Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The Australian federal court has taken a strong stance on the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in legal proceedings, warning lawyers about the potential dangers and issuing new rules for its use. The court's chief justice, Debra Mortimer, emphasized that the presentation of false or inaccurate information to the court is “unacceptable” and can lead to serious consequences.The warning comes amid a surge in court filings in Australia and globally that have included false citations generated by AI. The court has noted that AI can generate fictitious cases, citations, quotes, and factual errors, which can frustrate the just resolution of proceedings and lead to financial or legal consequences.Under the new rules, lawyers and solicitors are required to confirm if AI has been used in the preparation of documents and ensure that any legal authorities cited exist and support the proposition made. They must also disclose the use of AI in documents, including where and how it has been used.Mortimer cautioned that caution should be taken when putting confidential, suppressed, or private information into AI tools, as there may be serious consequences for entering information into generative AI tools, even if sharing that information was not intended.The court “embraces” the use of technology in proceedings and recognizes that generative AI has the potential to increase efficiency in the conduct of litigation. However, Mortimer stressed that AI “must be used appropriately and with due care” to avoid risks to the proper administration of justice and public confidence in the legal system.Those who use generative AI in ways that go against the new rules can expect consequences such as adverse costs orders and issues with compliance with legal and professional obligations. There have been at least 73 identified cases in Australia where courts have discovered the use of generative AI had resulted in false citations, made-up quotes, or other errors.

Goldman Sachs's chief executive, David Solomon, has expressed heightened awareness of the capabilities of Anthropic's Mythos AI model and is collaborating closely with the tech firm following warnings about the cybersecurity risk it poses.The US bank has been closely monitoring the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence, including large language models (LLMs), as part of broader efforts to protect itself from hackers.“Obviously the LLMs are making rapid progress and we’re hyper-aware of the enhanced capabilities of these new models with the help of the US government and the model publishers,” Solomon told analysts on an earnings call on Monday.Anthropic, the company behind the Claude family of AI tools, claimed last week that its latest model, Mythos, posed an unprecedented risk due to its ability to expose flaws in IT systems. The company warned that AI models have reached a level of coding capability where they can surpass all but the most skilled humans at finding and exploiting software vulnerabilities.Solomon emphasized that Goldman Sachs is working closely with Anthropic and all of its security vendors to harness frontier capabilities. “We are very focused on supplementing our cyber and infrastructure resilience. And this is part of our ongoing capabilities that we have been investing in, and are accelerating our investment in.”The news comes after the US Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, summoned Solomon and other big American bankers to Washington to discuss the Mythos model last week. The meeting focused on heads of so-called systemically important banks, where regulators believe that a major disruption to their operations, or their potential collapse, would put financial stability at risk.On Monday, the UK government’s AI Security Institute (AISI) warned that Mythos was a “step up” over previous models in terms of the cyber threat it posed. AISI said Mythos could carry out attacks that required multiple actions and discover weaknesses in IT systems without human intervention.

The company's diverse portfolio and innovative approach to technology have made it an attractive investment opportunity. However, the use of AI in various sectors has also raised concerns about authenticity and originality, as seen in the backlash against authors and journalists who have used AI tools in their work.

Conservationists and scientists have warned that the Minerals Council of Australia’s proposal to employ artificial intelligence for faster national environmental approvals could generate “Robodebt‑style” failures, further endangering already vulnerable species.The council has asked the federal government to allocate $13 million for a pilot that would use AI to help companies draft assessment applications and assist regulators in decision‑making.The Biodiversity Council – a consortium of independent experts from eleven universities – told Guardian Australia that while AI may assist with routine tasks, automating whole environmental assessments could lead to opaque, flawed decisions that push threatened species closer to extinction.“Robodebt” refers to the automated welfare‑debt recovery scheme that, between 2015 and 2019, wrongly accused hundreds of thousands of Australians of overpayments, highlighting the danger of opaque algorithmic judgments.Lis Ashby, the Biodiversity Council’s lead on policy and innovation, noted that the cornerstone of Australia’s environmental protection, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, is riddled with vague language and broad ministerial discretion, which hampers rule‑based decision‑making and would be even more problematic for an AI tool.She added that establishing clear rules in the National Environmental Standards, including explicit definitions of unacceptable outcomes, would accelerate assessment times even without AI and is essential for any future automation.Brendan Sydes, national biodiversity policy adviser at the Australian Conservation Foundation, expressed scepticism, stating that “technology can be a good servant but a poor master.” He urged the government to focus on closing existing data gaps on threatened species and habitats rather than relying on AI.Prof. David Lindenmayer, a forest ecologist at the Australian National University and Biodiversity Council member, highlighted that one‑third of Australia’s threatened species have not been monitored and many others suffer from patchy data, gaps traditionally filled by expert consultation.He warned that AI decisions are only as reliable as the data they are fed, and most threatened species lack publicly available information, even basic location data, risking decisions based on outdated or incomplete evidence.The Albanese government recently passed reforms to the EPBC Act after a 2020 review found the legislation failing to protect species and habitats.Prof. Hugh Possingham, a leading conservation biologist at the University of Queensland, argued that AI models need robust training material, and the past two decades of EPBC approvals are “clearly unsuitable” because the Act has demonstrably failed to safeguard the environment. He suggested that hiring more human assessors would be a more effective way to speed up evaluations.Tania Constable, chief executive of the Minerals Council, dismissed the Robodebt comparison as “disappointing,” insisting the proposal is innovative and could strengthen environmental protection while improving efficiency. She said the AI tools would support human decision‑making for both regulators and project proponents, helping navigate the complexity of EPBC assessments.A federal government spokesperson said budget decisions on the AI trial will be made “in due course,” but the environment department is exploring how AI could simplify application processes. The statement emphasized that “decisions about whether to approve projects must, and will, always be made by assessment officers, not by AI.”Nonetheless, officials acknowledged that AI tools have the potential to save time, reduce uncertainty, and translate technical language for stakeholders.

Iran is experiencing the longest nationwide internet blackout ever recorded, according to the global monitoring group NetBlocks. Since the United States and Israel launched their war on Iran on February 28, connectivity has hovered at about 1% of pre‑war levels, effectively cutting the country off from the global web. The blackout follows a prior 20‑day shutdown in January, which coincided with deadly nationwide protests. Combined, these measures mean that Iranian civilians have spent close to two‑thirds of 2026 in digital darkness, relying only on a slow, state‑controlled intranet for basic services and state‑run news. NetBlocks highlighted that while regions such as Myanmar, Sudan, Kashmir and Tigray have endured longer intermittent outages, no other war has forced an entire nation offline to this extent. The monitor added that Iran is the first country to lose previously functional internet connectivity by reverting to a national network. Economic analysts warned that the January shutdown already caused the economy to lose tens of millions of dollars each day in direct damages, with far‑reaching indirect effects. Companies reported that many online businesses could not survive more than three weeks without connectivity, leading to a wave of layoffs and reduced pay raises. One affected worker, Kamran, a product designer in Karaj, said he was dismissed after the latest wave of cuts. He now relies on a local skill‑matching group, but fears competition from thousands of similarly displaced workers. A senior data analyst from a Tehran firm disclosed that the firm is offering lower-than‑expected raises and shifting to three‑month contracts, creating uncertainty about future employment. Compounding the digital crisis, the war has targeted Iran’s steel factories, petrochemical plants and other civilian infrastructure, aggravating pre‑existing problems of high inflation and unemployment. Only a limited segment of the population can access the global internet—either because they are whitelisted by the state or because they pay steep fees for proxy connections that often disappear after a few hours. Government spokeswoman Fatemeh Mohajerani stated that internet access is being granted only to those who can “get the voice out,” such as officials, state‑affiliated entities and news agencies. Citizens on the ground describe a grim reality: frequent power outages, uncertainty about water supplies, and an inability to use services like Google Search or AI tools, even as they watch live feeds from space missions that remain inaccessible. In response to the prolonged shutdown, authorities have begun rolling out a tiered system dubbed “Internet Pro.” Business groups have received a “guide to connect to international internet,” urging them to contact a state‑run messaging app, Bale, for registration. Parallel efforts by a major telecom carrier offer one‑year data packages at prices higher than normal plans, while existing providers have not refunded customers for services they cannot deliver. President Masoud Pezeshkian’s administration, which campaigned on unblocking Iran’s internet, has offered no official explanation for the shutdown, leaving both the battered digital sector and the broader economy facing an uncertain future.

Social media users in the UK are posting, sharing, and commenting less on tech platforms, driven by the rise of video-oriented apps and fears that online posts could harm their reputation. According to Ofcom, 49% of adult social media users now post, share, or comment, down from 61% in 2024.The proportion of users exploring new websites has also decreased, from 70% to 56%. Joseph Oxlade, senior research manager at Ofcom, cited the popularity of video apps like TikTok and Instagram Reels as a reason for the decline in active use.Concerns about the long-term impact of online posts on personal and professional lives are also a factor. 49% of adults are now concerned about posts causing them problems in the future, up from 43% in 2024. This fear is not unfounded, as historic internet posts have been known to cause embarrassment for public figures.Despite this, social media use remains widespread, with 89% of adult internet users using at least one social media platform. The Ofcom data was based on a survey of 7,500 people across the UK last year over the age of 16.The data also showed that use of AI tools like ChatGPT has increased, with 54% of UK adults using them, up from 31% in 2024. Some users are interacting with AI as if it were a person, using it for tasks like seeking relationship advice or generating creative content.

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.

The UK government has introduced new guidelines on screen time for children under five, developed by a panel led by the children's commissioner for England, Rachel de Souza, and children's health expert Prof Russell Viner. Children under two years old should avoid screen time except for shared activities that encourage interaction, while children between two and five years old should limit screen time to no more than one hour a day. The guidance also advises against fast-paced, social-media style videos and AI tools, which may affect how young children learn to concentrate. Instead, it suggests 'safe screen swaps' such as replacing screens at mealtimes with background music, conversation, table games, or coloring. Parents are encouraged to prioritize activities that promote language, problem-solving skills, self-control, and social understanding, such as reading together, playing simple games, and back-and-forth conversations. The guidance acknowledges that some children with special educational needs or disabilities may need to use screens to help them communicate and participate in everyday activities. Experts warn that excessive screen time can harm children's development, with 90% of brain growth happening before the age of five. The advisory panel emphasizes the importance of parental example, as children's brains are like 'sponges' and will mimic their screen use habits. Examples of shared screen activities include video calls with relatives or looking at family photos together, which represent constructive joint screen use. The guidance also recommends avoiding screens for an hour before bedtime and reading stories together instead. By adopting these guidelines, parents can help promote healthy screen use habits and support their child's overall development.

A federal judge in California has ruled in favor of Anthropic in its case against the Department of Defense, granting a temporary injunction against the government's punitive measures. The standoff revolves around Anthropic's refusal to allow the Pentagon to use its Claude AI model for autonomous lethal weapons or domestic mass surveillance.Judge Rita Lin found that the government overstepped its authority in designating Anthropic as a 'supply chain risk,' stating that this move was 'likely both contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious.' The judge questioned the government's rationale, suggesting that their actions seemed aimed at crippling Anthropic.Anthropic argued that the government's actions violated its First Amendment rights and could cost the company hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. The injunction has significant implications for the government's efforts to replace Claude with other AI tools, particularly given its extensive use in military operations, including target selection and analysis of missile strikes.