Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

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."

Vietnam’s gig‑economy is under pressure as fuel prices soar following the Iran‑related blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Nguyen, an e‑hailing driver in Ho Chi Minh City, reported that a 7‑hour shift earned him 240,000 VND (≈$9.11) while fuel alone cost 120,000 VND (≈$4.56), wiping out half his income.Diesel prices have more than doubled and petrol has risen by almost 30 %, straining riders who rely on motorcycles – the dominant transport mode in a city of over 7 million two‑wheelers.In response, Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh announced a temporary suspension of the environmental tax on diesel, petrol and aviation fuel until 15 April, a move that will forfeit an estimated $273 million in revenue but aims to curb the price surge.Experts warn the shock highlights Vietnam’s vulnerability to external conflicts. Nguyen Khac Giang, a visiting fellow at the ISEAS‑Yusof Ishak Institute, said the tax cut is essential to “keep macro‑economic stability intact” amid “turbulence outside Vietnam”.Beyond gig workers, the ripple effect reaches public transport and airlines. Bus operators have raised fares by 3,000 VND (≈$0.11) yet still face losses, while Vietnam Airlines and Vietjet have trimmed flight schedules.Gig workers lack collective bargaining power. Do Hai Ha, a University of Melbourne research fellow, noted that platform drivers “have no chance to negotiate with the platforms” and are excluded from minimum‑wage or overtime protections, forcing many to work longer hours for diminishing returns.Small‑scale entrepreneurs are also feeling the pinch. A fisherman from Binh Thuan reported that his catch price fell from 800,000 VND (≈$30) to 650,000 VND (≈$24) as fuel costs climbed, while a bus fare collector on route 13 said the company cannot absorb the higher fuel bill despite modest fare hikes.Households are cutting back on essential goods. Uyen Pham of Saigon Children’s Charity observed that the price of bottled cooking gas has nearly doubled, prompting low‑income families to revert to wood‑fuel stoves and limit travel to see relatives.The crisis is prompting a strategic rethink on energy policy. Giang warned that Vietnam’s reliance on just two refineries – which currently meet only 40 % of national petrol demand – is unsustainable, urging accelerated investment in domestic refining capacity.Corporate responses are already shifting. Vingroup, the country’s largest conglomerate, announced it would pause a planned LNG‑fired power plant and redirect funds to renewable projects, citing “significant risk of high fuel prices” linked to the war.For workers like Duy, who runs a café near a petrol station, the tax suspension offers modest relief: projected price cuts of about 25 % for petrol and 5 % for diesel could ease daily expenses that had briefly doubled.

President Donald Trump’s recent proclamation that Iran must reopen the Strait of Hormuz or face a combined "Power Plant Day" and "Bridge Day" has thrust senior U.S. officers into a stark ethical quandary: obey a presidential directive that could breach international law, or risk court‑martial for insubordination. In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump warned that failure to comply would result in an unprecedented strike on Iran’s civilian energy infrastructure, a move that legal scholars agree would amount to a war crime against 93 million civilians. Two former judge‑advocate general officers, Margaret Donovan and Rachel VanLandingham, emphasized that such rhetoric, if acted upon, would place service members on a “path of no return,” directly contradicting the extensive legal training that defines permissible orders. Historical precedent underscores the gravity of the situation. During the Vietnam War, officers who participated in the My Lai massacre were ultimately held accountable, with the court rejecting the “just following orders” defence as the orders were deemed “palpably illegal.” Professor Charli Carpenter of the University of Massachusetts Amherst notes that while many troops can identify manifestly unlawful commands in surveys, translating that awareness into real‑time refusal is far more challenging, especially when the military culture heavily emphasizes obedience to the chain of command. Since assuming office, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has reshaped the Pentagon’s legal advisory structure, dismissing senior JAG officials and dismantling the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response unit created under the previous administration. Consequently, service members now rely on a “GI rights hotline,” whose usage has reportedly surged under the current leadership. Beyond conventional strikes, Trump’s escalating rhetoric has raised alarms about the potential use of nuclear force. Under U.S. protocol, the president alone can initiate a nuclear launch, with the “nuclear football” – a briefcase containing strike options and authentication codes – handed to a close aide. The only safeguard is for senior commanders to deem such an order illegal, a step that experts fear may never occur. Former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, during the previous administration, reportedly instructed senior officers to stay involved in any nuclear decision due to concerns about Trump’s volatility. Nuclear weapons scholar Jeffrey Lewis now warns that confidence in any contemporary intervention is essentially nonexistent, citing Trump’s pattern of purging dissenting military personnel. As the deadline looms, the United States faces a precarious balance between upholding international humanitarian law and navigating a command structure that may be unwilling or unable to challenge the commander‑in‑chief’s most extreme directives.

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.

Donald Trump has repeatedly framed inflation as a "hoax" and declared that he has "won affordability," yet independent analyses reveal that his touted initiatives deliver only marginal relief for most Americans.One of his most publicized programs, the TrumpRX prescription‑drug platform, lists just 61 medications out of the thousands needed nationwide. Moreover, price comparisons show that a medium dose of Wegovy costs $349 on TrumpRX, while the same dose sells for $163 in Japan and $198 in Germany. Similar gaps appear for diabetes drug Xigduo and autoimmune medication Xeljanz, which are significantly cheaper abroad.The website markets itself as a solution for uninsured, cash‑paying patients, but it does nothing for the roughly 85 % of Americans who already have prescription coverage.On housing, Trump’s executive order banning Wall Street firms from buying single‑family homes is unlikely to move the needle. Institutional investors own only about 2 % of such homes, while the nation faces a shortage of roughly 4.7 million units, according to Zillow. The ongoing war in Iran has also pushed mortgage rates higher, further straining affordability.Gasoline prices have surged since the Iran conflict began, climbing to an average of $4.10 per gallon – a 37 % increase from the pre‑war level of $2.98.Food costs tell a similar story. The Consumer Price Index shows a 3.1 % rise in overall food prices from February 2025 to February 2026, with coffee up 18.4 %, beef up 14.4 %, and fresh vegetables up 5.4 %. Tariffs championed by the administration have contributed to these hikes.International bodies echo domestic concerns. The OECD projects U.S. inflation to exceed 4 % this year, largely driven by the Iran war, a level higher than the 3 % rate recorded at the end of the Biden administration.Trump also claims to have eliminated taxes on overtime and Social Security benefits. In reality, overtime earnings are still subject to federal income tax on the base wage and to full Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. Only the overtime premium enjoys a partial tax break. Likewise, more than half of Social Security recipients will continue to owe income tax on their benefits, contradicting the administration’s “no‑tax” narrative.Other initiatives, such as the “Trump Accounts” child‑savings program, provide a one‑time $1,000 seed deposit and allow families to contribute up to $5,000 annually. While beneficial for affluent households, the scheme offers limited assistance to families living paycheck‑to‑paycheck.Policy decisions have also raised costs for vulnerable groups. By opposing extensions of Obamacare subsidies, average health‑care premiums have risen by over 20 % for more than 20 million people. Simultaneously, proposed cuts to LIHEAP threaten heating and cooling assistance for roughly 6 million low‑income households.In sum, Trump’s affordability rhetoric serves more as political branding than substantive economic relief. The modest scope of his programs and the persistence of rising prices suggest that most working‑class Americans will see little improvement in their day‑to‑day expenses.

British law enforcement detained seven individuals on suspicion of backing the outlawed Palestine Action movement during a peace encampment situated just outside the RAF Lakenheath airbase in eastern England, a facility regularly used by United States forces. The group, comprising five men and two women, joined other activists on Sunday to denounce the base’s alleged role as a launch point for U.S. aircraft participating in the ongoing US‑Israeli war against Iran. The protest was organized by the Lakenheath Alliance for Peace, which reported that those arrested were wearing apparel emblazoned with the slogan: “We oppose genocide, we support Palestine Action.” Police statements indicated the arrests were made “on suspicion of supporting a proscribed organisation,” referencing the Labour government’s decision last year to label Palestine Action a “terrorist” organisation, thereby criminalising any affiliation. Although a February court ruling deemed the ban “disproportionate” and an infringement on free‑speech rights, the government has appealed the decision, leaving the prohibition in force for the time being. According to the protest network Defend Our Juries, the crackdown on Palestine Action supporters has already resulted in **more than 2,700 arrests** and hundreds of charges, underscoring the scale of the UK’s enforcement campaign. Police emphasized their duty to apply the law “as it currently stands, not as it might be in the future,” while noting that two additional demonstrators were taken into custody on Saturday for allegedly obstructing public thoroughfares. In a related diplomatic flashpoint, former US President Donald Trump has publicly rebuked Prime Minister Keir Starmer for what he describes as insufficient backing of the US‑Israel war on Iran, straining the historically close UK‑US alliance. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom has granted the United States permission to employ British bases for “defensive” operations aimed at Iran and to safeguard the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint through which roughly 20 % of global oil supplies transit during peacetime.

Iran’s sports minister, Ahmad Donyamali, warned on Sunday that his country’s participation in the 2026 World Cup remains doubtful unless FIFA agrees to shift Iran’s group‑stage fixtures from the United States to Mexico. The Iranian Football Federation (IFF) formally asked the global governing body to relocate the matches, but, according to Donyamali, it has yet to receive a definitive response. “If our request is accepted, Iran’s participation will be certain,” Donyamali told Turkey’s Anadolu news agency, underscoring the link between venue security and the team’s willingness to travel. The request comes amid heightened tensions after Israel and the United States launched attacks on Iran on February 28, sparking a broader regional conflict. Tehran retaliated with missile and drone strikes targeting Israeli sites, U.S. bases in the Middle East, and Gulf infrastructure. Iran, the first Asian nation to qualify for the tournament, is slated to play all three group matches on the U.S. West Coast – Los Angeles on June 16, Belgium in Los Angeles on June 22, and Seattle on June 26. Former President Donald Trump recently said Iran was “welcome” in the United States but added that he doubted the venue was “appropriate for their own life and safety.” In response, the Iranian team posted on social media that “no one can exclude Iran’s national team from the World Cup.” Iranian football chief Mehdi Taj echoed the sentiment, stating, “When Trump explicitly says he cannot guarantee our security, we will not travel to America.” Taj confirmed ongoing negotiations with FIFA to move the games to Mexico. FIFA, however, rejected the relocation request, reaffirming that the schedule announced last year will stand. President Gianni Infantino told IFF Vice President Mehdi Mohammad Nabi that “the matches will be played where they are supposed to be, according to the draw.” Despite the diplomatic deadlock, Donyamali affirmed that Iran’s players continue training and will be ready for the tournament, provided that adequate security guarantees are secured from the host nations. “Under these circumstances, the possibility of Iran playing in the United States is very low; if the necessary security assurances are given, our government will make the final decision,” Donyamali said, adding that former President Trump’s remarks were “morally and ethically unbalanced.” The World Cup kicks off on June 11 in Mexico, with the opening matches in the United States and Canada following on June 12. The final is set for July 19 in East Rutherford, New Jersey.

The traditional No 9 striker, once a cornerstone of football, is becoming increasingly obsolete. The partnership of Andy Cole and Dwight Yorke at Manchester United in the late 1990s exemplifies a bygone era when strikers were the main goal-scoring threats. Today, the Premier League's leading scorers are more likely to be wingers, No 10s, or false 9s.Data from Opta shows that strikers scored 41.6% of the Premier League's goals two decades ago, compared to 25.9% this season. The decline of traditional center-forwards is further evidenced by the decrease in standout individual striker performances. Between 2007 and 2012, there were four seasons with 10 or more hat-tricks by center-forwards; in the past nine seasons, this threshold has been met only once.The England national team faces a significant challenge with Harry Kane, their all-time leading scorer, approaching retirement. Beyond Kane, the options are limited, with Dominic Solanke and Dominic Calvert-Lewin failing to impress. The lack of quality strikers raises concerns about England's future prospects.Experts attribute the decline of the No 9 to the redefinition of the role and the increased emphasis on possession-based football. Emile Heskey notes that the traditional striker's job has changed, with more focus on creating space for other players. René Meulensteen argues that specialized striker training is essential to develop No 9s, but such training has been neglected in favor of more generalized sessions.However, there is hope that a successful team utilizing a lethal strike partnership could revive demand for traditional No 9s. Dean Whitehouse believes that if a manager starts winning trophies with paired strikers, other teams will follow suit, and the demand for No 9s will return. The abundance of technically gifted players, fostered by initiatives like Gareth Southgate's push for smaller-sided games at youth level, may yet lead to a resurgence of the traditional No 9.

Several Premier League clubs are struggling to find new shirt sponsors ahead of next season, with nine clubs yet to secure front-of-shirt commercial deals and 12 having not signed contracts. The imminent ban on shirt advertising from gambling companies is having a significant impact on clubs' commercial returns, with the collective loss of income from shirt deals potentially as high as £80m next season.Gambling operators, particularly those serving Asian markets, have been willing to pay more than other companies to sponsor Premier League clubs. However, the removal of gambling firms from the market has led to intense competition among clubs at lower prices. Of the 10 top-flight clubs with gambling sponsors this season, only Bournemouth have announced a replacement, with the club's stadium sponsor Vitality moving on to the shirt in a cut-price deal.Brentford are close to announcing that their existing training kit sponsor, the job search website Indeed, will be on their shirt next season, while Everton and Fulham appear set to buck the trend as they are in advanced negotiations with the foreign exchange trader CMC markets. However, seven clubs with gambling companies' backing remain in the market, including Chelsea and Newcastle, who are still seeking new sponsors.The ban on gambling sponsorships has exacerbated the divide between the big six clubs and the rest of the Premier League in terms of the sponsors they can attract. Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester City, and Manchester United are locked into long-term deals worth between £50m and £60m a year, while Leeds and Brighton have long-term contracts with Red Bull and American Express respectively.