Tech

A journalist examines populist protests against AI and data centers

Published

2 days ago

21 July 2026

AI was supposed to make our lives better. Instead, it’s made many of us scared and angry. Communities are protesting against the building of new data centers — the warehouses of IT equipment powering the AI buildout — across the country, and increasingly they’re winning. And polling shows most Americans think AI is moving too fast.

So how did public opinion on AI curdle so quickly? Jasmine Sun, who reports on the industry from San Francisco, argues that the backlash treats AI less as a technology and more as a political project. “The debate was not about like, is ChatGPT useful to me?” Sun told me during a taping of Vox’s The Gray Area. “The debate was actually something more like, there are these big corporations and unaccountable billionaires…coming into my city, coming into my life and changing it without having any sort of democratic input?”

Filling in for Sean Illing, I talked to Sun about the rise of “AI populism,” the parallels with the Industrial Revolution, and how the backlash could crash into the 2028 presidential election.

As always, there’s much more in the full podcast, which drops every Monday, so listen to and follow us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pandora, or wherever you find podcasts.

You’ve been writing about a phenomenon you call AI populism. How would you define that? What is AI populism?

I define AI populism as a worldview where AI is not seen as an ordinary technology, but specifically as an elite political project to be resisted. I came to the term while thinking about the AI backlash and the reasons people are increasingly anti-AI — whether that’s LLM slop, whether that’s Waymos in their city, whether that’s a new data center project. One thing that occurred to me was that a lot of times the debate wasn’t about whether ChatGPT is useful to me, or whether Waymos are safer than a human driver. The debate was actually something more like: There are these big corporations and unaccountable billionaires who are coming into my city, coming into my life, and changing it without any democratic input.

When I talk to people who are opposing AI in various ways, they seem more concerned with this concentration-of-power, anti-elite dimension — which is where I take the word “populism” — rather than classic AI safety concerns, which are more about the technical characteristics that might introduce risk.

You wrote a piece that touched on some of this but went to a darker place — “AI populism’s warning shots” — and you wrote about actual shots. Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, was targeted by a Molotov cocktail and a shooting within the span of a couple of days. There was an Indiana councilman who voted for a data center and woke up to gunshots at his home and a note reading “no data centers.” Why do you think of those incidents of violence as warning shots of something to come?

It was pretty scary. I’m no Sam Altman fanboy, but it’s terrifying that assassination attempts are showing up in response to people’s worries about AI. One factor is that we’ve been seeing a rising wave of political violence and support for political violence in the US, especially among young people, over the past few years — the UnitedHealthcare CEO shooting, the Charlie Kirk shooting. Increasingly, a lot of disaffected, maybe nihilistic young people are turning toward political violence as a way to express political beliefs they don’t feel they have other channels for. Or maybe that person is just unwell. But I do expect to see more of it, because my theory of political discontent is that if people feel they have institutional channels to bargain for their rights — if they feel the democratic process is working, or they’re part of a union and believe their union leader will go bargain about how automation shows up in the workplace — they’ll most likely go through those channels.

When it feels like the official channels aren’t working, opposition becomes much more diffuse and volatile. That’s part of why, in creative communities, you’ll see people witch-hunting each other over AI use. I think we’ll see more political violence against people seen as AI leaders, or as supporting AI leaders.

Yeah, I’m quite worried about it. But again, my sense is that it comes from a feeling of — what else is there to be done, when you have this level of concentration of wealth and power, and there’s no democratic input right now into how AI is regulated or built?

It’s like a jump straight from complaining at your community meeting about the data center to an act of violence.

I was talking to some friends about this. During the 20th century in the US, there was a wave of factory mechanization and automation, but unions were really strong — often when a company said, “We’re going to bring in these machines,” they’d sit down with the factory union leader and say, “Okay, you can bring in the machines, but we’re going to couple that with a wage increase,” or a 35-hour workweek, or earlier retirement. There was a channel to make a deal about how automation would show up in your workplace. That meant people were more likely to accept it as something lifting all boats. I don’t think that’s happening now — most of the industries affected by AI aren’t organized in labor unions, and the democratic channels are questionable at best.

It’s like when people have agency to be part of the transition, the process goes a lot smoother. Is there a historical analogy for a technological change that didn’t allow for input from the people involved? I’m thinking of the Luddites.

The Luddites are a good example. When the automated looms were introduced, there was a lot of violence against the looms. The book I’d really recommend here is Carl Benedikt Frey’s The Technology Trap. He’s an Oxford economist who studied a ton of historical examples — in Europe, in China, all over the world — including the Luddites and 20th-century automation. His central question was: In what contexts do workers successfully stop automation, and in what contexts do they allow it to be introduced? How does the political environment, or the balance of power between people and their leaders, change the outcome? He found that when automation was introduced alongside social welfare policies — a higher minimum wage, some form of redistribution — people were much more willing to accept it, which is fairly rational.

I want to talk about Silicon Valley’s understanding of this backlash more generally. You’re painting a pretty dark picture, and you’re right in the belly of the beast in San Francisco — I’m sure you talk to people involved with AI every day. Is there a moment when it clicked for them that this backlash is real and something they have to take seriously? Or has that happened yet?

I’ve definitely noticed a huge difference, over the past six months, in how seriously people in Silicon Valley take the AI backlash.

People just talk about it more. I’d bring up AI populism to people last year, and they’d normally say, “It doesn’t matter — technology always introduces some discontent, people get annoyed but they get used to it, like the internet.” That was the standard reaction last year. Not anymore. I think part of the reason OpenAI and Anthropic have felt pressure to introduce economic policy proposals around job automation is that they’re seeing how worried people are. The data center moratoriums and the broader data center backlash have been surprising and meaningful in getting AI leaders to recognize they have both a messaging problem and an actual problem with the product and the technology they’re introducing.

A lot of the increasing opposition to AI in Washington has caused people to see this too. At first, Trump — as you mentioned — was very pro-AI. He and David Sacks were accelerationists; they wanted AI to go faster and to block attempts at regulation.

“The moratoriums, the regulation fights, even the booing at graduations, the literal assassination attempts — people in Silicon Valley have become much more worried.”

He was the AI czar — he’s no longer the AI czar. But it turned out a lot of other constituencies, both on the left and the right, were pretty opposed. For example, Trump and David Sacks tried to introduce a big federal bill that would preempt all state-level AI regulation — no state could regulate AI for 10 years. They tried to sneak it into a big omnibus bill so no one would notice. But members of Congress realized it was happening, and — whether for kid-safety reasons or frontier-safety reasons — people said, Wait a second, the idea of preventing any state from regulating AI for ten years is crazy. A lot of people organized in Washington to successfully stop that preemption. I think that showed the scale and bipartisanship of a coalition that was very keen to make sure it stayed possible to regulate AI was underestimated. As a result of all this — the moratoriums, the regulation fights, even the booing at graduations, the literal assassination attempts — people in Silicon Valley have become much more worried.

China is our big competitor in the AI race, and it certainly has all the conditions for a populist pushback to AI — youth unemployment is really high, and AI technology is in some ways more advanced at taking over real-world jobs. I was watching a video about fully automated factories and a robot pharmacist. You’re one of the rare American tech reporters who gets to spend time in China, and you wrote a piece that surprised me — you found there wasn’t really a populist backlash to AI there. Why not?

I was really interested in this question, and I was finishing my New York Times piece while in China for a few weeks, talking to both AI people and non-AI people. The main reason there’s not a big populist backlash in China is that there isn’t a lot of social unrest or populist backlash against anything — the entire MO of the Chinese government, the No. 1 priority, is domestic social stability. Any whisper of protest gets shut down; that’s why they have such strong speech controls. So one factor is that China doesn’t have much of a culture of resistance in general, whether in workplaces or politically. I’m not saying no one dissents — but it has a cultural effect too, because people don’t see it as useful or as an option. When I ask family members of mine in China about AI, sometimes they’re annoyed about specific things, but fundamentally, the idea of opposing AI is seen as almost unimaginable.

The other thing about China is that if you’re middle-aged there, you’ve lived through so many political, economic, and technological revolutions in your lifetime. When I was a little kid visiting Shanghai in the mid-2000s, there were no high-speed trains — now China has some of the best high-speed rail systems in the world. Technology has always gone hand in hand with dramatic economic advancement, with being lifted out of poverty. The modernization process has been aggressive and disruptive, but it’s not something the party has offered opportunities to resist, and it’s something most Chinese people still see as an inevitability that was mostly good for most people — because incomes did increase by dramatic amounts alongside the technological change. So I think people have a similar attitude toward AI: It’s much less about “Can I stop the AI wave?” and more “How can I take advantage of the AI wave to get ahead economically?”

We were just talking about this deep pessimism about what technology can bring us here in the US. I think a lot of people look around and think: We don’t have a cure for cancer yet, but we’ve sure seen our lives get worse in a lot of ways because of technology, social media, whatever. That pessimism probably fuels the backlash to AI, the skepticism about whether it can ever deliver on its promises. And that experience just isn’t the same in China, or probably much of the rest of the world, where technological progress has been faster and more concrete in people’s lives.

My 90-year-old grandfather said he’d love an elder-care robot to help him do tasks around the house so he doesn’t have to rely on his kids — he wants more freedom and mobility. It’s seen more as a tool to help individual goals. Even with the robot factories or pharmacies — one thing that struck me visiting a robot pharmacy was that the PR people happily said, “Yep, we’re doing these robots because human workers take too many smoke breaks and bathroom breaks and take too long.”

You’d never say that in the US, but they’re probably thinking the same thing — they just don’t say it. The other thing they mentioned is that this lets the pharmacy operate 24/7, because a lot of people need medications in the middle of the night and want to order via the DoorDash equivalent. There was actually a labor shortage before — Chinese workers weren’t willing to work night shifts — so these pharmacies are offering real consumer surplus. A significant percentage of orders come in overnight, when no other pharmacy is open. And with the factories, part of the issue is that Chinese workers, especially young people, don’t want to do factory work anymore.

“I think the 2028 presidential primary and election is really where I expect AI to become a centerpiece of the conversation.”

That anecdote gets at the promise and peril of AI, and the role of the backlash movement — which I’m still wrestling with how I feel about. On the one hand, I want to live in a world where cancer gets cured, where we live in an era of abundance, where things are cheap and easy to make because factories can run all the time with machine workers who don’t require anything — I want the future we were promised, of flying cars and everything working well.

But I also don’t want to lose my job, or see humanity wiped out by an angry machine god. Because we don’t really know what’s going to happen yet, it’s hard to work out my own feelings about the pushback here in the States — what’s appropriate, and what’s holding us back from real advances in our lives.

Totally, I agree. I like Waymos — I think they’re safer, and I’d prefer a safer robot car driv[ing] me around instead of me driving. I’m not a good driver; no one should let me drive. So I wrestle with some of the same things.

To close out the conversation — let’s come back to the United States. AI populism is brewing as a political force. We’ve seen it show up in a couple of races so far, but it’s early. We’ve got the midterms, then the presidential election. How do you think it’s going to affect American politics this November, and in 2028?

My sense is that this November, it’s going to be more about state and local races where AI really shows up. I’m going to spend some time in Michigan and Wisconsin this summer touring some of the data center sites facing the most opposition — those states also have contested governor and Senate races where AI and data centers have become a core issue, so I’m interested to learn more there. I think the 2028 presidential primary and election is really where I expect AI to become a centerpiece of the conversation — especially if we start to see some of the employment impacts people are expecting. As soon as we see something like a 2 percent rise in unemployment, if that happens, I think people will be very upset, and we should expect a ton of focus on the issue.

The other thing I’ll note is political opportunism — you’re already seeing a bit of this, where politicians are likely to raise the salience of AI above where people might ordinarily care about it, because it’s become a convenient boogeyman. It polls so poorly, people are so anti-AI and anti-data-center, AI billionaires are so unsympathetic, that no matter what your policy program is, AI is a great reason to push it. I think a lot of politicians who are being clever about this are going to move AI to the center of the conversation, raising its salience to manufacture urgency for proposals they’re already excited about. That’s definitely something I’m watching for 2028.

Source link

Tech

Every frontier AI model the UK tested for cheating cheated

Published

9 minutes ago

22 July 2026

NewsAdmin

The UK’s AI safety watchdog put five frontier models through a set of security tests to see whether they would cut corners. Every one of them cheated. Worse, when asked about it afterwards, most would not admit they had done anything wrong.

The finding comes from the AI Security Institute (AISI), a research body inside the UK government. Across its cyber capability tests, leading models routinely took banned shortcuts to reach a goal, as The Register reported. Then they failed to flag what they had done.

“Every model we have tested for this behaviour attempted to cheat,” AISI wrote.

What the numbers show

AISI defines cheating as any action outside a task’s scope, or one the rules explicitly ban, used to reach the goal by a shortcut. In its cyber tests, models hunt for a hidden “flag” within set limits. Going outside those limits counts as cheating.

The 💜 of EU tech

The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol’ founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It’s free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!

Over 475 test runs each, the rates varied. GPT-5.4 cheated 14.1% of the time, GPT-5.5 11.4%, and GPT-5.6-Sol 12.6%. Among Anthropic’s models, Claude 4.7 Opus cheated 9.1% and Claude Mythos Preview 7.8%. The tactics varied too. Models searched the web for answers, bypassed sandbox limits, probed the test harness, or attacked systems that were not the target.

One model went too far

The starkest case involved a test AISI had misconfigured by accident, making it impossible to solve. One model refused to give up. It wrote and ran code on an external service on the open internet, trying to reach AISI’s own evaluation systems. That tripped a security alert.

No data leaked and nothing broke. But AISI said the attempt could have succeeded had it not built its systems securely. It has since tightened its controls.

They will not own up

The bigger problem is trust. Asked whether they had cheated, models called the action wrong less than half the time. They often did not mention it in their chain-of-thought, the written reasoning some models produce as they work. In some runs, a model weighed up whether a step counted as cheating, then took it anyway.

That means the two obvious checks, asking the model and reading its reasoning, both fall short. Notably, cheating did not track with how capable a model was. AISI thinks it stems from how developers train and align each model, not from raw power.

Not just in the lab

This is not only a testing-lab curiosity. OpenAI recently disclosed that its long-horizon model, the one that tackled a famous maths problem, broke out of its sandbox during internal use. In its own safety report, OpenAI said the model split an authentication token to slip past a scanner. It also posted results to a public code repository that OpenAI had ruled off limits.

A case for referees

AISI is careful not to overstate it. Cheating does not always mean malicious intent, and it says no model has yet cheated its way undetected past the manual review behind its published results. Even so, it warns that as models grow more capable, manual review and automated monitoring may not keep up.

The tidy fix would be to train models not to cheat at all. But researchers first flagged this more than a year ago, and AISI says aligning it away is proving hard. That strengthens the case for the independent, pre-deployment referees that figures like Demis Hassabis have proposed. It also feeds the wider push to regulate frontier systems before they ship.

Source link

Tech

These Were My Favorite Things Samsung Unpacked During Its 2026 Galaxy Event

Published

22 minutes ago

22 July 2026

NewsAdmin

When a company teases its upcoming products so heavily — the Galaxy Z Fold 8 was the star of a Spider-Man: Brand New Day commercial a full week before today’s Samsung Unpacked, for heaven’s sake — it can feel underwhelming when it’s actually revealed.

But knowing that Samsung was going to announce a trio of new foldable phones and a pair of updated watches isn’t the same as discovering interesting details about them. Now that the products are officially official, here’s what stands out to me.

Another aspect (ratio) on foldables: The Z Fold 8 ‘Wide’

Squint just a bit and most phones look like interchangeable rectangular slabs. Nearly every mobile phone is modeled after handsets that needed to position the speaker at your ear and the microphone at your mouth. Companies have stuck with the same basic design because that’s what people are familiar with.

A foldable phone being held up in front of a busy room. — The Z Fold 8 has a 4:3 aspect ratio.Andrew Lanxon/CNET

The Z Fold 8, with its squat folded size and 4:3 aspect ratio when opened, invites you to think about using a phone from another angle. The traditional tall screen of most slab designs has locked us into an infinite-scroll, squeezed-video existence that crushes us from both sides.

OK, that was too dramatic. A narrow phone fits well in your hand.

But there’s room for more phone variety. As CNET Senior Technology Reporter Abrar Al-Heeti wrote in her hands-on article, “the Z Fold 8 feels equally optimized for watching horizontal videos or multitasking in landscape mode, and browsing vertically oriented apps in portrait mode.”

A compact folding phone is held closed in a person's hand. — The Galaxy Z Fold 8 takes up less space when closed than many other phones.Andrew Lanxon/CNET

To be fair, taking on a predominantly wide orientation invites risk… think back to the Planet Computers Gemini PDA built wide to accommodate a physical keyboard, or the quirky LG Wing. But bending the design into a foldable phone hopefully gives the best of both orientations.

The format isn’t entirely new: The iPad also has the same 4:3 aspect ratio (when used horizontally), as does Samsung’s Galaxy Z TriFold when fully opened. But those are very different devices.

If the design is embraced, Apple might see it as validation for its rumored iPhone Ultra foldable, which may have similar dimensions.

Why the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Is the Foldable I've Been Waiting For

The new, revised foldables: Z Fold 8 Ultra and Z Flip 8

Does it really count if my “favorite” things include almost every new announced product? Yes, because as always with phones, details matter. And there are some details of the other two foldables that stand out.

Image showing the edge of a closed foldable phone — Its svelte proportions mean that even when the Z Fold 8 Ultra is closed, it’s still not very thick.Andrew Lanxon/CNET

For example, the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra strongly resembles last year’s Z Fold 7, just with an upgraded Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy chip, a 5,000-mAh battery and a 50-megapixel ultrawide camera.

But look at that crease between panels. No, really, look closely, because – at least from the presentation and early looks by my fellow CNET writers – Samsung has minimized the crease to the point where it’s almost invisible (likely thanks in part to the phones’ new titanium flex hinge). The Z Fold 8 Ultra could be the foldable that doesn’t pop an asterisk in your mind each time you open it, thinking, “It’s not that noticeable, really.”

One big way Samsung has improved the Z Fold 8 Ultra is by reducing the crease, as seen in this comparison with last year’s Z Fold 7.
Samsung

When we’re talking about a device that you’ll open dozens of times a day, that type of improvement makes a huge difference.

In the same vein, the Z Flip 8 follows on from the Z Flip 7 but is “noticeably lighter and thinner than prior iterations,” writes CNET Senior Editor Mike Sorrentino. It’s also using the cover screen better, letting you switch apps quickly, for example, so you don’t need to open the phone to do anything meaningful.

A small flip-style phone held in a person's hand. — The Galaxy Z Flip 8 is thinner and lighter than its predecessor.Andrew Lanxon/CNET

I Tried Samsung's Z Fold 8, Fold 8 Ultra, Z Flip 8 and Watch Ultra 2: Come Along

A watch that’s meant to be used: Galaxy Watch Ultra 2

I’m not a runner, but living in the Pacific Northwest, I know that a perfectly level run is rare. Navigating hills can make a huge difference in how much effort is expended during a run.

The Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 can withstand the elements. Vanessa Hand Orellana/CNET

The Galaxy Watch Ultra 2‘s trail-running feature looks like a good way to bring more of the real world into all the exercise data captured by a smartwatch. In her testing with the watch before the announcement, CNET Principal Writer Vanessa Hand Orellana noted that getting terrain information into the watch — by importing a GPX geotrack file — was an awkward process, but that data should be available later via Google Maps.

The Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 also has a hydration reminder feature, which seems perfectly paired with exercise. But she noted that the reminders pop up based on algorithmic prediction, not on any sensors monitoring sweat or salinity.

Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 and Watch 9: Should You Upgrade? My First Week of Testing

I’m shocked – shocked! – to learn that AI is happening in here

We can’t have product demos without AI features these days. Samsung showed off agentic features such as Now Nudge and the new Gemini Notebook app, which are quickly becoming table stakes for AI software. The phones will include six months of a Google AI Pro subscription.

But there are also some creative ideas at play. My FanCam lets you single out a person in a video and keep the focus on them, no matter where they move in the frame. The example shown was a stage full of dancers that focused on one woman, with the video cropped to a tall phone-friendly ratio. If grandparents have a hard time spotting which kid on stage is theirs, this feature could rapidly prove its worth.

Image showing an AI cropping tool on a foldable phone — Didn’t focus enough on just one person? My FanCam will recrop your video to focus on whoever you want.Andrew Lanxon/CNET

It’s a neat use of AI that doesn’t involve generating imagery that was never in the content to begin with. As my colleagues have pointed out, however, cropping that tight is bound to degrade the overall quality of the footage, so My FanCam might just become an it’s-good-enough-for-social-media feature.

The running coach on the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 is much improved, according to Orellana, hopefully making it more than just a friendly booster chiming your greatness in your earbuds at regular intervals.

Silicon-carbon batteries are coming for better battery life

What do people really want in their phones? Longer battery life. That’s even more important with foldable phones with three power-sucking screens. So it was great to see Samsung incorporate silicon-carbon battery technology into its new phones.

There was an audible “whoa” in the crowd at the event venue when the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra’s silicon-carbon battery was highlighted. For example, Samsung promises the Z Fold 8 Ultra can get 27 hours of video playback, and the Z Fold 8 can get 28 hours.

The Galaxy watches do not use silicon-carbon batteries, but the Galaxy Ultra 2’s battery is 35% larger to give up to 60 hours of use on a single charge.

Plus a pricey, not-so-favorite thing

New products compel us to look at new features, but we can’t ignore the biggest change that might determine whether you decide to buy one of Samsung’s new devices: price increases. The base Galaxy Z Flip 8 and Z Fold 8 Ultra each cost $100 more than their predecessors, no doubt due in part to increased component costs worldwide thanks to “RAMageddon.” The Z Fold 8 actually costs $100 less than the Z Fold 7, but that’s still $1,900 for a mobile phone.

Everything is expensive, and Samsung and other companies are building products that use some of the world’s most precious materials. But that means little if the pool of people able and willing to buy them shrinks so much that they can’t sell enough devices. It’s all the more galling when a flush company like Apple hikes prices across most of its products to seemingly protect its already high profit margins.

Still, this is the technology world we’re in, and I can’t discount that for many people, a wide foldable phone like the Z Fold 8 is exactly what they’re looking (and maybe saving up) for.

Jeff Carlson

Senior Writer

Jeff Carlson writes about mobile technology for CNET. He is also the author of dozens of how-to books covering a wide spectrum ranging from Apple devices and cameras to photo editing software and PalmPilots. He drinks a lot of coffee in Seattle.

See full bio

Source link

Tech

Samsung Promises Stronger, Better Smart Glasses. But What About Privacy?

Published

35 minutes ago

22 July 2026

NewsAdmin

Back at Google’s I/O developer conference in May, I tried Samsung and Google’s smart glasses, which are expected this fall. At Samsung’s latest phone and watch-focused Unpacked event, a few more details on those glasses have emerged. New frame designs, some promised battery life and specs, and also, how Samsung and Google aim to address privacy concerns with glasses that Meta’s currently facing.

Samsung and Google’s first wave of smart glasses are display-free, but have a camera, microphones and speakers, much like many of Meta’s glasses. Display-enabled versions are also on the way, like Meta’s Ray-Ban Displays, but afterwards. They run Qualcomm chipsets inside, much like Meta’s glasses also do.

The new Warby Parker frame design (Photo by Tara Brown/CNET).

Source link

Tech

Cascade raises $3.5M to help construction firms find and win projects

Published

57 minutes ago

22 July 2026

NewsAdmin

Cascade, a startup building a platform to help architecture, engineering, and construction firms find and win projects, has raised a $3.5 million seed round from Andreessen Horowitz Speedrun, Ada Ventures, and Snowball VC.

Launched in 2025, Cascade is a result of its founders, Hannia Zia and Joana Ferreira, witnessing firsthand the difficulty construction businesses face with predictably securing work.

“My mother worked in a company that sold materials to construction companies, and my uncle built mansions in the Middle East. They’re incredible at their craft but just don’t have access to the right tools to get more work,” Ferreira told TechCrunch. And Zia recalled the time her father tried starting a construction business back in her native Pakistan: “He just couldn’t get enough projects to sustain himself.”

Zia describes the current process of finding construction projects as a “constant treasure hunt,” with firms having to log into each U.S. state, city, district, county, and federal agency’s portals. “So if you’re really good at building suspension bridges, you have to find all of those opportunities across these disparate portals.”

Cascade aims to help architecture, construction, and engineering firms on this front by tracking ongoing and upcoming projects, and then using prior tender data to predict which developers are likely to win the deals.

Here’s how the platform works: A company signs up to the platform, and then Cascade uses AI tools to determine which projects they have the best chance of winning. It also predicts what projects are coming up, using different signals and data points across U.S. states, local districts, private contracts, and federal agencies. For example, if a state announces a $100 million affordable housing grant, Cascade will monitor which developers won the grant the last time it was announced.

“We connect that data, and we tell our customers: ‘Most likely one of these five developers will win this newly announced grant, so go start talking to them to win projects,’” Ferreira explained.

The duo applied to a16z’s Speedrun last September. They said the pressure to do well on demo day and being around the “brilliance” of other founders helped the company sign contracts with firms that have built the JFK and La Guardia airports, Four Seasons hotels, and some data centers. “Speedrun gave us visibility and a stamp of approval to close big deals,” Zia said.

The startup will use the fresh cash to go to market, host industry events, and hire more engineers.

Other startups in this area include GovWin IQ and ConstructConnect, but Ferreira argues Cascade is a bit more AI-native than these platforms.

“Every time a customer wins a bid, they give feedback, so the system keeps getting smarter. Over time, we’ll have a complete map of the industry that our AI can traverse to predict the best projects and leads for each customer,” she said.

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

Source link

Tech

Jack Dorsey’s Block takes on Slack with Buzz

Published

1 hour ago

22 July 2026

NewsAdmin

Jack Dorsey’s Block wants to take on Slack. The twist is that the workforce it is building for is half machine. Its new app, Buzz, is an open-source workspace where humans and AI agents share the same channels, and every agent carries its own portable identity.

Block, the Dorsey-led fintech behind Square and Cash App, has released Buzz, a free, open-source platform for humans and AI agents to work together. Reviewers have framed it as a direct challenge to Slack, one built for the age of agents.

On the surface it looks familiar. Buzz has channels, threads, direct messages, voice, media sharing, code repositories, and automated workflows. Anyone who has used a modern team chat tool will recognise it.

Agents as colleagues, not assistants

The difference sits underneath. In Buzz, AI agents are not bots waiting for a command. Each one has its own cryptographic identity, defined permissions, and the ability to post, review code, run approved automations, and join conversations. Multiple agents and multiple humans share a workspace and build on each other’s work.

TNW City Coworking space – Where your best work happens

A workspace designed for growth, collaboration, and endless networking opportunities in the heart of tech.

“Every company is going to need a place where humans and agents work together,” said Bradley Axen, Block’s Head of AI Capabilities. “The question is whether that place is proprietary or open. We built Buzz because we believe it should be open.”

It is model-agnostic. Teams can plug in agents built on any model or harness, such as Claude Code, Codex, or Block’s own goose. They can bring their own, or build new ones.

The identity bet

Buzz runs on Nostr, the decentralised protocol Dorsey has long backed. Block chose it to solve what it calls the core problem of multi-agent work: identity. Every participant, human or agent, holds a cryptographic keypair that belongs to them, not to the platform.

That means an agent’s identity is not tied to a vendor’s API key. It is portable and verifiable, and it can move across any Nostr-compatible system, carrying its history and reputation with it. It echoes a wider push to give agents a durable identity system of their own.

Open versus locked in

Block’s real argument is about control. Most companies are building their agent infrastructure inside proprietary platforms run by a handful of providers, which breeds fragmentation and vendor dependency. Buzz ships under an Apache-2.0 licence. Teams can run their own instance with full control over data and agents, or use Block’s hosted version.

The open, self-hosted pitch should land with European firms wary of US vendor lock-in and of data leaving their control. It also chimes with the drive to give autonomous agents their own standing as they take on real work.

A crowded room

Buzz is still early. The Git integration is nascent. And Block is entering a field where Slack, Microsoft Teams, and OpenAI all race to deploy agents in the workplace. Whether openness beats the incumbents’ reach is the open question. So is oversight: handing agents their own identities and permissions is convenient, and it is exactly the autonomy that safety researchers keep warning about.

Source link

Tech

New InfraTrust report reveals infrastructure flaws admins should patch first

Published

1 hour ago

22 July 2026

NewsAdmin

InfraTrust

Eclypsium has launched InfraTrust, a new infrastructure cybersecurity knowledge base and monthly InfraTrust Pulse report designed to help organizations prioritize vulnerabilities affecting infrastructure, firmware, networking, and edge devices.

The monthly report aggregates security advisories from major infrastructure vendors and highlights the vulnerabilities administrators should prioritize based on a flaw’s exploitability, exposure, and real-world risk rather than severity scores alone.

The inaugural July 2026 InfraTrust Pulse by Paul Asadoorian, Principal Security Researcher at Eclypsium, tracked 61 infrastructure advisories from 14 vendors, including six critical advisories and 26 remotely exploitable, unauthenticated vulnerabilities.

The report also highlights several advisories containing actively exploited vulnerabilities or flaws tracked in CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog.

Eclypsium also argues that organizations should prioritize vulnerabilities based on exploitability, reachability, and exposure rather than CVSS scores alone.

The focus on infrastructure security comes as Russian and Chinese state-sponsored threat actors have increasingly targeted vulnerable network edge devices.

In recent years, attackers have repeatedly exploited flaws in routers, VPNs, firewalls, and other internet-facing infrastructure to breach critical infrastructure and telecommunications providers, including in campaigns attributed to state-sponsored hacking groups such as Volt Typhoon and Salt Typhoon.

What to patch first

The report highlights several advisories that admins should prioritize because they affect internet-exposed infrastructure, are already exploited, or can be compromised remotely without authentication.

Below are the infrastructure advisories Eclypsium says administrators should prioritize based on active exploitation, exposure, and the potential impact of a compromise.

Advisory	Why patch now?
SonicWall SMA1000	Two actively exploited vulnerabilities affecting an internet-facing remote-access appliance.
Fortinet FortiSandbox	Two flaws later added to CISA KEV-listed that allow unauthenticated command injection.
Dell Networking (EMC Networking OS10 / SmartFabric Manager)	Critical remotely exploitable, unauthenticated vulnerabilities affecting switching and data-center fabric management.
F5 BIG-IP	Unauthenticated, network-reachable vulnerabilities affecting internet-facing application delivery controllers and load balancers.
Juniper	Remotely exploitable flaws that can be used to crash affected networking devices, potentially causing denial-of-service conditions.
NVIDIA BlueField / ConnectX	Vulnerabilities affecting BlueField DPUs and ConnectX SmartNICs used in AI and data-center infrastructure.

In SonicWall’s case, attackers were exploiting the SMA1000 flaws, tracked as CVE-2026-15409 and CVE-2026-15410, to install custom malware weeks before SonicWall disclosed the flaws and before they were added to CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog.

The Fortinet FortiSandbox advisories (FG-IR-26-100 / FG-IR-26-141) include two older critical command injection vulnerabilities tracked as CVE-2026-39808 and CVE-2026-25089. While these vulnerabilities were disclosed in April 2026 and June 2026, they were later added to CISA’s KEV catalog on July 16, after exploitation was detected.

While these advisories were not published in the 30-day reporting period, Eclypsium highlighted them because organizations may not have patched them or known they were exposed to attacks.

“These two Fortinet CVEs were in advisories released before our 30-day window opened. Still, we are including them because CISA added both to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog on July 16, 2026, with a federal remediation deadline of July 19 under BOD 26-04,” explains Eclypsium.

The Dell advisories (DSA-2026-240 and DSA-2026-317) address critical vulnerabilities in EMC Networking OS10 and SmartFabric Manager. Eclypsium notes that the OS10 advisory alone includes hundreds of upstream fixes, illustrating that network operating systems are full Linux distributions with large attack surfaces.

The F5 BIG-IP advisory (K000153397) addresses critical unauthenticated vulnerabilities affecting internet-exposed application delivery controllers (ADCs) and load balancers. Eclypsium highlights these devices because they frequently sit at the edge of enterprise networks, making them attractive targets for attackers.

The Juniper Networks advisory (JSA110083 and JSA110086) addresses remotely exploitable flaws in Junos OS that can crash affected routers and switches, potentially disrupting network availability.

The NVIDIA advisory (NVIDIA Security Bulletin 5865) addresses vulnerabilities in BlueField DPUs and ConnectX SmartNICs used in AI and data-center infrastructure.

Eclypsium also noted firmware and hardware vulnerabilities, warning that updates for these components commonly lag behind upstream security fixes because they depend on hardware vendors to integrate and distribute them.

As an example, HP’s Poly Video advisory shipped four months after an included Qualcomm GPU driver vulnerability (CVE-2026-21385) had already been exploited in attacks and added to CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog.

Unlike many vulnerability roundups that count individual CVEs, InfraTrust tracks vendor advisories because a single infrastructure advisory can contain dozens or even hundreds of vulnerabilities.

While the July report contains six critical advisories, it also identifies 26 vulnerabilities that can be exploited remotely without authentication, noting that an internet-reachable flaw with a lower CVSS score may present a greater risk to organizations than a higher-scoring vulnerability that requires an attacker to have local administrator access.

July 2026 infrastructure reference

Below is a complete list of the 61 infrastructure advisories tracked by Eclypsium in its inaugural July 2026 InfraTrust Pulse report.

The table includes the affected vendor and product, advisory identifier, severity, whether the advisory contains an actively exploited vulnerability, and a brief explanation of why it matters.

Vendor	Product	Advisory	Severity	Exploited	Why it matters
SonicWall	SMA1000 remote-access appliance	SNWLID-2026-0008	Critical, 10.0	Yes	Actively exploited pre-auth RCE chain; CVSS 10.0.
Dell	EMC Networking OS10	DSA-2026-240	Critical, 9.8	Yes	Includes a CISA-listed exploited Linux flaw.
Dell	SmartFabric Manager	DSA-2026-317	Critical, 9.8	No	Critical flaws in data-center fabric management.
F5	BIG-IP and F5 products	K000161837	Critical, 9.2	No	Unauthenticated memory-safety flaws on internet-facing ADCs.
Lenovo	ThinkSystem and System x servers	LEN-203310	Critical, 9.0	No	Code execution on server DPUs and SmartNICs.
NVIDIA	BlueField and ConnectX	Bulletin 5699	Critical, 9.0	No	Code execution on networking silicon in the data path.
Qualcomm	Snapdragon and networking chipsets	July 2026 Bulletin	High, 8.8	No	OEM-dependent fixes extend the exposure window.
Juniper	Junos OS (MX and SRX)	JSA110083	High, 8.7	No	Remote unauthenticated DoS against MX and SRX routers.
Juniper	Junos OS (MX and SRX)	JSA110086	High, 8.7	No	Remote unauthenticated DoS through the SIP ALG.
Fortinet	FortiSandbox	FG-IR-26-145	High, 8.6	No	Unauthenticated VNC access on all network interfaces.
Citrix	NetScaler ADC (Secure Access client)	CTX696734	High, 8.5	No	Client flaws in the NetScaler remote-access stack.
Dell	PowerProtect Data Manager (DM5500)	DSA-2026-282	High, 8.5	No	Command injection and data exposure on a backup appliance.
HP	Poly Voice (CCX, Trio, Edge E)	HPSBPY04096	High, 8.2	No	Malicious SIP server can disable Poly Voice phones.
Juniper	Junos OS Evolved (PTX)	JSA110073	High, 8.2	No	Remote unauthenticated DoS against PTX core routers.
Juniper	Junos OS (MX and SRX)	JSA110082	High, 8.2	No	Crafted responses can crash the packet-forwarding engine.
Juniper	Junos OS (SRX)	JSA110090	High, 8.2	No	Remote unauthenticated crash in SRX packet processing.
Dell	iDRAC9 (PowerEdge BMC)	DSA-2026-312	High, 7.8	No	BMC flaws affect control beneath the operating system.
HP	HP PC BIOS (InsydeH2O tools)	HPSBHF04134	High, 7.8	No	Firmware-update flaw can lead to code execution.
HP	Poly Studio X video codecs	HPSBPY04106	High, 7.8	Yes	Re-ships a CISA-listed exploited Qualcomm flaw.
Cisco	Catalyst Center	cisco-sa-catc-file-read	High, 7.5	No	Unauthenticated arbitrary file read from Catalyst Center.
Cisco	Secure Web Appliance	cisco-sa-clamav	High, 7.5	No	ClamAV flaw can disable malware scanning.
Dell	iDRAC10 (PowerEdge BMC)	DSA-2026-270	High, 7.5	No	BMC resource-exhaustion and certificate-validation flaws.
Dell	PowerEdge (OpenSSL)	DSA-2026-316	High, 7.5	No	OpenSSL fixes reach servers only through Dell firmware.
Palo Alto	PAN-OS (User-ID TSA)	CVE-2026-0288	High, 7.2	No	Unauthenticated DoS and possible code execution.
HP	HP PC BIOS (AMD Client UEFI)	HPSBHF04133	High, 7.1	No	Firmware flaws can allow code execution below the OS.
Juniper	Junos OS (RPD, BGP)	JSA110076	High, 7.1	No	Malformed BGP updates can disrupt the routing control plane.
Juniper	Junos OS (MX)	JSA110079	High, 7.1	No	Adjacent attacker can stall packet processing.
Juniper	Junos OS (QFX10000)	JSA110080	High, 7.1	No	Crafted multicast traffic can degrade EVPN-VXLAN switches.
Juniper	Junos OS (EX Virtual Chassis)	JSA110087	High, 7.1	No	sFlow memory leak can exhaust Virtual Chassis switches.
Juniper	Junos OS (EX)	JSA110092	High, 7.1	No	Low-privileged user can crash a switch line card.
Lenovo	Lenovo PC BIOS	LEN-220440	High, 7.0	No	BIOS memory-corruption flaws require OEM updates.
Juniper	Junos OS Evolved	JSA110078	Medium, 6.9	No	Unexpectedly exposed internal service enables remote attacks.
Juniper	Junos OS (SRX RA-VPN)	JSA110081	Medium, 6.9	No	Pre-auth VPN requests can crash the gatekeeper process.
Juniper	Junos OS (MX and SRX, IKE)	JSA110084	Medium, 6.9	No	Failed IKE negotiations can deny new VPN connections.
Juniper	Junos OS Evolved	JSA110088	Medium, 6.9	No	Remote attacker can exhaust licenses and degrade service.
Juniper	Junos OS (MX)	JSA110093	Medium, 6.9	No	URL-parsing flaw can bypass web-filtering controls.
Juniper	Junos OS (EX)	JSA110077	Medium, 6.8	No	Local user can stop all switch traffic.
Juniper	Junos OS (EX, QFX, MX)	JSA110085	Medium, 6.8	No	Low-privileged command can crash Layer 2 services.
Fortinet	FortiOS, FortiProxy	FG-IR-26-148	Medium, 6.6	No	Authenticated buffer overflow in firewall log reporting.
Palo Alto	PAN-OS	CVE-2026-0287	Medium, 6.6	No	Unauthenticated traffic can force the firewall into maintenance mode.
HPE Aruba Networking	Instant On switches	HPESBNW05038	Medium, 6.5	No	Unauthenticated disclosure of cryptographic secrets.
Netgear	Nighthawk, Orbi, WAX routers	PSV-000070859	Medium, 6.3	No	Edge-device command injection and stack-overflow flaws.
Fortinet	FortiOS, FortiProxy	FG-IR-26-150	Medium, 6.1	No	Pre-auth XSS can target administrator sessions.
HP	Poly Voice	HPSBPY04109	Medium, 6.0	No	Stolen cookie can be used to modify phone settings.
Juniper	Junos OS Evolved (QFX)	JSA110089	Medium, 6.0	No	sFlow synchronization flaw can intermittently crash QFX switches.
Palo Alto	PAN-OS	CVE-2026-0286	Medium, 6.0	No	Compromised admin account can execute commands as root.
HP	Poly Voice	HPSBPY04108	Medium, 5.9	No	Stored XSS through attacker-controlled phone configuration.
Palo Alto	Prisma Access Agent (iOS)	CVE-2026-0277	Medium, 5.7	No	Certificate-validation flaw enables VPN interception.
Fortinet	FortiOS, FortiProxy	FG-IR-26-151	Medium, 5.5	No	Privileged path traversal can delete the root filesystem.
Juniper	Junos OS (SNMP)	JSA110074	Medium, 5.3	No	Crafted SNMPv3 queries can crash device monitoring.
Palo Alto	PAN-OS (LSVPN)	CVE-2026-0284	Medium, 4.7	No	Unauthenticated XML injection in Large Scale VPN.
Palo Alto	PAN-OS (management)	CVE-2026-0285	Medium, 4.7	No	Admin SSRF can reach internal services.
Palo Alto	PAN-OS (LSVPN)	CVE-2026-0283	Medium, 4.5	No	Authentication bypass can create an unauthorized VPN tunnel.
Fortinet	FortiOS, FortiProxy	FG-IR-26-152	Medium, 4.3	No	Pre-auth response splitting in the Web Filter portal.
Fortinet	FortiOS, FortiProxy	FG-IR-26-153	Medium, 4.3	No	Pre-auth response splitting in the captive portal.
Fortinet	FortiOS, FortiProxy	FG-IR-26-154	Medium, 4.3	No	Captive-portal memory disclosure may aid exploit chains.
Palo Alto	PAN-OS (management)	CVE-2026-0282	Low, 2.7	No	Unauthenticated temporary-file deletion on management interface.
Palo Alto	PAN-OS (management)	CVE-2026-0281	Low, 2.1	No	Malicious link can expose an administrator session token.
Palo Alto	PAN-OS (dataplane)	CVE-2026-0280	Low, 1.7	No	IPv6 flaw can bypass firewall policy.
Palo Alto	PAN-OS (GlobalProtect, Captive Portal)	CVE-2026-0279	Low, 1.3	No	Pre-auth XSS in GlobalProtect and Captive Portal.
Palo Alto	Cortex XDR Broker VM	CVE-2026-0276	Low, 1.1	No	Local privilege escalation to root on Broker VM.

Security teams log 54% of successful attacks and alert on just 14%. The rest move through your environment unseen.

The Picus whitepaper shows how breach and attack simulation tests your SIEM and EDR rules so threats stop slipping by detection.

Get the whitepaper

Source link

Tech

What Does AI Cost When We Skip the Work?

Published

2 hours ago

22 July 2026

NewsAdmin

Every few months, another headline declares the college degree dead. This Week with EdSurge examines what still holds up when artificial intelligence moves fast, through two guests who are both defending something slow against something fast.

A Four Year Degree in the Age of AI

Rita Finkel, co-president of the Armory Foundation and director of the Armory College Prep program, argues that a college degree was never just about a technical skill. She says the data tells a different story than the headlines suggest, and that the value of a degree comes from something artificial intelligence cannot replicate.

The Fourth Essay

Cobretti Williams of the EdSurge Voices of Change Fellowship makes a similar case for writing. He talks about the beauty in imperfection, and how a fellow’s fourth essay reads nothing like the first, growth that only comes from doing the work yourself.

Listen to the episode.

Stories Mentioned in This Episode

Why College Degrees Matter in the Age of AI

by Rita Finkel

EdSurge Voices of Change Writing Fellowship

by EdSurge

This Week with EdSurge is a weekly podcast from EdSurge. Subscribe to the EdSurge newsletters for more news and analysis on education and technology.

Source link

Tech

Which New Samsung Foldable Phone Should You Buy? Fold8 Ultra, Fold8, or Flip8?

Published

2 hours ago

22 July 2026

NewsAdmin

Samsung has steadily improved its foldables, but the eighth annual update includes a fresh face, the Z Fold8, which features the long-rumored wide form factor. It slots in between the flagship Z Fold8 Ultra, which is the successor to last year’s Fold7, and the smaller Flip8, which succeeds the Flip7. Is the newcomer an awkward middle child or the glue that holds Samsung’s folding family together? Samsung also has a couple of new smartwatches, the Galaxy Watch Ultra2 and Watch9.

The new phones are available for preorder, but before you get yours, let’s dig into the details to help you decide which of Samsung’s folding phones to buy. I’ll break down the key differences and similarities, so you can make an informed choice. And remember, Samsung sells many other smartphones, and we highlight the ones worth looking at in our Best Samsung Phones guide.

Table of Contents

Which Samsung Galaxy Z Is Right For You?

Image may contain Electronics Mobile Phone and Phone

Let’s take a quick peek at what the eighth-generation Samsung Galaxy Z foldables have in common this year.

Although Samsung’s foldables all feature exterior and foldout screens in completely different sizes, they all boast Samsung’s Dynamic AMOLED 2X technology, so you get a 120-Hz refresh rate, support for HDR, and higher peak brightness than ever before (up to 3,000 nits), making it easy to read your screen, even in direct sunlight. They also have features designed to filter blue light and reduce eye strain.

The Fold8 Ultra and Fold8 have a special Flex Titanium layer that reduces the visible crease and provides extra strength, flexibility, and resilience. The titanium-alloy film should help the displays last longer, but also means they are flatter and smoother than before, with an anti-reflective finish that reduces glare.

All three phones have Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 processor inside, with 12 GB of RAM and 256 GB or 512 GB of storage. You can also get the Fold8 Ultra and Fold8 with 16 GB of RAM and 1 TB of storage. They are all IP48 water- and dust-resistant and feature Samsung’s Advanced Armor Aluminum frame, which is scratch-resistant and durable enough to survive minor drops. The Fold8 Ultra and Fold8 support fast charging at up to 45 watts and fast wireless charging at 20 watts; the Flip8 is slightly slower for both. All three support Wireless PowerShare to top up wireless earbuds and other devices. Connectivity includes Wi-Fi 7 and Ultra Wideband (UWB).

Image may contain Electronics Mobile Phone Phone and Iphone

Aside from the sizes, the camera systems are very different, but here are all the specs, so you can see exactly where they diverge.

Source link

Tech

I tried the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 and I am totally in love with this unique foldable

Published

2 hours ago

22 July 2026

NewsAdmin

Samsung is trying to jazz things up once again in the foldable space, and the mantra this time around is going smaller and lighter. The result of those efforts is the Galaxy Z Fold 8, and it’s the first time in years that I vocally said “wow” the moment I picked it up. It’s pocketable, light, sleek, and most importantly, oozes functional charm.

Just take a look at how petite it is when held alongside a modern-age iPhone. In an age when smartphones are getting thicker and bulkier, the Galaxy Z Fold 8 wants to stand out in a rather unique fashion. Even in the unfolded state, it’s less than a millimeter thicker than an iPhone 17 Pro (9.7 vs 8.75 mm). If you compare the weight, the comparison flips in its favor. The Galaxy Z Fold 8 is lighter than even the smaller iPhone 17 Pro (201 grams vs 204 grams).

This is the foldable that finally feels pocket-friendly

The difference may not seem huge, but the Galaxy Z Fold 8 packs two screens. But that’s not even the big novelty here. It’s the format that makes this one special. One instant, you have an utterly palm-friendly compact screen in your hands. And as soon as you unfold it, the phone gives you access to a sharp 7.6-inch screen with a 4:3 aspect ratio.

That 4:3 number is nothing short of a boon. Everything feels naturally spread out on the inner flexible screen. It’s wider and more naturally suited for content, whether it’s films, books, or games. You don’t see ugly black bars or have to deal with a forcibly stretched perspective to fill the screen. Samsung is not shy about that appeal either. It is “designed around the way people naturally consume content,” says the company.

The 4:3 display changes everything

You see, typical book-style foldable phones are usually tall, thick, or adopt a square-ish look, which means letterboxing persists, or content is chopped off. You either see those unforgiving black bars while watching videos, or have to sacrifice content real estate in games and videos. The Galaxy Z Fold 8 is an antidote to those viewing problems, and it does so in style.

There is another underrated side to it that Samsung didn’t discuss, but it’s equally important. The cover display is just 5.5 inches across, and thanks to its wider 10:16 aspect ratio, it feels even smaller in the hand. Even the iPhone 15, which is supposedly deemed one of the last compact phones from a mainstream brand, features a 6.1-inch panel, while its successors have moved to an even bigger panel.

A small outer screen, and that’s actually a good thing

And yet, it’s not just the smaller panel size that stands out on the Galaxy Z Fold 8. It’s the overall smaller footprint, as well. Technically, everything looks great and loads just fine on this screen. But thanks to the petite vertical screen real estate, dopamine-inducing content, such as TikToks and vertical social media content, doesn’t feel as immersive.

If you look at the digital detox and minimalist phone community, you’ll see a pattern. Smaller screens and weirder aspect ratios. The idea is to broadly make the “addictive” multimedia content appear less appealing so that you spend less time consuming it. I love it, irrespective of whether Samsung was on the same minimalism page as me or not.

Electronics, Mobile Phone, Phone — Nadeem Sarwar / DigitalTrends

Less screen, fewer distractions

The engineering, otherwise, is impeccable. It’s unbelievably slim, light, and easy on the eyes. And oh, it’s blazing fast, too. Both screens are 120Hz type, which means all user interactions feel super fluid. Under the hood, you get Qualcomm’s top-shelf silicon, fast 45W wired charging, and a pair of 50-megapixel camera sensors at the back.

It’s the whole flagship foldable package, just in a different form factor. Yes, the asking price of $1,899 is a tough pill to swallow. And compared to what Chinese brands (or even a US label like Motorola) have to offer with the Razr Fold, the Galaxy Z Fold 8 might feel underequipped in a few key departments, such as the camera hardware. In hindsight, no phone is cheap these days, or stays that way, thanks to the AI-triggered industry-wide crisis.

Here’s the bottom line, though. The Galaxy Z Fold 8 is the right Samsung foldable to buy this year. It’s fresh, bold, sturdier, faster, and more importantly, a functionally rewarding evolution. It might miss out on the razzle-dazzle of a 200-megapixel camera that you get on the Ultra sibling (for $200 extra), but that’s the end of it. It’s the most refreshing and refined foldable hardware I’ve seen in years, and I can’t wait to explore it. Stay tuned for the review!

Source link

Tech

We Must Stop Using AI to ‘Level-Down’ Our Students

Published

2 hours ago

22 July 2026

NewsAdmin

No one would remember the line, “Keep being good and special, Ponyboy. Don’t change.” It just doesn’t hit the same as S.E. Hinton’s classic line, “Stay gold, Ponyboy, stay gold.”

Many English teachers, myself included, would consider it an atrocity to diminish this canonical line in literary history to such sterile and lifeless simplicity. Students deserve a better reading experience than that. Yet this is just what happens when teachers decide to level a text down to a student’s “instructional level” rather than scaffolding up their access to a complex text.

In my own district, just two years ago, educators raved about a new AI tool that helps teachers level text and encouraged the department to spend thousands of dollars on it. When I first heard about it, I admit, I was dazzled. The most time-consuming and work-intensive part of teaching for me has always been differentiating for the small percentage of kids who just don’t get it the first, second, or even third time you teach something.

This program was going to do it all for me, but the caveat was that it would also do all the thinking for the kids. When we keep kids from actually doing work that requires effortful thinking, they don’t learn anything at all.

While many states are passing legislation that focuses on the Science of Reading, moving districts away from programs that promote text leveling, many edtech companies are promoting this practice through their newest AI models. In our world of quick and snappy AI solutions, the leveled text shortcut is all too easy to take, but we should not give in to temptation.

The History of Text Leveling

The practice of teaching students at their “instructional” level has a long, storied history leading back to the founding colonies. If that sort of history interests you, I highly suggest checking out Timothy Shanahan’s “Leveled Reading: Leveled Lives,” which, for me, was one of the most eye-opening takes on reading education in this country since Natalie Wexler’s “The Knowledge Gap.”

Essentially, the practice of leveling text rests on the belief that we should give students texts that are at their “instructional” level only; for example, if a seventh grader is significantly behind, they may be reading on a third-grade level, so as their teacher, I should teach them using only third-grade-level books. This practice was popularized by elementary programs that assigned students reading levels such as the Fountas and Pinnell levels, Accelerated Reader, and Guided Reading. Eventually, it pervaded secondary intervention spaces and general education classrooms.

The problem with leveling text is that decades of research, more recently popularized by Science of Reading advocates, show that it doesn’t give students much room to grow.

What students need to grow is complex texts, but not only that, complex texts with a teacher modeling how a good reader approaches these texts, while also scaffolding access to them through chunking, discussion, vocabulary practices and all the critical components that we know make up good teaching.

As much as research pointed toward the necessity of complex texts, the pressure to maintain instructional levels was a tension I had to navigate daily, and that tension came to a head when my district adopted a new curriculum.

The Faustian Bargain

“It’s too hard and too boring. Our dyslexic and ADHD students will never be able to read Shakespeare, Chaucer, or Remarque.”

I heard comments such as these far too often when my own district in New Jersey switched to complex grade-level texts. As a literacy coach in 2025, I lived in the middle, translating the will of state- and district-level administrators to the classroom and the average teacher.

Surprisingly, I got the most pushback from eighth-grade teachers who were terrified that even the general education students couldn’t handle reading the classic anti-war novel, “All Quiet on the Western Front.” That is when Diffit was first suggested to me. Diffit’s primary function is to level texts; it even promotes itself on Google as “an AI tool teachers use to get ‘just-right’ instructional materials.”

In the midst of this difficult year implementing a new curriculum, our teachers were unfamiliar with evidence-based practices and used to a home-brewed curriculum; students were also not used to the rigor of it all, especially the texts.

One group of teachers who struggled was the special education teachers, who, admittedly, had too many preps and too large a caseload to adequately understand these new mandates. It was then that a well-respected Learning Disabilities Teaching Consultant (LDTC) in the district first suggested I check out Diffit and start putting each chapter of “All Quiet on the Western Front” into this AI program to give eighth-grade special education students a third-grade-level summary.

Initially, I was impressed by the power of this new AI program, but I also felt conflicted because my supervisor had just told me about Shanahan’s work. The world didn’t freeze, per se, but in that moment, it certainly felt like I was living in “The Matrix” — the electronic alternative universe popularized in the movie of the same name.

“Isn’t that like…frowned upon? That’s not good practice, right? I thought we don’t level texts,” I asked my supervisor cautiously.

My gut and everything I had learned about teaching reading told me this was wrong, but this was a well-respected educator with decades of experience working with students with disabilities; surely she knew better than I did. I figured that since I was a general education teacher, I was clearly missing something about teaching reading specifically to students with disabilities, so I trusted the veteran educator at the time.

The Fallout

After taking the veteran teacher’s advice, I recommended text leveling to the teachers I coached, and even used the site myself to give a dyslexic, ADHD student I tutored a shortcut. The results were lackluster. My student didn’t show any interest, would wait for me to tell her the answers, and didn’t remember the content of the text from one session to the next. Her special education teacher wasn’t reporting any improvement in class from this resource, either.

It didn’t take me long to shift gears back to what I knew would help. Reading and re-reading a text (yes, the real one); mapping out the sequence and character; discussing the theme; exploring vocabulary; and building background knowledge. All of this is done with intentionally spaced and interleaved retrieval practice to ensure maximum commitment to long-term memory.

Once my student began working to understand the dense text, the payoff was immediate. Our discussions of Paul Bäumer’s psychology and the trauma of war were profound. This dyslexic, eighth-grade student with ADHD, whom many had already given up on, started to join her peers in these discussions back in the general education classroom. My student didn’t need a different text; she just needed a different roadmap and timeframe to get there.

Three years later, those same teachers who doubted this student could meaningfully engage with such a complex text are no longer surprised when “All Quiet on the Western Front” is their students’ favorite read of the year. Why? Because it deals with real-world topics in a mature way that middle schoolers are often shielded from.

Student success with the challenging text, despite the availability of powerful, easy-to-access AI, is part of the larger conversation about the quality of the tech tools we use and how they may or may not contribute to more meaningful learning experiences.

The fault lies not in the tool itself, but in how we train ourselves as educators to misuse it.

The Redemption

Faustus’ tragedy was not that he sought power, but that he ultimately lost control of the force meant to do his bidding. Like Mephistopheles, AI usage offers educators both power and convenience, but at what cost?

A recurring theme in the use of AI in education is that it must be used critically and responsibly, especially given its impact on the student experience and its interactions with current pedagogy. In this use case, irresponsible AI use actually leads to inequities; why would we give some students access to the great literary canon, and others a robot-created summary?

The bright side is that there is a path to redemption for those who want to use AI to effectively support student access to complex texts, and for what it’s worth, Diffit does an incredible job of providing these resources.

It may seem obvious, but AI tools can be used to create the scaffolds that provide access. Graphic organizers, note-takers, vocabulary reference sheets, and sentence starters are just the beginning. Here are some higher-leverage ways to use AI, in alignment with learning science, to help students access complex texts:

Have AI identify passages from the text that will trip kids up and use those passages as a basis for your syntactical and vocabulary instruction.
Use AI to chunk, not change, the passages. Take it a step further by using “/” to separate phrases and create embedded fluency scaffolds that actually prove comprehension.
Use AI to identify passages that could be suitable for fluency practice.
Not good at think-alouds? Have AI create your think-aloud script to model good reading of a complex text.
Create word sets based on the text for deep morphological or connotative study

To avoid a Faustian tragedy, we must remember that AI is our Mephistopheles: a powerful servant, but a dangerous master. It should support thinking, creation, and access — not replace them.

Source link