water. Obviously in healthcare, it’s gonna be overwhelming.

But this was like the internet itself. There was a lot of talk about a bubble, and there actually was a bubble. The difference is that in late 1990s there were basically were no revenue models. Companies were raising a lot of money with no plans for revenue.

These AI companies have significant revenues today, and companies are investing in it.

What I’m more concerned about, honestly, is not Wall Street and a bubble. Others can be concerned about that. I’m concerned about getting enough energy to process all that AI. And at this show, for the first time, we have a Korean company showing the first ever small-scale nuclear-powered energy creation device. We expect more and more of these people rushing to fill this gap because we need the energy, we need it clean and we need a kind of all-of-the-above solution.

Shawn Chen, The Associated Press