• Kokuyo Energy Line replaces discrete sockets with one continuous slot that takes up to five two-prong plugs anywhere along its length
• It won a 2025 Good Design Award thanks to its accessibility, style, and attention to detail
• The Kokuyo Energy Line also offers an inclusive design that allows users with upper limb disabilities to easily use the product with just 1 hand

Kokuyo is a well-known Japanese furniture giant that focuses on both functionality and aesthetics across its furniture and interior design lines.

It regularly collects Good Design Awards even as it runs a public “live office” where users can test out hardware in a workplace setting, in addition to HOWS DESIGN, an inclusive-design program that has birthed multiple successes.

Anthropic is committing $10 million CAD to eight Canadian research institutions to fund work on beneficial and responsible AI applications. The partnerships span Canada’s three leading regional AI institutes, Amii in Edmonton, Mila in Montréal, and the Vector Institute in Toronto, along with children’s hospital CHEO, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Université Laval, the University of Toronto, and the University of Saskatchewan.

The funding covers research areas from reinforcement learning and AI safety to mental health, Indigenous languages, and quantum computing. Mila will use Claude to develop AI assistants that help researchers discover and assess scientific breakthroughs. CAMH’s Krembil Centre for Neuroinformatics will build predictive models for mental health treatment and run fairness evaluations of psychiatric AI systems. Université Laval will study how large language models behave in varied cultural contexts, including Quebec French and Indigenous languages.

Anthropic also published its first Canadian country brief from the Anthropic Economic Index. Canada ranks eighth worldwide in Claude usage but second in per-capita adoption, with Canadians using Claude at more than four times the rate their population predicts. Only the US ranks higher. Usage tracks the local economy: translation requests are highest in provinces with more government workers, reflecting Canada’s bilingualism requirements. British Columbia leads in per-person use, with Ontario close behind. Anthropic committed $200 million to a Gates Foundation partnership in May, and the Canadian investment extends the company’s pattern of building non-commercial relationships alongside its enterprise business.

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!

This summer, Anthropic will add Amii, Mila, and Vector to its startup programme, giving hundreds of affiliated Canadian startups at least $5,000 USD each in API credits. “Some of the foundations of modern AI came out of Toronto, Montréal, and Edmonton, and so, strikingly, did many of the researchers most committed to making it safe,” said co-founder Chris Olah. Anthropic has been systematically expanding Claude’s presence across enterprise, government, and now academic institutions, building distribution and dependency across every sector simultaneously.

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

The 2026 Data Engineering Bundle has 7 online courses designed to help learners build skills that align directly with industry expectations. The focus is on practical tools and languages used by data professionals: Python for programming, Pandas and NumPy for data manipulation, foundational certification prep and specialized work with Databricks, an industry-standard platform for data engineering and analytics workflows. The content is on-demand, self-paced and designed to be revisited as learners build proficiency over time. It’s on sale for $35.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackSocial. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal

While Kylie Jenner serves as a human billboard for Meta’s AI glasses, pop star Lorde isn’t buying it.

During a set at the Mad Cool Festival in Madrid last week, Lorde had some choice words about the new technology, which many security experts have deemed a privacy nightmare.

“Increasingly in our world, it gets harder and harder to know what is real,” Lorde told the audience. “You don’t know if someone is wearing sunglasses, or if they’re wearing those f–ed up, f–ing [AI glasses]. Can I just say, for the record, f— the glasses. Don’t get the glasses. Not sexy.”

Lorde has written before about throwing her phone into the ocean, but this was next level.

Lorde was possibly moved to comment on the latest trends in tech because Ray-Ban, a sponsor of the festival, partners with Meta to make AI glasses. Lorde also performed immediately before the singer Jennie, who is an ambassador for Ray-Ban x Meta’s smart glasses line.

Lorde isn’t alone in raising concerns. Smart glasses, which come with cameras and AI features, have been used as tools for harassment and extortion. Meta, the most popular smart glasses maker, has said it takes privacy seriously and builds in safeguards like a visible recording light, but the company is facing many investigations and lawsuits alleging privacy violations. One lawsuit alleges that Kenyan contract workers were made to watch graphic videos obtained with the glasses to help train Meta’s AI. (Meta hasn’t publicly detailed its response to that specific claim.)

None of this has stopped the product from strong sales. EssilorLuxottica, the Ray-Ban maker, said it sold more than 7 million Meta AI glasses in 2025 — more than triple the roughly 2 million units it sold in 2023 and 2024 combined. Ray-Ban Meta glasses have been such a hit in the smart-glasses category that an emboldened Meta keeps expanding the lineup.

But hey, if privacy doesn’t make people think twice about the glasses, maybe vanity will. Lorde nails it pretty concisely with her declaration that they’re simply “not sexy.”

The here and now, she added, now that “is sexy.”

While schools have made progress in technology adoption — from artificial intelligence guidelines to vetting education technology — they still struggle with the lack of resources, funding and expertise, according to a new report.

The annual State of EdTech report from the Consortium for School Networking polled roughly 600 chief technology officers for K-12 schools. One of the biggest takeaways, according to CoSN CEO Keith Krueger: AI adoption is higher than ever. According to the report, nearly three-quarters (79%) of school districts have AI guidelines in place, up from 57% in 2025.

“Given how many school districts we have, given how many small and rural ones there are, it’s shocking at how quickly at least the guidance around responsible use of AI is,” Krueger says. “As a foundational step, we’re seeing movement.”

But respondents repeatedly stated they are running into roadblocks of insufficient staffing and funding.

“There’s never going to be enough training, and we have to make sure the training is quality and meeting administrators with what they want and need,” Krueger says, adding it’s not just about training on a specific tool, but “helping them think in new ways how to use the tools.”

Most of the districts polled are in favor of AI guidelines, either set by the districts themselves or state education agencies, but do not want state or federal mandates. Typically, mandates are formed, then approved, by a board — something that is time-consuming and does not lend itself well in the fast-moving world of AI.

“This week, this month, this year is changing rapidly,” Krueger says. “It doesn’t mean we change fundamental beliefs of what’s cheating (with AI), for example, but things are moving rapidly. You don’t want to have too many solidly, board-approved things which can get locked in when you need to evolve.”

The most common AI initiative among districts is training staff on the use of instruction-focused generative AI tools, with 7 out of 10 respondents saying they do so. Productivity-focused measures focused on instructional staff and teachers followed, with 54% and 53%, respectively, deploying those initiatives. One of the largest jumps was the amount of districts having initiatives focused on AI’s operational purposes, from 37% in 2025, to 64% in 2026.

Less than half (41%) of initiatives focus on using AI for teaching and learning.

“I would say the low hanging fruit is on the operational and teacher productivity side,” Krueger says. “We should continue to explore and think through the great uses that are in the classroom. But, overnight we shouldn’t just wildly go trying to do those things when it’s going to take time to figure out the instructional piece.”

Cybersecurity

The largest concern about AI use: cybersecurity attacks. According to the report, nearly all respondents (98%) are concerned that AI can bring in new forms of cyber attacks, with just 2% stating they are “not at all concerned.” That same percentage also has concerns on student data and AI’s effect on its privacy.

While the concern over cybersecurity is strong, two-thirds of respondents state they have insufficient staffing and budget to address those challenges.

Cybersecurity concerns continue to cause schools woe, most recently with the Instructure attack in May that caused several schools to pay a ransom and shut down one of the world’s largest digital education platforms.

“The high visibility breaches and attacks that we’ve seen underscore the real cost to our school system by not investing in better cybersecurity,” Krueger says.

After 17 years of utilizing the State of EdTech report, Krueger says he believes a tipping point may have finally been reached on addressing cyber concerns.

“Certainly those in charge of technology have been yelling loudly that cybersecurity is a problem,” he says, adding the issue has become more well-known among superintendents and school board members. “I think they will start to say, ‘We can’t just have these broadband networks and not have them safe and secure.’ But it’s a huge challenge, given the lack of human capacity in schools for cybersecurity.”

EdTech

Another major finding from the report is an issue that has been bubbling beneath the surface in both tech evangelist and oppositional circles: vetting educational technology.

Edtech vetting has been under consideration amid the screen-time backlash in classrooms, with some states pushing for better review of the vetting process. Oftentimes, schools rely on the vendors’ own data and are unequipped to review the software themselves to ensure children’s safety.

“There is nobody right now that is confirming these products are safe, effective and legal,” Kim Whitman, co-lead for Smartphone Free Childhood US, said in a previous interview with EdSurge. “It should not fall on the district’s IT director; it would be impossible for them to do it. And the companies should not be tasked with doing it — that would be like nicotine companies vetting their own cigarettes.”

According to the report, most schools now have a process for vetting free edtech tools before they’re used in schools, either through IT or a list of approved vendors.

But that process still has some gaps: only 29 percent require information about if the product is inclusive and accessible for all learners. That is particularly worrisome for accessibility advocates who already fear they are being left out of the conversation.

“Parents with children who have a disability must have a seat at the table,” Sambhavi Chandrashekar, global accessibility lead for D2L, an online learning platform, said in a previous EdSurge interview. “Blanket rules that are blind to fundamental human differences will do more disservice than good to students at the margins.”

And while more than half (55%) of the edtech processes require vendors to provide information about safety, that leaves roughly 45% not addressing safety concerns.

“It’s a huge warning sign; there’s a whole lot of progress and work that has to happen in this area,” Krueger says.

He suggested reviewing the five quality indicators for edtech and AI products, with districts benchmarking their current status and set it as a priority to push forward.

“One of the biggest powers we have is procurement, so getting serious about how we buy them, and when,” Krueger says. “Whether or not we move forward will depend on if we set it as a priority and get serious about the awareness, the training and the policies.”

from the the-times-they-are-a-changing dept

The central theme of Walled Culture the book (free digital versions available) is the growing incompatibility between traditional copyright law and the digital, online world. The culmination of that process was the EU Copyright Directive, passed in 2019. The Directive was supposed to be transposed into local laws by 2021, but a year after that deadline, many EU member states had failed to do so. Nor was that a case of mild slippage; a recent report from Communia provides an update on how the implementations are going. Here’s what it found for one of the most contentious areas of the Directive:

the introduction of the press publishers’ right under Article 15 has not been matched by consistent implementation of the mandatory limits intended to contain its scope. Despite the largely prescriptive nature of the Directive, a significant number of Member States have failed to fully implement these safeguards. In addition, some jurisdictions have chosen not to apply existing copyright exceptions to the new right, resulting in a broader scope of protection for press publishers than for other rightholders and further contributing to fragmentation across the internal market.

That fragmentation is deeply ironic, because one of the main justifications for a new copyright Directive was to bring consistency across the EU. As for the even more controversial upload filters, they have proved so difficult to implement that most governments have not even tried to lay down how they should be used:

Most Member States have limited themselves to restating the Directive’s requirement that lawful uploads must not be blocked, leaving the practical balancing of copyright enforcement and freedom of expression largely to platforms and courts. While a small number of jurisdictions have introduced stronger safeguards – such as ex ante protections against overblocking, transparency obligations, and mechanisms to address abusive claims – these remain the exception. As a result, the level of protection for lawful user expression continues to vary across Member States.

Again the much-vaunted consistency that the Directive would bring to EU copyright law is nowhere to be seen. If those failures underline that, as predicted, the EU Copyright Directive has turned out to be a bad law, badly implemented, arguably the arrival of generative AI has made many of its measures completely moot. As Walled Culture has reported, the idea that copyright is largely irrelevant in a world full of AI-generated material – something first suggested on this blog back in October 2022 – is now increasingly mainstream.

But things are still moving fast in the world of generative AI, with yet more profound implications for copyright. A recent post on the IPKat blog explores one of them: the rise of a powerful new generation of AI models that can be run on a personal computer – or even on a smartphone. Many of the latest models coming out of China are not just open source software, but open weight – that is, the models’ numerical values that get set when a model is trained are released, too, so that anyone can download, run, study, and modify them. As a good introduction to this new wave of Chinese AI innovation in Technology Review explains:

If these open-source AI models keep getting better, they will not just offer the cheapest options for people who want access to frontier AI capabilities; they will change where innovation happens and who sets the standards.

One big impact they are likely to have is on the enforcement of copyright, not least in the EU. The IPKat post notes:

The spectrum of engagement with [open source and open weight] models clearly challenges the copyright system. A system, in this Kat’s view, which, until recently, was oriented around individual acts of copying, with platforms cast as new points of interference to bridge technological enforcement gaps. However, [user-generated content] occurring on AI model marketplaces demands a shift in rhetoric and approach. Their ability to redistribute creative agency and control over the tools of cultural production should prompt us to reflect on how copyright law should respond to creativity that occurs through shared infrastructures.

The EU Copyright Directive’s core assumption that the main forums for sharing material would be a few, easily controllable online giants like Google and Facebook, no longer holds. Instead, people are moving to world where millions of people are using the latest generation of open source AI tools collaboratively to generate creations. Those may or may not be based on existing copyright material, but there is no easy way to police that. As the IPKat post points out:

For users running these [new open source and open weight] models locally, they no longer need to pay per request, nor is their data shared with AI companies, and by extension, rightsholders through Article 53(c) of the AI Act.

The world of generative AI is so complex, and moving so quickly, that it is no wonder that even the relatively recent EU AI Act, which entered into force two years ago, is being left behind by the latest developments. And the EU Copyright Directive, which was drawn up nearly a decade ago, is the digital equivalent of the UK’s 1865 Red Flag Act, which governed “self-propelled vehicles”, and required “a man with a red flag was to walk at least 60 yd (55 m) ahead of each vehicle”.

Follow me @glynmoody on Mastodon and on Bluesky. Originally published to Walled Culture.

Filed Under: ai, ai act, eu, eu copyright directive, local ai, local models, open source, open weight

OpenAI’s first foray into hardware devices is reported to be a mobile smart speaker with integrated AI capabilities that can sync with ChatGPT and provide other home AI services.

Bloomberg reported Tuesday that the device — which is still currently under development — is designed to be screen-free and is being pitched internally as a “humanlike AI companion that lives in the home.”

OpenAI has long claimed that it wants to launch a hardware product — with some rumors being that it wants to launch its own phone, a move that would put it in competition with Apple.

OpenAI’s newly surfaced device sounds like something of a departure from traditional smart speakers — as sources described the device to Bloomberg as having a “personality” and being able to proactively learn about its owner over time, providing more personalized service. The machine would have access to a user’s digital life, drawing off things like emails, sources said.  

The device is also weirdly described as involving “mechanical elements that can move on their own” and the Bloomberg report includes the detail that the device is designed to “feel like a companion and become a physical manifestation of OpenAI’s ChatGPT.”

The device was developed with help from many former Apple engineers who were instrumental in “creating products such as the iPhone and Mac,” Bloomberg writes. Indeed, OpenAI may be attempting to launch a new hardware line, but the company is currently up to its eyeballs in trouble over hardware-related legal problems.

Apple last week sued OpenAI, accusing the AI company of stealing its trade secrets. Apple further claimed that the allegations involved in the suit are merely “the tip of the iceberg” and that more misconduct will be revealed during the legal discovery process. OpenAI has denied wrongdoing.

Citing anonymous sources with knowledge of OpenAI’s plans, Bloomberg writes that the company feels its new product “veers significantly from anything Apple has on the market today” and that it is “unlikely that it violates trade secrets” belonging to Apple.

OpenAI’s push comes as the tech world grows more excited about consumer AI hardware more broadly. Hark, an AI lab founded by Brett Adcock, raised an oversubscribed $700 million Series A back in May at a $6 billion valuation to build what it calls “personal intelligence” — proprietary AI models paired with custom hardware designed as a “universal interface between humans and machines.”

The company hasn’t yet detailed its device’s form factor, underscoring how much capital is chasing this category even before products ship.