Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Forecasts indicate that the worldwide secondhand apparel sector will expand by 12% in 2024, reaching $289 bn (£217 bn), buoyed by artificial intelligence tools and social‑media influencers that help consumers locate desired items.Platforms such as Vinted, Depop, Vestige and ThredUp are expected to sustain an average 9% annual growth over the next five years, pushing the market to an estimated $393 bn—roughly double the growth rate of the broader clothing industry.The outlook stems from ThredUp’s latest resale report, which incorporates analysis from GlobalData. In 2021 the market was valued at just $141 bn, meaning the projected 2024 figure is more than double that baseline.Major brands—including Dr Martens, Zara and Mulberry—are now entering the resale space, either by offering pre‑owned pieces or refurbishing items to satisfy rising consumer demand."Resale is no longer merely expanding; it’s capturing direct market share," said James Reinhart, co‑founder and CEO of ThredUp. The report notes that resale now accounts for one‑tenth of global clothing sales, and that the U.S. secondhand market grew nearly four times faster than the overall market by 2025.ThredUp’s own revenue climbed 20% to $310.8 m last year. Depop reported a 42% increase to £101 m, while Vinted posted a 36% rise to €813.4 m (£710 m) in 2024. However, profitability remains elusive: ThredUp posted a $20 m pre‑tax loss, Depop a £42 m loss, and only Vinted turned a profit, earning €76.7 m. Depop was recently acquired by eBay from Etsy.Reinhart warned that rising inflation—spurred by geopolitical tensions that lift energy and fuel costs for manufacturers—could push more shoppers toward affordable secondhand options."The industry stays robust, driven by young consumers' behaviour," he added.Artificial intelligence is streamlining the massive inventories of resale platforms, enabling rapid cataloguing and matching of items to buyer preferences. "Netflix and Spotify spent decades building data and algorithms to recommend content; AI can achieve similar personalization for fashion almost instantly," Reinhart explained, noting that this reduces friction between spotting an item on social media and completing a purchase.Looking ahead, the market’s next phase will be defined by firms that can unlock supply and leverage AI to connect inventory with the next generation of shoppers, according to Reinhart.Analyst Neil Saunders of GlobalData highlighted that consumers aged 14‑45 (Gen Z and millennials) are projected to generate 70% of market growth. He emphasized that discovery tools must migrate to the social feeds where these shoppers spend their time, and that technology will be essential to simplify selling and maintain sufficient stock for expanding demand.

The rising cost of gaming consoles and components, such as the recent £90 price hike of the PlayStation 5, can be attributed to the growing demand for computing power driven by artificial intelligence (AI) data centers. This surge in demand has led to increased prices for RAM and storage, affecting not only console manufacturers like Sony but also PC gamers.AI data centers require massive amounts of computing power to present information, which has driven up the demand and pricing for critical components. The 30% rise in the cost of living over the past half-decade, coupled with Nvidia's market cap hitting £5 trillion, highlights the significant economic impact of AI investment.The situation is further complicated by global economic disruptions, including the wars in Ukraine and Iran, which have contributed to rampant inflation. The video game industry, including major players like Valve, Nintendo, and Sony, is feeling the strain. Valve has run out of Steam Decks, and Nintendo has raised the price of physical games by $10 in the US.Critics argue that the focus on AI is misguided and that it doesn't need to be this way. As Chris Person notes, "I'm tired of these useless jackasses making the computer expensive." The emphasis on AI over consumer needs has led to frustration among gamers, who feel that technology is being forced into everything, making desirable products prohibitively expensive.The article concludes that the issue isn't just about Sony's greed but an indication of a closed economic system in big tech, which prioritizes profits over consumer needs. This shift has resulted in consumers paying more for products like the PlayStation 5 so that a select few can benefit financially from AI advancements.

The author spent a month testing Meta's smartglasses, which feature an integrated AI assistant voiced by Judi Dench. The glasses can take photos, provide directions, and answer questions, but the author found them to be unreliable and frustrating to use.The glasses raise significant privacy concerns, with the author noting that they can be used for covert recording and that people may not be aware when they are being filmed. The author also experienced creepy feelings while wearing the glasses, particularly when they were used to record strangers without their consent.The author concludes that while smartglasses have the potential to be useful assistive technology for people with disabilities, they are not yet reliable or functional enough to be widely adopted. The author also notes that Meta's plans for facial recognition and data collection raise significant concerns about privacy and surveillance.Experts warn that smartglasses may become a flashpoint in a bigger, existential discussion about how much integration we want with technology, and that regulation is needed to protect bystanders' privacy. The author ultimately decides that the glasses are not worth the risks and drawbacks, and that people should think carefully before adopting this technology.

Recent commentary on the Iran school bombing rightly challenges the knee‑jerk tendency to blame artificial intelligence for the tragedy. The deeper issue, however, lies in the emerging linguistic habit of labeling incidents as "AI errors," which subtly removes the human actors from the narrative.When responsibility is shifted from people to systems, moral accountability becomes vague. Human designers, authorisers and operators remain the decision‑makers, even if the technology automates the final act. Concealing this fact is not a technical flaw; it is a civic failure that hampers accountability.Beyond accelerating warfare, AI is fostering a subtler shift: using automation as an alibi. If public discourse cannot pinpoint who acted, the public cannot hold anyone to account.Critics also note that the language used to describe rogue AI agents—terms like “connived,” “lied,” or “cheated”—anthropomorphises machines and further obscures responsibility. As Dr. Felicity Mellor of Imperial College London observes, such phrasing assigns moral agency to large language models instead of the people who deploy them.Consider a hypothetical where a company releases high‑speed vehicles without functional brakes. We would not say the cars "connived" to cause accidents; we would blame the company’s reckless leadership. Similarly, if uncontrolled AI ever harms civilians, we must be able to hold technology firms and the governments that endorse them accountable, which requires clear attribution of moral agency in our language.Anthony LawtonMarket Harborough, LeicestershireDr. Felicity MellorDirector, Science Communication Unit, Imperial College London

Palantir’s claim that opposition to its NHS contract is driven by ideology was rebuked by Chi Onwurah, the Labour MP who chairs Parliament’s science, innovation and technology select committee. Onwurah said it is appropriate for ministers to explore a break‑clause option in the deal, underscoring the seriousness of the concerns raised. Louis Mosley, Palantir’s UK executive vice‑chair, had urged the government not to succumb to “ideologically motivated campaigners” as officials weighed a way out of a £330 million contract to deliver the Federated Data Platform (FDP) for NHS England. Ministers have now asked for advice on triggering the contract’s break clause amid growing scrutiny of Palantir’s expanding role in the public sector. The FDP is an AI‑enabled platform designed to integrate disparate health information across the NHS. Palantir already holds contracts with the Ministry of Defence, several police forces and the UK’s financial watchdog, the FCA. Onwurah’s cross‑party committee is set to publish its report in the coming weeks, covering the digital reorganisation of government services and the role of AI after a series of hearings that included experts, NHS leaders and representatives from companies such as Palantir. She identified three core issues: the manner in which the contract was awarded, the handling of patient data and the resulting trust deficit within the NHS, and the involvement of Peter Mandelson through his firm Global Counsel. “These are not fringe ideological concerns,” Onwurah told the Guardian. “They relate to contract transparency, vendor lock‑in, value for money and data security – matters that should concern everyone pushing the NHS towards digital transformation.” She added that the NHS’s post‑COVID fatigue and austerity‑driven burnout make any additional trust‑related resentment a significant barrier to progress. Onwurah noted that Palantir secured the contract after providing services to the NHS at a nominal cost – a tactic often used by large tech firms to position themselves as the most attractive government supplier. “It is right for the government to explore all options, including breaking the contract, given ongoing concerns about FDP uptake while Palantir remains at the helm,” she said. Liberal Democrat MP Martin Wrigley, also on the committee, urged the government to commission a new consortium of UK‑based tech experts to build a home‑grown NHS platform. During a previous committee appearance, Mosley accused British doctors of placing “ideology over patient interest” after they challenged the data‑processing contract. Speaking to the Times, Mosley warned that removing Palantir could jeopardise patient care and stall solutions to the NHS’s biggest challenges, arguing that the campaign against the firm would do more harm than good.

America faces an unprecedented concentration of wealth: the richest 1% now control more assets than the bottom 93% of households, and a single individual, Elon Musk, with a net worth of $805 billion, holds more wealth than the lower‑half of the population combined.Recent tax policies have amplified this gap. In the year following the largest tax cut in U.S. history, 938 billionaires added $1.5 trillion to their fortunes, while President Trump and his family saw a modest increase of $4 billion. Four Wall Street giants—BlackRock, Vanguard, Fidelity and State Street—own stakes in more than 95 % of publicly traded companies, cementing corporate dominance across the economy.Political influence mirrors financial power: by the 2026 midterms, just 50 billionaires had poured over $433 million into campaign activities, shaping policy to protect their interests.Meanwhile, the average American worker is earning roughly $20 per week less than in 1973 after inflation adjustment, despite decades of productivity gains. The Rand Corporation estimates that $79 trillion has shifted from the bottom 90 % to the top 1 % over the past half‑century.Economic hardship is widespread: 60 % of households live paycheck to paycheck, nearly half of older workers lack retirement savings, and over 20 % of seniors survive on less than $15,000 annually. Health‑care insecurity affects 85 million Americans, with more than 500,000 filing for bankruptcy each year due to medical debt.At the heart of the problem is a tax code engineered by the affluent. Billionaires now pay lower effective rates than typical workers. For example, Musk’s tax rate sits below 3.3 % compared with an 8.4 % rate for a truck driver; Jeff Bezos paid under 1 % versus 8.7 % for a firefighter; Michael Bloomberg’s rate was 1.3 % against 13.3 % for a registered nurse; and Warren Buffett’s rate was a mere 0.1 % while a schoolteacher paid nearly 10 %.Corporate tax avoidance compounds the issue. After a $900 billion corporate tax break, major firms such as Tesla, SpaceX, Palantir, Ticketmaster and the parent of Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and KFC reported zero federal income tax despite generating over $17 billion in profit.Public sentiment is shifting. In California, voters favor a billionaire tax by a two‑to‑one margin, and in New York City, 62 % back a 2 % surtax on the ultra‑wealthy. Nationwide, more than six in ten Americans believe the wealthy and large corporations pay too little.In response, Senator Sanders introduced legislation to impose a 5 % wealth tax on the 938 billionaires whose combined net worth exceeds $8.2 trillion. Over a decade, the measure would generate roughly $4.4 trillion.The first‑year rollout would deliver a $3,000 direct payment to every household earning $150,000 or less—equating to $12,000 for a typical family of four. Additional provisions include constructing 7 million affordable housing units, expanding Medicare to cover dental, vision and hearing, providing universal childcare, raising the minimum teacher salary to $60,000, and guaranteeing Medicaid‑funded home health care for seniors and people with disabilities.Crucially, the plan would reverse recent health‑care cuts that stripped coverage from 15 million Americans, ensuring no additional loss of insurance.Even if the tax were applied retroactively, the impact on the ultra‑rich would be modest relative to their fortunes: Elon Musk would owe an extra $42 billion, Mark Zuckerberg an additional $11 billion, and Jeff Bezos another $11 billion—figures that would barely dent their net worths.As Justice Louis Brandeis warned in 1933, “We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.” Senator Sanders argues the choice is clear: a democratic economy that serves the many, not a plutocratic system that serves the 1 %.The wealthiest Americans must begin contributing their fair share.

Oracle, a US technology company with a market value of $420bn, has begun cutting thousands of jobs as it seeks to reassure investors that its bet on AI infrastructure will pay off. The company, which has a workforce of 162,000, has reportedly let go of around 10,000 people so far.The job cuts, which were announced via email, affect various roles including senior engineers, architects, operations leaders, program managers, and technical specialists. Oracle's decision to reduce its workforce comes as it steps up spending on datacentres, key infrastructure for developing and operating AI systems, in an effort to better compete with cloud rivals such as Alphabet and Amazon.Oracle's plans include a $300bn datacentre deal with OpenAI, the developer of ChatGPT. However, investors have grown concerned about the billions of dollars of expenditure attached to its plans, which includes raising $50bn in new debt. In a March filing, Oracle said it expected total costs tied to its 2026 restructuring plan to reach up to $2.1bn, largely owing to redundancies and related expenses.The job cuts are part of a broader trend in the tech industry, with over 70 tech companies cutting around 40,480 jobs so far this year, according to the tech redundancy site Layoffs.fyi. This trend is driven by companies reallocating resources towards artificial intelligence, heightening fears of AI-driven disruptions among workers.

Coordinated strikes by United States and Israeli forces hit Tehran, Isfahan and several other Iranian cities on Tuesday, prompting widespread power outages and extensive damage to civilian sites. The Ministry of Energy confirmed that shrapnel from the raids ruptured a primary power‑transfer line, but the outage was restored within a few hours. Among the most critical targets was the Tofigh Darou pharmaceutical complex in the Karaj industrial zone. The facility, which supplies over 90% of Iran’s domestically produced medicines—including cancer and multiple‑sclerosis treatments—sustained heavy damage from multiple projectiles. In central Iran, Isfahan endured a barrage of heavy bunker‑buster bombs over a nearby mountainous area, likely aimed at military installations. The explosions triggered secondary blasts that illuminated the night sky and produced reverberating shockwaves across the city. North‑west of Tehran, in Zanjan, a building identified as the administrative department of the Hosseinieh Azam religious centre was struck, resulting in at least four fatalities and several injuries. Iranian authorities now claim that more than 2,000 people have been killed by US‑Israeli attacks since the conflict erupted on 28 February, with residential blocks, schools, hospitals and historic sites also affected. Additional targets this week included civilian nuclear facilities, major steel producers, petrochemical plants, and the Iran University of Science and Technology, where an imaging satellite was developed. A professor linked to Iran’s missile programme and his two children were assassinated at their home in northern Tehran. U.S. President Donald Trump reiterated threats to strike Iran’s oil and gas infrastructure, power plants and water‑desalination facilities. Despite the onslaught, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) continues to project defiance. A spokesperson for the Khatam al‑Anbiya Central Headquarters declared that Tehran’s adversaries are “humiliated and on the path of destruction,” while senior commander Ali Fadavi warned that American warships are vulnerable and allegedly transmit false transponder signals. The IRGC also released footage of ballistic missiles aimed at Israel and surrounding nations, and claimed to have downed two U.S. MQ‑9 Reaper drones, promising retaliatory strikes against technology firms linked to the United States and Israel. Domestically, the judiciary announced the execution of two members of the foreign‑based Mojahedin‑e‑Khalq (MEK) group, labeling them terrorists. This follows a series of recent executions tied to the January protests and broader dissent. Authorities also issued new indictments against roughly 200 individuals accused of assisting the U.S. and Israel, including alleged “mercenaries” who disseminated strike footage abroad. Penalties for national‑security offenses now encompass asset confiscation and capital punishment. President Masoud Pezeshkian convened his first cabinet meeting since the war’s onset in a makeshift, blue‑covered space, emphasizing that any peace negotiations will safeguard Iran’s “dignity, security and national interests.” Israel’s Channel 14 reported that Pezeshkian sought greater negotiating leverage with the United States, a request allegedly rebuffed by IRGC chief Ahmad Vahidi.

The Iranian military has reportedly leveraged artificial intelligence to identify its first thousand targets, showcasing a notable integration of technology in its strategic operations. This development underscores Iran's efforts to modernize its military capabilities, potentially altering the dynamics of its defense and strategic planning.According to sources, the use of AI in target identification allows for more precise and efficient military planning. This technology can analyze vast amounts of data quickly, enabling the identification of targets that might have been overlooked through traditional methods.The incorporation of AI into military operations by Iran raises questions about the future of warfare and the role of technology in international conflicts. As nations continue to develop and deploy AI in their military strategies, the global security landscape may see significant shifts.