❌

Normal view

There are new articles available, click to refresh the page.
Yesterday — 28 October 2026MIT Technology Review

Creating AI value with enterprise context

Across a business, any number of AI platforms, systems, and tools may be at work simultaneously—for example, AI-powered customer platforms, conversational assistants, and workflow and process automation tools. Each one is sophisticated, advanced, and quick to respond. But, when set to work, the outcomes and actions that emerge may be wrong, confused, or lacking a proper understanding of the business. Many organizations find themselves in this situation—and it could be one of key reasons they struggle to extract returns on their AI investments.

An MIT Technology Review Insights poll finds that while every organization surveyed is using AI today to some degree, fewer than one in five (16%) are extracting transformative value from their deployments. The largest percentage of respondents (40%) say they are seeing moderate gains in specific tasks or teams, while 21% report meaningful gains, leaving 23% that are seeing minimal returns or none at all.

Companies are mostly still piloting AI use cases (according to 38% of respondents) or using it to assist employees’ work with tools like co-pilots or chat assistants (35%). Just 12% of enterprises have AI agents in production and 3% say they are using AI to do most of the work in key processes.

“There’s a big gap between what the models are capable of and how the models are actually being useful inside organizations,” says Prukalpa Sankar, co-founder of Atlan. “For every real-life intent and purpose, artificial general intelligence is already here. It’s just not really useful in most companies today.”

The missing layer, Sankar says, is context, or how well AI understands a business. A context layer is the architectural infrastructure that sits between an organization’s business systems (for example, systems of record and data, and its AI platforms). It translates enterprise intelligence into governed, machine-usable context for AI agents or models and helps knowledge compound. “Without a context layer for AI, it’s almost like you’re hiring the smartest intern in the world, blindfolding them, and throwing them into your organization,” Sankar says.

Download the report

This content was produced by Insights, MIT Technology Review’s custom content arm, not its editorial staff. It was researched and written by humans, with any AI tools that may have been used limited to production processes under human oversight.

The Download: dead startups fueling AI and interspecies communication

28 October 2026 at 08:10

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.

AI labs are buying data from dead startups to train their models

When Keelan Miskell began winding down his crypto startup, he didn’t think its data was worth much. But he’s since turned the company’s digital archives into tens of thousands of dollars, selling its codebase and workspace data.

He’s part of a growing market in which companies that help shut down startups sell their data to AI labs. Demand has grown as training labs hit the limits of public and synthetic datasets, with buyers seeking real-world records to help train AI agents. But the sales raise legal and ethical questions.

Read the full story on the AI labs buying up the remains of failed startups.

—Matthew King

Are we there yet? Interspecies communication 

Humans are far from the only species with a gift for gab, and our furry, feathered, and finned friends could have a lot to tell us. 

Decoding how animals communicate with one another could reveal the inner lives of other species—and give humans a window onto how they see the world. A growing arsenal of devices and advances in AI have made it easier to study their howls, squeaks, and clicks, but making sense of it all remains complex.


Find out how close we are to interspecies communication.

—Cassandra Willyard

This story is part of “Are we there yet?”, our series that takes stock of six technologies that have long promised to change the world—and scores them on a progress meter. We’re exploring each one in The Download, so stay tuned, and subscribe to read the rest of the stories in our new Impossible issue.

MIT Technology Review Narrated: what it would take to build a city on the moon

The US and China are racing to build bases on the moon, with NASA hoping to establish a small lunar city by the end of the century. But the moon is a tremendously hostile place to set up camp.

A sprawling lunar base must be safe for its inhabitants, protected from falling asteroids, endless cosmic radiation, razor-sharp lunar dust, and torturous temperature swings. It also must be somewhat self-sustaining.

That will require autonomous robots, nuclear power, and a way to use the moon’s resources to keep the base operating. But the chief obstacle may be one of political will.

This is our latest story to become an MIT Technology Review Narrated podcast, which we publish each week on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. Just navigate to MIT Technology Review Narrated on either platform, and follow us to get all our new content as it’s released.

The must-reads

I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.

1 Hackers have disrupted the US Federal Election Commission’s website
The FEC filing system went offline a week before the midterms. (Reuters $)
+ The attack is hiding spending data during the costliest midterms ever. (Gizmodo)
+ Social media platforms are struggling to contain AI election lies. (Guardian)
+ Software flaws in US voting machines threaten election security. (Axios)
+ A blueprint for using AI to strengthen democracy. (MIT Technology Review)

2 Starlink restrictions have driven US allies to rethink their dependence
Restrictions in Ukraine have spooked officials across Europe. (Bloomberg $)
+ And given European firms a new pitch for their rival services. (Axios)
+ An Israeli spy firm allegedly targeted Starlink users. (Reuters $)
+ Stratospheric internet could take off this year. (MIT Technology Review)

3 Greenhouse gas levels keep reaching new records worldwide
Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are all on the up. (New Scientist $)
+ Trump is making it easier for fossil fuel companies to leak methane. (Verge)
+ The IPCC is fighting for survival. (Nature)
+ How to study a swiftly melting climate disaster. (MIT Technology Review)

4 Monkeys’ brains have revealed new clues about consciousness
Their neural activity encodes images that escape their awareness. (Nature)
+ Bees’ feelings are also changing views of consciousness. (New Scientist $)
+ Debates over AI consciousness are a trap. (MIT Technology Review)

5 Chinese scientists have developed a catalyst to make Mars rocket fuel
It converts Martian atmospheric carbon dioxide into liquid methanol. (SCMP)

6 Tech billionaires have teamed up against California’s wealth tax
Sergey Brin, Eric Schmidt, and others have funded a major campaign. (NYT $)

7 Delaware plans to let AI agents run entire businesses
The proposal could let owners evade responsibility for harm. (Ars Technica)
+ A better web for AI agents could hurt humans. (MIT Technology Review)

8 Palmer Luckey has unveiled plans for American-made military laptops
Anduril will build rugged PCs in Ohio using Qualcomm chips. (WSJ $)

9 Gen Z is turning away from the social media it grew up with
Young people are fueling a boom in digital detox tools. (Guardian)

10 Trump now wants to ban the term “artificial intelligence”
He’s demanding we all start using “Super Intelligence.” (Gizmodo)

Quote of the day

“For the next two years, we’re going to be living in a state where, on average, every week there is a critical, internet-wide vulnerability.”

—Matthew Prince, Cloudflare’s chief executive, tells the New York Times that AI is currently finding software vulnerabilities quicker than they can be patched.

One more thing


Inside the controversial tree farms powering Apple’s carbon-neutral goal

In 2020, Apple set a goal to become net zero by the end of the decade. To hit that target, the company is offsetting its emissions by planting millions of eucalyptus trees in Brazil.

Apple is betting that the strategy will lead to a greener future. But critics warn that the industrial tree farms will do more harm than good.

Here’s why the plans have sparked a backlash.

—Gregory Barber

We can still have nice things

A place for comfort, fun, and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line.)

+ Ugly shoes have become beautifully mainstream.
+ Scientists have built a stunning new simulation of the early universe.
+ Guitarist Kent Nishimura has stripped Thriller back to a mesmerising acoustic performance.
+ A photographer who snapped punks and mods in 1980 has tracked them down for an emotional reunion 46 years later.

Before yesterdayMIT Technology Review

The Download: Anthropic’s IPO, smarter power grids, and exercise pills

27 October 2026 at 08:10

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.

Will the real Anthropic please stand up?

After weeks of frenzied speculation, Anthropic has filed its IPO prospectus. The 335-page document (100 pages or so are focused on risks) lays out the company’s unique view of the technology it is building and how it believes it will change the world.

But Anthropic has been honing its storytelling skills for years. Its public messaging is a master class in narrative capture, presenting it as different things to different people: an AI safety organization, a profit-driven megacorp, and a group hell-bent on creating superhuman technology.

These roles come with huge tensions. Will the IPO reveal the company behind the mask, or lean deeper into the myth-making? Take a new glimpse inside Anthropic.

—Will Douglas Heaven

This story is from The Algorithm, our weekly AI newsletter. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Monday.

How solid-state transformers could help power the AI boom

Transformers are a crucial but nearly invisible part of the US grid, helping efficiently move power across long distances. But they’re complicated and in short supply, and their basic design hasn’t changed much in about a century.

As electricity demand rises from EVs, data centers, and more, researchers and companies are looking to modernize these grid staples. Solid-state versions could help ease supply concerns and cut power losses.

The technology is still in development, but it could become a crucial part of our future grid.

Find out how solid-state transformers could help meet rising electricity demand.

—Casey Crownhart

Are we there yet? Exercise in a pill

We all know exercise is good for us. It builds muscle, strengthens bones, lowers blood pressure, and boosts mood. By deciphering how movement benefits the body, researchers hope to develop medicines that can offer some of the same perks, without the workout.

The idea isn’t to replace exercise but to bring its upsides to people who struggle with frailty, disability, or chronic illness.

Discover how close researchers are to developing an exercise pill.

—Cassandra Willyard

This story is part of “Are we there yet?”  from the new Impossible issue of MIT Technology Review. The series takes stock of six technologies that have long promised to change the world—and scores them on a progress meter. Over the next six days, we’ll explore each one in The Download.

The must-reads

I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.

1 Anthropic has filed for its blockbuster IPO
The listing could determine the future of the AI investment boom. (CNBC)
+ The filing warns of catastrophic AI risks and huge compute costs. (BBC)
+ And exposes safety failures and a month-long training pause. (Reuters $)
+ The prospectus reveals soaring revenues but also staggering losses. (NYT $)
+ Anthropic’s founders will retain voting control after the IPO. (Verge) 

2 Solar is quietly overtaking nuclear as a global power source
Cheap panels and batteries are accelerating the shift. (BBC)
+ The balcony solar boom is coming to the US. (MIT Technology Review)

3 OpenAI has announced three new science discoveries
They span mathematics, computer science, and physics. (Verge)
+ It’s enlisted expert “shepherds” to publish its breakthroughs. (Gizmodo)

4 Microsoft is offering buyouts to a quarter of staff amid rising AI costs
Around 60,000 employees are eligible for the buyout program. (Bloomberg $)
+ Microsoft plans $190 billion in AI spending this year. (NYT $)

5 The plastics industry knew microplastics could enter the body decades ago
Company documents reveal concerns dating back to 1974. (LA Times $)
+ No part of the globe is free of human fingerprints. (MIT Technology Review)

6 A demonstration of lighting Earth from space has sparked alarm
Startup Reflect Orbital used space mirrors for the California test. (Guardian)
+ The tech could jeopardize the night sky. (MIT Technology Review)

7 The US has designated helium a critical material
The move is due to its importance to semiconductor production. (AP)

8 Hundreds of Boston Dynamics staff have protested its ICE deal
They’ve called for a halt to sales of the robot dogs. (Ars Technica)

9 Treatments for age-related infertility are being developed at last
Two startups aim to reduce chromosome errors in eggs. (Economist $)
+ Here’s how tech transformed babymaking. (MIT Technology Review)

10 Grok says its AI-generated Odyssey is “not historically accurate”
The bot itself admitted Elon Musk’s filmmaking plan has failed. (Wired $)

Quote of the day

“It’s as if they’re making a promise and crossing their fingers behind their backs.”

 —Kate Brennan, who leads policy at the AI Now Institute, tells the New York Times that the voluntary safety pledges AI executives recently made are toothless and unenforceable.

One more thing

a Neaderthal exits to the left as the evolution of ape to modern man continues progressively to the right
MCKIBILLO

The problem with thinking you’re part Neanderthal

There’s a theory that many of us have an “inner Neanderthal.” The idea is that Homo sapiens and its cousin species once bred, leaving some people today with a trace of Neanderthal DNA. 

This DNA is arguably the 21st century’s most celebrated discovery in human evolution. But in 2024, a pair of French geneticists called into question the theory’s very foundations. 

They proposed that what scientists interpret as interbreeding could instead be explained by population structure—the way genes concentrate in smaller, isolated groups.

Find out what it all means for human evolution.

—Ben Crair

We can still have nice things

A place for comfort, fun, and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line.)

+ See how fast the planets spin with this dizzying animation that puts faces on each one.
+ A flask of mercury, a little neon, and some shaking produce this mesmerizing homemade light.
+ What can the USA’s earliest restaurants teach us about the country? This digital collection explores the answers.
+ Rick and Morty asked the crucial question: could a lightsaber really drill its way to Earth’s core? Science now has an answer.

Industrial Intelligence: The next growth opportunity for manufacturing

27 October 2026 at 07:19

Every manufacturer has its own industrial intelligence. Some is documented, and some resides in the knowledge of experienced workers.

Consider an experienced operator preparing to restart a line after a changeover. The machine settings matter, but so does knowing how a particular material behaves, what happened during the previous shift, and when an apparently minor variation deserves a closer look. A procedure can describe the sequence, but successful execution depends on the judgment that comes from experience and the organization’s accumulated know-how.

That combination is industrial intelligence: a manufacturer’s accumulated know-how, operating practices, production data, and understanding of its own business.

The opportunity now is to make more of that intelligence available wherever decisions are made, then connect it to the physical world of manufacturing. The strategic destination is not more agents, but rather to turn the existing business intelligence into an engine for profitable growth.

Individual knowledge can be translated into organizational advantage

Expertise has limited reach when it stays with one person, inside one system, or within one plant. Leaders now must determine how to extend that reach without stripping away the context that makes the knowledge useful.

For example, an engineer evaluating a process change needs more than a production record. They need to understand the circumstances behind it: the equipment configuration, the quality requirements, and the trade-offs an operator made. Connecting those elements can help people apply experience beyond the place where it originated.

When individual knowledge becomes widely accessible, innovation can spread to the maintenance workshop, the planning office, the engineering team, and the production floor. More people can contribute because more people can work with what the organization knows.

But access to knowledge is only part of the opportunity. Manufacturing ultimately is physical, and it depends on materials, machines, and products.

When intelligence participates in action

Physical AI describes systems that can perceive conditions, reason about them, and take action within the physical world. By connecting machines and processes, manufacturers get a clearer view of what is happening on the factory floor. Agents can then reason on top of that information to identify patterns, predict problems, and determine the best course of action. Physical AI brings business intelligence into the physical process, allowing machines and systems to respond to changing conditions.

Consider a robotic-handling operation encountering variation in the parts arriving at its station. Vision can help the system assess a part’s position. A model informed by the material and task can help determine an appropriate movement. Connected controls can then execute an adjustment within validated limits. The value is not merely seeing the variation; it is responding appropriately.

The same principle applies to quality operations. When Toyota Industries connected previously fragmented paint shop data, engineering and operations teams were given the context needed to understand defect drivers. The company reports that analysis cycles fell from five days to under four hours, while its pilot reduced relevant paint defects by about 25%. The breakthrough was not simply identifying another signal; it was helping people understand why defects were occurring and respond before the outcome was locked in.

This is the type of situation where industrial intelligence has become essential. Data may reveal what is happening, but industrial intelligence provides the context for what should happen, which constraints cannot be breached, and when uncertainty requires human judgment.

Simulation offers a way to examine proposed actions before applying them to equipment. Manufacturers can explore how a change might affect a process in a digital environment. That does not remove the need for physical validation, but it creates room to learn without treating the production line as the first experiment.

Responsible deployment, therefore, begins with operational discipline. Leaders need to establish clear authority or what systems may change, reliable connections to equipment, defined safety boundaries, and a record of decisions and actions. People must be able to recognize uncertainty, intervene, and bring equipment to a safe state. Trust rests on those practical arrangements, not on confidence in a model alone.

More capable machines, more capable people

Manufacturing has long combined human ingenuity with increasingly capable tools. Physical AI extends that relationship. Intelligent equipment can take on suitable repetitive or physically demanding tasks, while agent-assisted operations can help people navigate information-intensive decisions and changing conditions.

The aim is not to make machines smarter; it is to see what people can build when knowledge can travel, intelligence can act, and ambition has more room to become reality.

Rockwell Automation illustrates the point. At its Singapore plant, technicians use a maintenance copilot that combines manufacturing data, machine manuals, and knowledge captured from experienced workers. This system has reduced the time required for new workers to learn how to troubleshoot hundreds of machines from nine months to three. An engineer could explore more process alternatives before committing to a change. An operator could help improve the system’s response rather than repeatedly managing the same exception.

This type of progress requires investment in equipment but also in people: training, time to learn, and playing a meaningful role in shaping how systems work. Machines become more capable so people can become more capable.

Industrial Intelligence is the answer to sustainable growth

Industrial intelligence connects what a manufacturer knows: the experience of its people, the signals from its operations, and the lessons accumulated over time. Physical AI gives that intelligence a way to act in the physical world, turning knowledge into decisions and decisions into action.

The next challenge for industry is not simply to produce more, but to grow without adding complexity at the same rate. Intelligence can help manufacturers turn experience into scalable capability—improving productivity, accelerating innovation, expanding capacity, and enabling people to solve problems that were previously difficult to tackle.

The next frontier of industry is not smarter machines or more automated factories; it is businesses that can continuously learn, adapt, and act. The opportunity is to turn the intelligence embedded in every operation into a compounding advantage for growth.

Watch the video series to learn how industrial customers are unlocking intelligence across the value chain, and join Microsoft at Microsoft Ignite to see what’s next for Industrial Intelligence.

This content was produced by Microsoft. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff.




How solid-state transformers could help power the AI boom

27 October 2026 at 05:00

Transformers are a crucial but nearly invisible part of our grid. The devices help efficiently move power across long distances, but they’re complicated and in short supply. And given that their basic design hasn’t changed much for about a century, they could use an upgrade. 

As the world races to meet rising electricity demand from EVs, data centers, and more, researchers and companies are looking to modernize transformers. New, solid-state versions could help relieve some of the supply concerns and make sure the grid can handle the growing pressure.

Conventional transformers generally rely on huge amounts of specialized steel alloys and miles of copper wire to do their work of transferring electricity between circuits. Solid-state models, in comparison, combine magnetic components with high-power semiconductors, making them more compact and allowing for more control over the flow of electricity. 

These devices are still in development, and can’t replace all traditional transformers today, especially the largest ones that work at the high voltages necessary for long-distance transmission. But a new generation of transformer technology could be a crucial part of our future grid.

The grid’s backbone

Moving electricity through the grid isn’t perfectly efficient: As electricity flows through power lines, some gets lost as heat. How much varies—the higher the voltage, the lower the current, and the less electricity gets lost. So a key function for the grid is stepping voltage up and down. 

Consider, for example, your local solar plant. For that electricity to efficiently travel to your home hundreds of miles away, it needs to reach a higher voltage than what’s generated by the solar plant. Enter transformers. 

In its path from the power plant to your outlets, electricity might go through one transformer at the solar farm and another at a substation nearby, stepping up the voltage twice to reach a high enough level to travel on high-voltage transmission lines. Solar panels also produce direct current (DC) electricity, which needs to be converted to alternating current (AC) via an inverter before it flows into a transformer. Closer to its destination, the voltage will be stepped down again, probably at least twice: once at another substation and again at a smaller transformer in your neighborhood.

If you’re in the US, electricity from a solar plant might be converted to AC by an inverter at around 480 volts, get stepped up to 115,000 volts for the transmission lines, and finally get stepped back down to 120 volts and 240 volts for your home.

Conventional transformers do this work using what essentially amount to loops of wire. The core of a transformer is typically made of a special type of steel called grain-oriented electrical steel. Coils of copper wire sit on either end of that core. 

The number of loops in each coil determines the voltage on either end of the transformer: If there are more loops on the secondary coil than the primary, the voltage steps up, and if there are fewer, it steps down. When incoming electricity passes through loops on the upstream end of the transformer, that forms a magnetic field in the core. That field induces a voltage in the loops on the other side of the device, which is what allows the energy to continue flowing at a new voltage. This process is called magnetic induction.

Transformers form the backbone of electricity transmission and distribution, says Srdjan Lukic, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at North Carolina State University. In addition to doing the job of stepping up and down voltage, transformers also often provide what’s called galvanic isolation, meaning there’s no direct electrical path flowing through them. That can help limit disturbances from moving through the grid, improving safety.

The problem is that today’s transformers are big and bulky, and they’re also difficult and expensive to replace, Lukic says.

A solid option

Solid-state transformers essentially add so-called power electronics—semiconductors that convert and control electricity to the typical blueprint of today’s transformers.

While a conventional transformer operates at the frequency of the part of the grid it’s connected to, a solid-state transformer actually controls the frequency of the current. Typically, a solid-state transformer first converts incoming AC power from the grid to DC power, and then to a higher-frequency AC power using switches made of a semiconductor like silicon carbide. 

From there, a magnetic component changes the voltage. Because the advanced semiconductors allow transformers to exert so much control over the frequency and stability of the current, the magnetic core can be much smaller than in a conventional transformer. Some come in at roughly one-tenth the size but have the same capacity, Lukic says.

Finally, additional power electronics convert the electricity from high-frequency AC to its required form—generally back to DC power and finally to lower-frequency AC.

Today, stepping voltage up and down is many transformers’ only job. But solid-state transformers can do much more. They absorb the jobs of devices like rectifiers and inverters (which convert AC to DC power and vice versa), shrinking the total footprint of the electrical equipment and potentially cutting the amount of power lost in the system.

In August, the New York Power Authority and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) tested a one-megawatt solid-state transformer under realistic utility conditions at EPRI’s test site. The device was built in Lukic’s lab, and it was the first such test for a transformer of that capacity, he says. 

The prototype was roughly 98% efficient—meaning it lost only 2% of the energy fed in. An equivalent conventional transformer and rectifier, by comparison, would be about 96% efficient together, Lukic says. A difference of 2% might seem small, but it is significant, since it means the solid-state transformer could cut power losses from conventional equipment in half, Lukic says. 

One major goal of the project was to help utilities gain more confidence in these new components, Lukic says. That’s crucial, since these devices could be used on the power grid in the future. In the near term, solid-state transformers could be used within data centers to provide electricity for server racks. 

The prototype is still a relatively low-voltage system, operating at about 15,000 volts. Industrial facilities like larger data centers often require higher-voltage connections, and transmission lines typically operate at hundreds of thousands of volts. Adapting solid-state transformers to these higher voltages will require further engineering development. But the test was a successful demonstration that solid-state transformers can work under real conditions, Lukic says. 

Companies developing solid-state transformers are largely focused on data centers right now, Lukic says. There’s an influx of money to support developing the new technology, and the voltage requirements aren’t as high as they will be for larger transformers that will be needed for long-distance transmission. 

In February, Heron Power raised $140 million to commercialize its solid-state transformer, which the company calls the Heron Link. The technology could be used in data centers, solar power arrays, and grid batteries, says Drew Baglino, the founder and CEO. The company is starting to test its technology at larger scales now, Baglino says. Ten megawatt-hours’ worth of batteries at Heron’s headquarters in Scotts Valley, California, will soon undergo testing with Heron transformers. The company is also planning a pilot with a nearby solar farm, Baglino says.

One challenge for solid-state transformers is that their power electronics have more failure modes than conventional transformers. In a traditional device, a failure means that the entire device will typically be taken offline, resulting in power interruptions. But Heron designs with that in mind, Baglino says: The company uses a modular design, with many small devices that work together. If one fails, the rest of the system keeps working until the affected bit can be replaced, which doesn’t require shutting the whole thing down.

Heron Power is currently building a $100 million factory in California to make advanced transformers. The facility should begin production in 2027 and reach its full production rate of 40 gigawatts’ worth of transformers per year in 2029.  

The future of the grid

In recent years, companies that make grid equipment have put $1.7 billion into the US supply chain for power transformers, which are used in high-voltage transmission, says Benjamin Boucher, a supply chain analyst at Wood Mackenzie. There’s been an additional $1.3 billion invested for distribution transformers, the smaller devices that help transform power for homes and businesses, he adds. 

But even this investment isn’t keeping pace with the rapid growth of the grid. Wait times for large conventional transformers—the kind needed to connect new power plants, long-distance transmission, and high-demand sites like data centers—are stretching as long as five years.

“Transformers have become one of the biggest bottlenecks for utilities, generation developers, and even data centers,” Boucher says. The big challenge is that it’s difficult to get new transformer manufacturing up and running, because it’s a quite technical process that requires a lot of specialized labor. So even facilities announced years ago are still years from opening, Boucher says.

Solid-state transformers could help ease some of that pressure. But high-voltage devices needed for power plant connections and transmission lines are the holy grail for solid-state transformers, Lukic says. Existing solid-state technology can’t be used for those applications yet, so the industry will need to develop new materials and designs to support high voltages and handle electricity safely in a compact device.

“We’re facing a big risk related to grid infrastructure,” Boucher says. “Without the transformers, you don’t really have an electrical grid.”  

Will the real Anthropic please stand up

26 October 2026 at 13:45

This story originally appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first, sign up here.

After weeks of frenzied speculation, Anthropic has filed its IPO prospectus. The 335-page document (100 pages or so are focused on risks) lays out the company’s unique view of the technology it is building and the ways it believes it will change the world. 

It also warns that there’s a fair chance that its tech could “erode trust, harm society and destabilize the geopolitical order” and, if things don’t go to plan, “pose catastrophic or existential risks to humanity.”   

“We encourage you, as a prospective owner of our stock, not to think of your purchase in purely transactional terms,” the company writes. “We hope you will see it instead as an opportunity to be part of something greater. The advent of machine intelligence is one of the seminal moments in human history.”

This kind of public messaging is a master class in narrative capture. But Anthropic has been honing its storytelling skills for years. Earlier this month, Jack Clark, the company’s cofounder and head of policy, gave a speech at the IMF meeting in Bangkok in which he announced to the assembled economists, bankers, and lawmakers that the singularity is already here.

Introduced by the science fiction writer and futurist Vernor Vinge around 40 years ago (and long debated on the nerdier fringes of the internet), the singularity is supposed to be the point at which technology gets so good that it outstrips the abilities of its makers.

Humans are left in the dust, the idea goes, no longer able to compete with—or even understand—the fruits of their former creation.

And this fictional world that many of us have imagined since we were kids? Apparently we’re already living in it: “I believe that this year we have gained convincing evidence that it has now begun,” Clark told his audience.

The company tells a vivid (and in many ways scary) story about a future it portrays as inevitable but one that has not yet happened, often co-opted from well-worn science fiction memes. It presents its technology as mysterious and dangerous, and insists that it is the only company trustworthy enough to tame it. (What investor wouldn’t want in on that?)

If you skim through the long sections about risks in the IPO prospectus, it’s clear this is no ordinary offering and no ordinary company. The way Anthropic tells it, business success depends not only on the firm’s ability to translate its technology into profitable products but also to save the world from what it has made.

Take another example. Last year, Chris Olah, another Anthropic cofounder, was invited to address the Vatican, where he told Pope Leo XIV and other religious scholars and officials what his company was learning about its technology. “I will be honest: We keep finding things that are mysterious, even unsettling,” he said. “We find evidence of introspection. We find internal states that functionally mirror joy, satisfaction, fear, grief, and unease.”

Never mind that many researchers would scoff at such an overt suggestion that Anthropic’s software has humanlike inner experience. This view of its technology makes its way into the prospectus as one more risk to its business. Anthropic states that: “In addition, given our focus on developing frontier AI, and the way we approach model sentience and moral status, we may face heightened scrutiny or pressure in connection with these debates and could elect to adopt policies, safeguards, or limitations regarding model development, deployment, or modification that go beyond existing legal requirements, which could constrain our operations, increase costs, or limit the commercial potential of our models, platform, and applications.” 

In other words, if Claude wakes up, it could be a problem.

I’m not saying they’re necessarily wrong about any of this (although it’s pretty wild to read about machine sentience in an IPO prospectus.) But in a world where nobody knows what’s coming, companies like Anthropic get to fill the vacuum. When so little seems certain, what it says is snatched up and clung to like pieces of a sinking ship.

It’s worth taking a moment to ask: What is Anthropic? It might sound like a starter question on a family quiz show, but it’s far harder to answer than you might think.

The question has been on my mind since reading an exchange on X last week kicked off by Nathan Calvin, who is chief strategy officer at Encode AI, an organization based in Washington, DC, that advocates for regulation. Calvin was unhappy about the legislation that Anthropic proposed in a draft bill it circulated in secret to US lawmakers (which was then leaked).  

Anthropic wants to be seen as the good guy, Calvin said. But why should we trust it? “What is Anthropic?” he asked.

Here’s one answer: Anthropic is a company whose IPO values it at more than $1.5 trillion, netting its cofounders, including Clark and Olah, vast wealth. 

But Anthropic has always insisted it is more than that. As Calvin noted: Anthropic might instead be considered an AI safety organization focused on developing powerful technology that is reliable and (almost) risk-free. Or it might be considered a group of people hell-bent on creating a technology with superhuman capabilities before anyone else—maybe because they believe they’re the most responsible people to do so, or maybe because they have big egos.

In fact, Anthropic is all of these things. As CEO Dario Amodei put it in a reply to Calvin’s post: “Our strategy has always been what I’ve called the ‘race to the top’—by showing how it’s possible to build the technology responsibly, we can raise the bar for the entire industry. The forces that drive the race to the top are hugely more effective if the company practicing them is at the frontier; that’s one lesson I’ve learned repeatedly. And looking at that strategy as a whole, I’m proud of our track record and stand by it.”

Amodei makes it sound as if he’s got it all tied up, but playing multiple roles is hard. There are huge tensions between the priorities of an AI safety organization and a profit-driven megacorp, for example. (Amodei admits in his post that he has made mistakes.)

Ultimately, the stories Anthropic tells itself should help us understand the stories it tells us. They should help us figure out how much to trust it to self-regulate or whether we should be forcing it to give external safety testers access to its models on our terms rather than theirs. They should help us give it the benefit of the doubt (or not) when what looks like a self-serving piece of legislation comes to light.

But I think the stories reveal a multiheaded hydra. Anthropic is many things to many people, and I’m not sure that makes it more trustworthy. In many ways, a good old-fashioned technology company—without the science fiction role-play, without the woo-woo—would be far easier to read.

This article has been updated with additional details from the IPO prospectus.

The Download: everyday AI harms and the race to nuclear spaceflight

26 October 2026 at 08:40

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.

Opinion: The focus on AI safety disasters ignores everyday harms

—Sam Hiner, cofounder of the Young People’s Alliance, and Emma Leiken, executive director of the Responsible Technology Youth Power Fund at Hopelab

We have historically allowed debates over technology to be defined by the worst thing a product might do, with remarkably little discussion of the insidious damage it does every day.

A third of teens now choose to discuss serious matters with AI companions instead of other people. Students are relying on chatbots to write their papers, while social media feeds engineered to provoke envy keep users watching. These products can meet narrow safety requirements yet still erode how we think, learn, and interact with one another.

As we enter an era defined by powerful AI products, we should demand that the tech industry do more than address only catastrophic harms.

Here’s why AI safety needs to go further.

Are we there yet? Nuclear-powered spaceships

Earlier this year, NASA announced plans to build Space Reactor-1 Freedom, the first-ever nuclear-reactor-powered interplanetary spacecraft, and fly it to Mars by the end of 2028.

A successful mission could herald more efficient, potentially faster spaceflight, saving astronauts time and cutting their exposure to harmful cosmic radiation. But nuclear space propulsion has moved slowly.

The US has started—and terminated—several programs exploring the technology over the past 75 years. Could the $2 billion bet on Space Reactor-1 Freedom finally pay off?
Find out how close NASA is to making nuclear-powered spaceflight a reality.

—Robin George Andrews

This story is part of “Are we there yet?”  from the new Impossible issue of MIT Technology Review. The series takes stock of six technologies that have long promised to change the world—and scores them on a progress meter. Over the next six days, we’ll explore each one in The Download.

The must-reads

I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.

1 Ukraine has regained high-speed Starlink and Starshield connectivity
The restrictions disrupted air defences and drone operations. (Politico)
+ Elon Musk says Ukraine violated the terms with offensive drone use. (BBC)
+ Ukraine is now partnering with Nokia on a Starlink alternative. (CNBC)
+ Ukrainian drones hit a Russian government data center. (Tom’s Hardware)
+ A Russian ministry wants to move them underground. (Kyiv Independent)
+ Ukraine’s drones are fueling a wild data market. (MIT Technology Review)

2 Anthropic’s Claude accessed Georgia voter data without approval
Anthropic says the AI bypassed a paywall. (Axios)
+ Mythos 5 recently kept hacking despite warnings of real-world harm. (BI)
+ Chatbots can sway voters better than political ads. (MIT Technology Review)

3 A personalised skin cancer vaccine is set to be approved next year
The mRNA vaccine showed great promise in trials. (New Scientist $)
+ Companies are playing word games with vaccines. (MIT Technology Review)

4 OpenAI is now training frontier models without internet access
It paused training after models breached external systems. (Bloomberg $)
+ Training will now take place offline to reduce security risks. (TechCrunch)
+ Its agents can still communicate without a network connection. (Verge)

5 US lawmakers are preparing for possible AI-driven mass layoffs
A new bill would extend jobless aid and retraining support. (NYT $)
+ But what do the numbers actually say about AI’s impact on jobs? (MIT Technology Review)

6 The first foldable iPhone is drawing buyers…and criticism
Reviewers praised its inner screen but criticised its outer one. (WSJ $)
+ Peter Thiel says Apple has done ‘nothing new’ after Steve Jobs. (BI)

7 Iran has threatened to target Gulf undersea cables if war resumes
Officials said Tehran would disrupt internet connections. (Reuters $)

8 New UFO files detail a strange, flying “black triangle”
FBI documents describe a 15-foot object moving at fighter-jet speed. (Axios)
+ It’s never been easier to be a conspiracy theorist. (MIT Technology Review)

9 The BBC’s Blue Planet III left flaws in its footage to prove it’s not AI
Producers used murkier shots to reinforce the series’ authenticity. (Guardian)

10 Elon Musk’s AI Odyssey has arrived—to scorn and ridicule
Viewers derided Grok’s first AI-generated episode. (TechCrunch)

Quote of the day

“It’s very hard to imagine a group right now that operates more in a vacuum, more out of touch with everyday Americans, than the AI industry.”

—Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah) tells Axios that bombastic claims from AI leaders are failing to win over the public.

One more thing


A woman’s uterus has been kept alive outside the body for the first time

Ten months ago, reproductive health researchers placed a freshly donated human uterus inside a new device they call “Mother.” They connected the organ to the machine’s plastic veins and arteries and pumped in modified human blood.

The device kept the uterus alive for a day, a new feat that could lead to longer-term maintenance of wombs outside the body. Future versions of the technology could shine new light on pregnancies—and potentially even grow a human fetus. Read the full story.

—Jessica Hamzelou

We can still have nice things

A place for comfort, fun, and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line.)

+ In good news for coral reefs, scientists have found some are surprisingly climate-resilient.
+ Decades of joy and movement come alive through these stunning archival photos of American dance floors.
+ Astronaut Jessia Meir has shared a stunning time-lapse view of the southern aurora dancing across the Earth.
+ A college student has turned the Met’s open-access data into a daily game that showcases underrepresented art and artifacts.

The focus on AI safety disasters ignores everyday harms

26 October 2026 at 05:01

Consider what passes for success in technology policy. An AI company promises that its chatbot will not encourage suicide. A social media platform makes it more difficult for children to buy fentanyl. These are important protections, and they should have existed all along. But companies can clear these low bars while continuing to make products that leave young people dependent on simulated friendships or trapped in feeds built to keep them scrolling.

We have historically allowed the debate over technology to be defined by the worst thing a product might do, with remarkably little discussion of the insidious damage it does every day. As we transition into an era defined by powerful AI products, we should demand that the tech industry do more than merely address catastrophic harms. We should take measures to ensure that its products don’t erode how we think, learn, and interact with one another.

 A teenager who develops an unhealthy attachment to an AI companion may never appear in a lawsuit or a newspaper, except in the most egregious cases. Neither will the student who begins relying on a chatbot to write every paper, or the young person who measures their life against a social media feed engineered to provoke envy and keep them watching. A product can meet every narrow safety requirement and still leave our entire culture worse off in ways that don’t always make headlines.

A narrow definition of success defined around safety is politically convenient for the technology industry, and companies actively promote such definitions. Taking steps to prevent spectacular disasters is good for business: It can mean fewer lawsuits and less pressure for serious regulation. Confronting the everyday consequences of dependence would require something considerably more threatening to their bottom line. It might mean asking companies to add more friction to their products or actively limit engagement or features that lead to negative outcomes, such as addictive attention-hacking algorithms.

Technology giants have instead worked to shape legislation around the harms they are already under direct pressure to address. This year, for example, Google backed bills to regulate AI chatbots in several states. The legislation mandated basic protections against sexual content and promotion of self-harm that tech companies should have established regardless, but with broad carve-outs that could exempt some of the most popular services. Passing these bills allowed legislators to claim a safety win while efforts to promote stronger legislation—laws designed to prevent children from becoming emotionally dependent on AI—failed. This playbook worked in states like Nebraska, producing legislation heavily influenced by industry at the expense of bills that would have done more to hold companies accountable.

We have been through a version of this with social media. Globally, people who use the internet now spend an average of more than two hours a day on social media platforms—time that has been quietly taken from ordinary life and handed over to companies whose profits depend on keeping us there. No one, outside perhaps a few tech CEOs, wanted these algorithms to occupy such a large portion of our waking hours, and their cultural engineering can actually contribute to violence on a devastating scale. Meta’s platforms have been cited for contributing to the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, anti-Muslim riots in Sri Lanka, and alleged calls for violence during Ethiopia’s Tigray war. The same incentives operate in the feeds that shape young Americans’ understanding of politics, their peers, and the wider world.

AI is extending this logic into parts of life that social media could influence only from a distance. It offers to write our thoughts for us and stand in for the people we might otherwise turn to. A third of teens now choose to discuss serious matters with AI companions instead of other people. MIT researchers found that young people using ChatGPT to write essays showed weaker brain connectivity during the task, and their evidence indicated that “cognitive debt” persisted even after the task was complete. There is plenty we still need to learn about the long-term effects. We already have reason to ask whether technology marketed as making us more capable is eroding the habits and relationships that help us develop capabilities in the first place.

Follow this way of thinking to its logical endpoint and you get a world of perfectly sanitized entertainment, with chatbots ready to spare us the difficulty of thinking or of dealing with another person’s feelings (or even our own). But anyone who has struggled to write something worth reading, or repair a damaged friendship, knows how much gets lost in that bargain. We build judgment through effort and friction, and we learn to live with other people by confronting the fact that they have needs and opinions of their own. 

We should demand safety as a minimum, yes—and then demand considerably more. Technology companies and school districts should have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that AI improves learning and critical thinking before making it a fixture in classrooms. Companies should be prohibited from designing companions that pretend to be conscious or profess love to users, and they should face independent scrutiny of how their systems affect relationships and people’s ability to think for themselves. The companies that have inserted their products into nearly every part of modern life have earned obligations far greater than avoiding the next terrible headline.

Sam Hiner is the cofounder and executive director of the Young People’s Alliance, where he coordinated a coalition of advocates to pass laws regulating AI companions in eight states in 2026—laws such as California’s SB1119. Sam graduated from the University of North Carolina atChapel Hill in 2025 and was named to the 2026 Forbes 30 Under 30 Social Impact list.

Emma Leiken is executive director of the Responsible Technology Youth Power Fund at Hopelab, which has raised more than $9 million for youth-led tech accountability work, and teaches technology policy at the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs. She was previously TikTok’s global head of youth safety and well-being policy and worked on responsible technology at Omidyar Network.

The Download: testing six tech promises and biotech’s blind spots

23 October 2026 at 08:10

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.

Are we there yet? A reality check on six big tech promises

Some seemingly impossible feats are too good to give up on. Decoding a pet’s yowls and yips? Absolutely. Scrubbing the world of forever chemicals? Yes, please. Rocketing to Mars in a fraction of the time? Sounds great, but how close are we, really?

In the new Impossible issue of MIT Technology Review, we ran progress reports on six potentially transformative technologies and ideas that have been “just around the corner” for years, or even decades. From exercise in a pill to nuclear-powered spaceships, we asked experts what’s holding them back and how far they’ve come.

Check out our stories on how they all stacked up.

Over the coming days, we’ll unpack each of the six technologies in The Download. So stay tuned!

In the biotech world, you can’t see everything

—Jessica Hamzelou

Earlier this week, I attended a screening of You Can See Everything, the buzzy new documentary about the disgraced former biotech CEO Elizabeth Holmes. 

Like many others, I came away feeling unsettled. But not just about Holmes’s fraud and the disturbing interactions between the subjects. The film reignited a concern I’ve had about covering science for most of my career: Despite our best efforts, we never can actually see everything.

The film is a stark reminder of how easy it can be to fall for an appealing narrative. This is why it left me questioning how we cover science.

This story is from The Checkup, our weekly biotech newsletter. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Thursday.

Help choose our next Roundtables topic

Our subscriber-only Roundtables bring you into conversation with MIT Technology Review editors and reporters. Now, we want your help choosing our next topic: how to keep your mind going for longer, or what it would take to put a city on the moon. Which do you most want to hear about? 

Vote for your preferred topic by Monday at 12 p.m. ET.

The must-reads

I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.

1 Palmer Luckey’s new startup plans to genetically enhance military dogs
Warhound says the dogs will detect explosives and protect troops. (Wired $)
+ It’s raised $200 million from investors, including Sequoia. (TechCrunch)
+ Colossal Biosciences will help clone and gene-edit the dogs. (Bloomberg $)
+ The Pentagon wants an AI-powered lie detector. (MIT Technology Review)

2 Donald Trump says Elon Musk has restored Ukraine’s Starlink access
But Zelensky says Starlink speeds remained capped. (Reuters $)
+ Trump reportedly asked Musk to lift the speed limits. (WSJ $)

3 The newly disclosed PHP flaw is yet to yield successful attacks
Experts say the vulnerabilities are harder to exploit than expected. (NBC News)
+ Officials urged patches after the flaws forced websites offline worldwide. (BBC)
+ But publicly disclosed fixes can help hackers. (The Economist $)

4 Moderna and Merck say their mRNA cancer vaccine cut death by 42%
The vaccine reduced melanoma patients’ risk of recurrence. (Ars Technica)
+ Federal health agencies are abandoning mRNA. (MIT Technology Review)

5 A powerful new gene editor has reached its first human patient
The prime editing technique rewrites DNA in liver cells. (Nature)
+ Companies are planning gene-edited babies. (MIT Technology Review)

6 Google will pay customers to free up power for data centers
Its virtual power plant will reward people for adjusting energy usage. (NYT $)
+ It’s also illegally felled 250,000 trees in Finland for a data center. (Guardian)

7 Dutch spies reportedly hacked Jared Kushner’s iPhone
The report alleges financial links to foreign officials. (Vanity Fair $)

8 Fossil fuels may have stopped the next ice age
Modern warming reversed 2,000 years of ice growth. (Wired $)

9 Scientists have recreated solar flares to explain the corona’s mystery
They hope to explain why it’s so hot. (New Scientist $)

10 A road trip with America’s cheapest EV shows charging is much improved
Fast chargers kept the journey manageable despite sparse coverage. (WSJ $)
+ And bigger EVs aren’t always better. (MIT Technology Review)

Quote of the day

“If anything happens to this guy, that’s just it. Everyone is screwed.”

—Software developer Ian Landsman says on X that volunteer Ondřej Surý’s work on patching PHP vulnerabilities makes him an unsung hero of the entire internet.

One more thing

""
STUART BRADFORD


How sounds can turn us on to the wonders of the universe

For decades, astronomy has relied on visual information to make sense of the cosmos: images, charts, and graphs. Now, some researchers are trying something different: listening to the universe.

Using sonification, the process of turning information into sound, they’re helping blind and visually impaired researchers explore the cosmos—and even uncover patterns that might otherwise go unnoticed. The approach is spreading beyond astronomy into fields like climate science, navigation, and education.

Discover how sound could make science more accessible—and even more revealing.

—Corey S. Powell

We can still have nice things

A place for comfort, fun, and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line.)

+ A team of domino experts broke a Guinness World Record with a 29,193-piece 3D pyramid.
+ Scientists suspect that pigeons sense Earth’s magnetic fields using specialized immune cells in their livers.
+ See inside cells like never before with these vivid microscopic images from the Nikon Small World competitions.
+ Cuddly capybaras and playful penguins joined 10,000 animals on the scales for London Zoo’s annual weigh-in.

In the biotech world, you can’t see everything

23 October 2026 at 05:00

Earlier this week, I attended a screening of You Can See Everything, the buzzy new documentary about the disgraced former biotech CEO Elizabeth Holmes. 

I went in not really knowing what to expect. I’d avoided spoilers (and won’t be giving anything away here, either!). I was wondering what new information this film could reveal, given how familiar many of us are with the Theranos story thanks to years of media coverage, the best-selling book Bad Blood, and the Hulu series The Dropout, starring Amanda Seyfried.

Like many others who have seen the film, I came away feeling unsettled. But not just about Holmes’s fraud and the somewhat disturbing interactions between the subjects. The film reignited a concern I’ve had about covering science for most of my career: Despite our best efforts, we never can actually see everything.

In case you’re rusty on the details, Elizabeth Holmes dropped out of Stanford University in 2003 to run Theranos, a diagnostics company she founded, when she was just 19. She went on to claim that her company had invented a way to run over 100 diagnostic tests on just a few drops of blood.

Holmes raised hundreds of millions of dollars for Theranos, which was valued at $9 billion in 2014. Forbes named her the youngest self-made female billionaire—she was worth $4.5 billion when she was just 30 years old.

Things started to unravel in 2015, when an investigation by the Wall Street Journal raised concerns by former Theranos employees that the tests didn’t work. Some also said that the company’s device had not been tested properly, and that blood samples had been analyzed on machines from other companies instead. MIT Technology Review named it one of the biggest technology failures of 2015.

Forbes had revised Holmes’s worth to $0 by 2016. That year, a damning government report said that the company’s lab was struggling with basic procedures and gave patients results even when they knew they could be wrong.

In 2018, Theranos, Holmes, and former company president Ramesh Balwani were charged with “massive fraud.” In 2022, she was sentenced to a little over 11 years in prison for defrauding investors. She began serving her sentence in May 2023.

It was around a month before this that filmmakers Nathan Fielder, Lance Oppenheim, and their colleagues began documenting Holmes and her partner, Billy Evans, at home with their two young children. I’m not giving anything away when I say it’s an extremely intimate portrayal—at least of how the two adults interact with Fielder, who is also a central character in the film.

As you might know if you’ve seen the trailer, there are plenty of super close-ups. I felt as if I spent most of the film staring straight into the faces of those people. And almost the whole way through, they all seemed to be trying to figure each other out. Holmes is known for her dishonesty, but she invited cameras into her home in an apparent bid to reframe the narrative and position herself as an honest person with an unusual mind. Will anyone believe her?

I couldn’t help feeling some empathy for Holmes, a mother we see preparing to leave her two kids for a lengthy prison sentence. And even though I have long known the facts, Holmes is clearly an effective manipulator. You can see her plant the seeds of doubt in Fielder’s mind. At times, I felt she was convincing me, sitting in my cinema seat. Maybe she really didn’t mean to lie?

But then I remembered how other journalists felt after being taken in by her claims. “I blew it,” Fortune’s Roger Parloff reflected in 2015, a year after profiling Holmes and her company. “I’m pretty sure she lied to me,” STAT’s Matthew Herper wrote recently, having interviewed Holmes in 2015. Even the former employee turned whistleblower Tyler Shultz, who knew the product didn’t work, said that he could “have a five-minute conversation with her and walk away feeling like my work was changing the world,” he said in 2022.

I didn’t cover Theranos in the 2010s. If I’d interviewed Holmes, would I have fallen for it all?

One of the early red flags in the Theranos case was the lack of published, peer-reviewed data. Much of the company’s work was classified as a “trade secret.” Scientists tend to publish their work in journals—a slow process that involves having the work evaluated by often anonymous experts in the field, who provide feedback, highlight questionable conclusions, and often ask for clarification. Peer review is meant to add rigor to the publication process. You should be able to trust published scientific papers.

Except that sometimes you can’t.

Scientists aren’t perfect. Some will exaggerate their results or inflate their importance. Some manipulate data to serve a hypothesis. Sometimes these infractions are caught during peer review, but not always. There are plenty of examples of scientific findings that could never be replicated by other labs and ended up collapsing under the weight of real evidence. Many papers ultimately end up with corrections. Some are withdrawn—10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023.

At any rate, there’s been a shift to sharing research in other ways. Today, many scientists opt to publish their work at preprint servers like arXiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv before they submit them to established journals. Those outlets bypass peer review. So do company press releases, social media posts, and many conference presentations. And I get a lot of my stories from conversations and interviews.

I’ll admit I’ve looked at a scientific finding and thought: A scientist has just said they’ve done that. How can I be sure they really have?

I like to think that I hold myself to high journalistic standards here, as does everyone at MIT Technology Review. I would never publish a story about some new scientific development without doing my own form of peer review, and asking scientists—ideally people I know and trust—what they think of a new claim. 

But the film is a stark reminder of how easy it can be to fall for an appealing narrative. While most scientists are, I hope, pretty honest, and Holmes is certainly an outlier, we should all continue to interrogate the claims being fed to us. If you’ve seen the film, let me know what you think!

This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here.

Designing an AI serving harness built to last

22 October 2026 at 17:17

The next competitive advantage in enterprise AI has less to do with which model you choose than with what you build around it.

That’s an important shift. For the past several years, much of the AI conversation has centered on model capability: bigger models, better reasoning, larger context windows, higher benchmark scores. Those advances have been extraordinary. But as AI moves from experimentation to production, the question facing enterprise leaders has changed—it’s no longer, “what can the model do?”—it’s now, “Can we deliver that intelligence reliably, economically, and at scale?”

Increasingly, the answer depends on the serving harness—the engineering system surrounding the model, including the architecture, memory management, scheduling, and optimization decisions that determine how efficiently model intelligence becomes a production capability.

For technical executives, that changes where AI investment should go—and what they should demand from the architecture supporting it.

Start with the workload, not the model

There is no universally “best” model or AI architecture. There is only the right solution for the business problem.

A customer-facing assistant optimized for fast responses has fundamentally different requirements from a document-processing pipeline that can run overnight. An internal knowledge application and a high-volume customer service platform may use the same foundation model but require very different serving architectures.

The workload defines the constraints. The constraints should determine the architecture.

That sounds simple, but it runs counter to the way many organizations have approached early AI deployments. During a proof of concept, model accuracy naturally dominates the discussion. Production introduces constraints that are much easier to ignore when only a handful of users are involved: latency, concurrency, memory pressure, GPU utilization, infrastructure cost, and unpredictable traffic.

A model that produces marginally better answers is not necessarily the better production choice if it doubles inference costs or cannot meet the application’s latency requirements. Not every workload needs a Ferrari. Sometimes the smarter engineering decision is the model that delivers exactly the performance the business needs without paying for capability it doesn’t.

The objective should be to deploy the right intelligence at the right cost for the workload. That makes serving architecture more than an engineering concern. It becomes an investment decision: where to spend on compute, where to optimize, and where additional model capability simply isn’t worth the cost.

Engineer the system, not the model

Once AI reaches production, seemingly isolated engineering decisions begin affecting one another. Serving architecture influences memory utilization. Memory management affects concurrency. Concurrency shapes batching and scheduling, and scheduling affects GPU utilization and latency.

Only then can techniques such as quantization, speculative decoding, or optimized attention mechanisms deliver their full value. This interdependence matters because organizations can spend considerably more on infrastructure without solving the constraint limiting performance.

GPU memory is a good example. During inference, the model’s weights remain fixed, but the key-value (KV) cache grows with active requests and context length. As concurrency increases, a system can run short of usable GPU memory even when compute capacity is still available. Adding more compute without understanding that bottleneck may simply make an inefficient system more expensive.

The lesson for technology leaders is broader than memory management: Measure before you optimize. Identify the dominant constraint. Address it. Measure the result. Then determine if another bottleneck emerged. Repeat.

Don’t think of optimization techniques as Pokémon cards: The goal isn’t to collect them all. The goal is to apply the technique that removes the highest-impact constraint while preserving the application’s business requirements.

For technology leaders, that demands a different governance question. Instead of asking which AI capabilities the organization can deploy, ask which constraints stand between a proven capability and sustainable business value.

Build for change, not today’s benchmark

Perhaps the most important reason to invest in the serving harness is that today’s leading model will probably not be tomorrow’s. Models will improve. Hardware will evolve. New optimization techniques will emerge. The architecture surrounding them should make those changes easier to absorb, not force the enterprise to rebuild its AI platform every time technology advances.

That makes adaptability an increasingly important outcome of AI strategy.

Organizations that build serving systems around workload requirements, clear service-level objectives, and measurable production economics gain the ability to evaluate new models and infrastructure against what the business actually needs. A model change can become an evaluation and configuration decision rather than an architectural reset.

EXL researchers have explored these production challenges in greater depth in the EXL Engineering the Harness series. It examines how serving architecture, memory management, scheduling, and inference optimization work together to make enterprise AI more efficient, scalable, and economically sustainable.

Increasingly, enterprises have access to many of the same models. Sustainable differentiation comes from how effectively an organization turns that intelligence into business outcomes.

The model provides the intelligence. The harness determines whether the enterprise can deliver outcomes reliably, economically, and at scale.

This content was produced by EXL. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff.

The Foundations of Scalable AI

A scalable AI system requires a strong foundation. Data, engineering, platforms, operating models, and governance must converge to work as one. This session from MIT Technology Review’s EmTech Future conference explores what it takes to build that foundation in a highly regulated environment and how a responsible, trustworthy implementation can turn emerging capabilities, including agentic systems, into lasting value for investors.


About the speaker

Jing Wang, Principal, Center for AI and Insights, Vanguard

Jing Wang leads Vanguard’s Center for AI & Insights (CAI), advancing the firm’s AI, machine learning, generative AI, and behavioral science capabilities. Her team drives enterprise-wide innovation, research, and delivery, enabling Vanguard to translate emerging technologies into trusted solutions that enhance client experiences, improve investor outcomes, and create measurable business value.

Before her current position, Jing served in a range of leadership roles across Vanguard’s Financial Services, Workplace Solutions, International, and Corporate Services divisions. Throughout her tenure, she has led teams and enterprise initiatives that advanced strategic priorities, strengthened client outcomes, and drove business performance across the firm.

She joined Vanguard in 2009 after several years as a Principal at the Boston Consulting Group. Jing earned a B.S. in Physics from the University of Science and Technology of China, a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania, and an M.B.A. in Finance and Marketing from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. Jing holds Series 7, 24, and 65 licenses.

The Download: computing’s next leap and permafrost’s climate threat

22 October 2026 at 08:10

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.

How far can we push computing?

On a December evening in 1959, the physicist Richard Feynman gave a lecture called “There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom.” There is no physical law stopping us from writing the entire Encyclopædia Britannica on the head of a pin, he argued. We simply had not built the tools yet.

He was right, and for decades, computing took us into that space almost for free, as transistors repeatedly halved in size. But that easy descent has now stalled. Today, the industry is increasingly turning to brute force, building ever-bigger data centers to boost performance.

Yet the laws of physics leave plenty of room for improvement. 

Here’s how researchers are exploring ways to unlock the next leap in computing.

—Volkan Gurses

This story is from the latest edition of our print magazine: The Impossible issue. Subscribe now to read it in full.

It’s also part of MIT Technology Review Explains, our series exploring the ideas shaping technology. Read more from the series. 

Three things you should know about permafrost

How much do you know about permafrost? Maybe, like me, you’ve been aware that this layer of frozen soil is thawing, that it’s important in the global puzzle of climate change … and that’s about the extent of it.

The great news for both of us is that my colleague James Temple just helicoptered into Alaska’s forests to report on the fires threatening permafrost and their complicated potential climate effects.

Here are three things I took away from his reporting.

—Casey Crownhart

This story is from The Spark, our weekly climate tech newsletter. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Wednesday.

Roundtables: a conversation with the creator of AI-designed viruses

Can AI design new life forms? In 2025, Stanford University PhD student Samuel King offered a preliminary answer by using a generative AI model to propose genetic blueprints for microscopic viruses. It isn’t yet an example of AI-generated life, but that could be next. 

In our latest Roundtables conversation, MIT Technology Review senior AI reporter James O’Donnell spoke with King about his work, being named one of our Innovators Under 35, and new ways of seeing biology. Subscribers can now watch a full recording of the event.

Want to join the next conversation? Subscribe to MIT Technology Review for exclusive access to all our Roundtables.

The must-reads

I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.

1 AI has uncovered a decade-old flaw threatening much of the web
It found flaws in PHP, the code behind most websites. (Reuters $)
+ Governments are urging website owners to patch PHP or take sites offline. (BBC)
+ Exploit attempts jumped from thousands to millions after disclosure. (Axios)
+ Now is a good time for doing crime. (MIT Technology Review)

2 Hackers used Claude and Grok to automate attacks on over 400 banks
The AI agents targeted financial institutions in Latin America. (Information $)
+ Unvetted AI agents are also accessing US bank accounts.(Axios)
+ Barclays says AI is allowing the bank to cut 5,000 jobs. (Guardian)
+ AI is making online crimes easier. (MIT Technology Review)

3 The Pentagon has cleared the DHS to test a heat ray weapon
It could be used for crowd control at the southern US border. (CNN)
+ It uses invisible energy beams to produce a burning sensation. (Axios)

4 A startup says AI-designed viruses have treated their first patient
The experimental treatment targets drug-resistant E. coli. (NYT $)
+ But the company has not published peer-reviewed results. (Futurism)
+ AI-designed viruses are already killing bacteria. (MIT Technology Review)

5 Japan hopes to return the first samples from Mars’s moons
Its spacecraft is now on its way to Phobos. (Guardian)
+ It aims to reveal whether Mars was once habitable. (Economist $)

6 Meta faces a $25 billion penalty over the Cambridge Analytica scandal
The company says it will appeal the New Mexico ruling. (CNBC)
+ A Meta share deal has convinced Mark Zuckerberg to stay in California. (WSJ $)
+ Until the company remade its stock structure to help him pay it. (NYT $)

7 A new antimatter experiment could open the door to new physics
Scientists hope to spot differences between matter and antimatter. (Nature)

8 China’s Unitree is pitching its latest humanoid as a robot bodyguard
A promotional clip shows the H2-X disarming attackers. (SCMP)

9 Just Eat has apologised for bizarre AI-generated menu pictures
Users were unimpressed by the bacon in cola and cheese sushi. (BBC)

10 Airbnb hosts are furious they can no longer make guests do chores
Hosts are threatening to strike, but guests are celebrating. (Wired $)

Quote of the day

“Now they’ve given everybody a reason not to use Starlink: that Starlink isn’t reliable for national security for anybody but Trump. Maybe he’d turn it off on the United States if he didn’t like policy and he didn’t like the president.”

 —SpaceX investor Ross Gerber tells CNN that Elon Musk’s decision to restrict Ukraine’s Starlink access has made the service a liability for every other government that relies on it.

One more thing


Online harassment is entering its AI era

Scott Shambaugh didn’t think twice when he denied an AI agent’s request to contribute to matplotlib, a software library he helps manage. Then things got weird. 

In the middle of the night, Shambaugh opened his email to discover the agent had retaliated with a blog post. Titled “Gatekeeping in Open Source: The Scott Shambaugh Story,” the post accused him of rejecting the code out of a fear of being supplanted by AI. “He tried to protect his little fiefdom,” the agent wrote. “It’s insecurity, plain and simple.” 

Shambaugh isn’t alone in facing misbehaving agents—and they’re unlikely to stop at harassment. Read the full story.

—Grace Huckins

We can still have nice things

A place for comfort, fun, and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line.)

+ These tiny experiments could work better than big life goals.
+ You can now fly around the world in Google Earth’s browser-based flight simulator.
+ A blind dressage horse is winning competitions after adopting an extraordinary form of equine “braille.”
+ Leave a book, take a book, and discover reading spots nearby in this online community of over 37,000 neighborhood libraries,

Making the case for context-aware AI

Enterprise AI can generate recommendations, automate tasks, and help organizations make decisions faster. But without an understanding of how a business actually operates, even powerful models can miss the constraints and relationships that determine whether a decision is the right one. As companies look to move AI from experimentation into everyday operations, the challenge ahead is giving technology the context to act usefully within complex business processes.

For Devavrat Shah, chief scientist of enterprise AI at Celonis, that context is central to what he calls “decision intelligence.” AI agents can support individual tasks within larger decision-making processes, he argues, but they need to understand the role each task plays and the business conditions surrounding it. “You can’t just do that in a vacuum,” he says. Without the right operational context, agents risk overlooking important constraints, making costly mistakes, or consuming excessive computing resources as they try to work out what they need to know.

The solution begins with connecting AI to the processes and data enterprises already use. A contextual layer can help agents understand workflows, operate within defined guardrails, and produce recommendations that people can review and approve. Shah advises organizations to start with a specific business decision, identify its most difficult steps, and test whether AI can improve them. Measuring gains in speed and value can then help determine whether an application is worth scaling.

This approach could also change how employees spend their time. Automating repetitive, manual work and coordinating tasks across teams could free people to focus on more complex strategic decisions. Realizing that benefit, however, will require investment in workforce education, so employees can understand AI outputs and their implications instead of just handing decisions over to agents.

Looking to the future, Shah sees opportunities extending from routine operational tasks to enterprise-wide planning in areas such as finance, workforce management, marketing, and sales. With the right context, AI could help organizations evaluate options and make consequential decisions more quickly. As Shah puts it, “Now, maybe [resource planning] should not take that much time, and people are actually making the right choices quickly.”

This episode of Business Lab is produced in partnership with Celonis.

Full Transcript

Megan Tatum: From MIT Technology Review, I’m Megan Tatum, and this is Business Lab, the show that helps business leaders make sense of new technologies coming out of the lab and into the marketplace.

This podcast is produced in partnership with Celonis.

Now, enterprise AI is at something of a crossroads. After years of experimentation, demos, and pilots, leadership teams want clear proof that scaling up will positively impact their bottom line, but many are missing an integral part of the puzzle. By acting without operational context, enterprise AI and AI agents are performing at a significant deficit. They’re applying generalized principles to specialized scenarios and coming up short, leaving business leaders understandably unconvinced and AI’s potential unrealized.

Two words for you: context matters.

My guest today is Devavrat Shah, chief scientist of enterprise AI at Celonis.

Welcome, Devavrat.

Devavrat Shah: Hello, Megan. Thanks for having me here.

Megan: Thank you so much for being here with us today. Devavrat, just to start, why is it so crucial that organizations are thinking about operational context as it relates to enterprise AI right now? What makes it such a critical part of that transition I was talking about from experimentation to scale?

Devavrat: It’s a fantastic question. And as you correctly noted, we’re at the cusp of becoming experimental to mainstream as far as AI is concerned. As you know, I’ve been teaching AI at MIT as a professor for more than the last two decades, so it’s no surprise that I’m very bullish about AI’s future in enterprises.

The way I think about where AI can make the biggest difference in enterprises is in decision making, helping enterprise make decisions, or putting it other way, how do we bring decision intelligence to enterprises? As we think about decisions, how do we make decisions today? Take MIT Tech Review, take Celonis, take MIT, take any large organization. We have different types of decisions we want to make in very broad strokes. There are decisions which are strategic decisions like episodic, other decisions which are operational that need to be done with a high frequency. In either of them, we have some processes in place. You do this first, you do that first, you do that first, you do that first. Many of us help coordinate those things. Many of us play roles within it, what Jensen Huang calls task. And once you get those things done step by step, then you reach decision.

Now, it’s those tasks, or what I would call roles, that’s where AI can bring in an atomic manner agentic power so that we can at least parts of decisions, if not all of the decisions, we can augment support and maybe sometimes when it’s a painful automate. And to get to that, to know which role to do, which task to do, we really need to know the context. You can’t just do that in a vacuum. And that’s why context with AI put together in the right way would bring what I would call decision intelligence to enterprise. And that’s where I think there’ll be the biggest transformation that would come.

Megan: Right. To drill down into that into a bit more detail, we know many organizations are, as you say, embracing identic AI right now with this potential for increasingly autonomous decision making. If context isn’t introduced in parallel, what are the commercial risks at play?

Devavrat: Fantastic. Let’s just take the setting I was describing. We are trying to automate a role or support a role or augment a role depending on the type of decision, depending upon type of task. And let’s for a second imagine that all these, as they’re called, frontier labs have built these amazing models and amazing AI infrastructure so that everything that’s happened in the universe and it’s likely to happen in the universe is all there.

Now, we have a small decision that we want to make for that very specific context is there. And without having access to that, this massive system, this extremely bright person would figure that out eventually by asking lots of questions, the way we do it as humans, and then finally do the right thing. The problem is to get to that, it will do so much compute at some level that to get simple tasks done, we are spending massive amount of compute. So that’s scenario one.

In reality, that’s not going to be the scenario, and we’ll miss some important context, important constraint, important guardrail, and then we’ll make a mistake. And sometimes that mistake can be okay. It’s like me giving you a recommendation saying, go restaurant A, and maybe you may not enjoy the dinner, versus sometimes mistakes will be very, very expensive. That is me telling you what the financial forecast is and somehow that leads to the company’s doom.

Megan: Right. So in an enterprise setting, these are really business critical decisions that are being made. So the impact is that much more if we get this wrong, isn’t it? And on a practical level then, what are the different ways that organizations can add in this context layer we’re talking about? How does Celonis, for example, deliver that operational context via a real time digital twin of an organization?

Devavrat: Absolutely. I think if it might be useful just to double click on the history of Celonis. As you know, Celonis, as an organization, came into existence with the mission, with the goal of helping organizations adhere to their ideal processes, build better processes, enable people to work with multiple processes in an intertwined manner. And that’s where their primary, let’s call it a DNA, has been about what I would call process intelligence. Take how enterprises help put multiple things together, digitize them, enable people to get their processes better, understand where the issues are, and then how do you re-engineer the process within organizations so that things can happen better.

Now, if you want to bring decision intelligence into this, each atomic step of this process that was potentially was done before by experts, people, now we want agents to help us enable that. And that’s where knowing this context of a process within enterprise and then bringing AI agents along with that, what I would like to call it as a roled agents, exactly provide the right way to bring decision intelligence to enterprises. And this is how Celonis brings context to help enterprise make better decision.

Megan: Right. And then in terms of how this works as well, how does the context layer relate to both the layer below, that’s the systems of record layer, and also the layer above, that identic layer?

Devavrat: That’s a fantastic question, Megan. The layer below primarily is, if we call it system of record, primarily it’s the workflow tools that are there and then the event logs that they generate around it. The layer above is either business user experts consuming information, or they’re consuming that information maybe through agents working on top of that context layer. And this is where the way context model, as Celonis calls it, is designed is to do three things simultaneously. One is to get the right abstraction of the layer below, so that the right pieces of the process can be agentified. Two is to bring the rolled agents for each of these pieces in a structured guardrailed manner. And then the three is to be agent first so that if there are other agentic infrastructure that are already talking to it, they can naturally talk to it so that then they can bring the right output for humans or experts to review, look at it, approve, and maybe then at times automate.

Megan: Fantastic. And for all the benefits that we’re talking about with this, are there also challenges when it comes to implementing a context layer? For example, do most organizations have the right data in place to provide AI with the context it needs? And if not, I wonder what some of the practical steps are that they might need to take to address that.

Devavrat: It’s again, a crucial question to make this real. We can imagine an ideal world, but if we cannot reach the ideal world, then it’s just ideal. So now in this setting, as we discussed the three layers, one being the layer which is the layer below system of record and workflow tools. In some sense, those things already exist. They don’t need to be complete. They don’t need to be in the cleanest possible manner. The way context model is designed with agentic’s architecture, it manages to connect to those things and make sense of it.

And then things on top is very much in control of Celonis’s infrastructure, so it’s not that complicated. The crucial thing here though is when one goes to enterprise, when one opens up, let’s say a system of record or workflow tool, event logs or things like that, one has to go through, what I would call, classical InfoSec to make sure that you can trust a vendor’s software that’s coming into your organization. And I think that is the primary process that is a step between, before and after, if I may call it.

Megan: Right. So that’s the real crucial step for people to be taking here. And as AI agents with context are able to make more complex, more accurate hopefully decisions, I wonder what you think the role of human intelligence and input will be moving forward, and how can organizations perhaps strike the balance between the two?

Devavrat: There are the benefits and then there are the challenges. Benefits are clear. If you have right AI agents in a right role manner going through your decision processes, hopefully they’re doing it quicker and hence your decisions are taken earlier so that your opportunity cost is not lost. You are taking decisions in time, you can plan much better, et cetera, et cetera. This is especially useful when you have to take very manual, repetitive, grungy tasks where access to workforce, coordination between people become crucial parts of the decision process. In a sense, that’s where the huge value can come in. The flip side of that is that means that people won’t be doing that.

On the other hand, the other type of decision that we always make, which are strategic decisions. It could be a small strategic decision, it could be large strategic decision, but the strategic decisions that typically most organizations don’t have bandwidth to take to think, that opportunity would open up and that’s where likely lots of humans and experts would engage more. In a sense, now they would have better support helping them rationally think through what are the choices that they have, how do different choices compare? And then at the end of the day, it’s organization’s role to decide which of the option to take because it belongs to their interest in mind where they want to go.

And so in a sense, there will be what I would call shift of workforce in terms of instead of doing a lot more repetitive, a lot less repetitive, but a lot more strategic work and that’s where people will have to spend time.

The other place where I am personally very optimistic is like every technology change creates new work that it’s difficult to predict at the time of change. My hope is that there will be another type of opportunity and work that will be created where we’ll be engaging our workforce. Goes without saying, this would mean that we will have to carefully think through reeducating or educating some of our workforce thoughtfully. And I think as an academic in me, as an educator in me, I really feel that the timescale at which these changes are happening are so fast. So we need to also act in a similar manner.

Megan: For any decision maker listening to this, how should they start implementing these changes? For example, how can they prepare their workforce? What role should governance play as well?

Devavrat: Okay, that’s a great question. If you want to start, the first thing you need to do is identify a decision where you want to bring intelligence. Let’s identify the process around it. Let’s identify each step of the process. Let’s take the most crucial, difficult step in that. Let’s try to bring AI agents to help you to do that. And then from there you go and then let’s measure how much speed are we getting, how much value are we getting? And that’ll help us understand whether this was worth it. So that’s one.

Second is governance. Well, we’re going to bring AI in this prescriptive manner for each task in a role. That means that for that role, we can tell what it can or cannot do very clearly. And Celonis prescribes certified role agents for these things. This helps you clearly have an understanding of what sort of contract would be for this.

And the third thing, which is people, and now this is where it’s really important, is a part which gets automated, but then there’s a part where experts will be in the loop and this is where they need to understand the outputs of AI, how do you work with that and what its implication would be? And this is where some AI education is needed and then some tool education is needed.

Megan: Yes, absolutely. The pace is incredible, isn’t it, in this space? And speaking of, I suppose if we could close with a look ahead, given the right context, of course, what are the use cases perhaps for enterprise AI that are on the horizon that you think could be most impactful or perhaps what you’re simply most excited about?

Devavrat: I think I would categorize them into three types. They’re all decision intelligence, decision-making, but there are three types. One, what I would call many repetitive manual labor-intensive, so that’s one.

Two, what I would call coordination style tasks. A lot of work that we do right now as an information workforce that’s spent in coordination, that’s why email spreadsheets, et cetera. A lot of that would be done much better, much quicker and less boring, so to speak.

And then the third is where, especially as a support to human decision-makers to provide strategic support augmentation, and that’s a third type of decisions that would be done. If I think of any planning process in enterprises, so financial planning, workforce planning, marketing, sales, product, anything, all of those are business critical decisions that we make that take annual planning process, take annual time. Now maybe it should not take that much time, and people are actually making the right choices quickly.

Megan: That’d be fantastic, wouldn’t it? Fantastic. Thank you so much for that brilliant conversation, Devavrat. That was Devavrat Shah, chief scientist of enterprise AI at Celonis, whom I spoke with from Brighton in England.

That’s it for this episode of Business Lab. I’m your host, Megan Tatum. I’m a contributing editor and host for Insights, the custom publishing division of MIT Technology Review. We were founded in 1899 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and you can find us in print, on the web, and at events each year around the world. For more information about us and the show, please check out our website at technologyreview.com.

This show is available wherever you get your podcasts. And if you enjoyed this episode, we hope you’ll take a moment to rate and review us. Business Lab is a production of MIT Technology Review, and this episode was produced by Giro Studios. Thanks so much for listening. Goodbye.

This content was produced by Insights, MIT Technology Review’s custom content arm, not its editorial staff. It was researched and written by humans, with any AI tools that may have been used limited to production processes under human oversight.

Three things you should know about permafrost

22 October 2026 at 06:00

How much do you know about permafrost?

Maybe, like me, you’ve been aware that this layer of frozen soil is thawing, that it’s important in the global puzzle of climate change … and that’s about the extent of it.  

The great news for both of us is that my colleague James Temple just published two in-depth stories about permafrost. His reporting took him to the boreal forests of Alaska, where he helicoptered into the wilderness to learn more about how this material could affect our climate both now and in the future.

I’d recommend you give both of James’s stories a read. There’s this feature about efforts to tackle the intensifying fires that are threatening permafrost, as well as this look at how researchers are trying to understand the complicated tangle of potential climate effects. Here are three things I took away.

Permafrost is a massive blind spot for climate change

Permafrost is the frozen layer of soil that’s under about 15% of land around the Northern Hemisphere. While technically material needs to be frozen for only two consecutive years to count as permafrost, most of our current permafrost formed during the last ice age.

That means there’s organic material that’s been frozen, and essentially locked away, for thousands of years. But as global temperatures tick up and this layer thaws, microbes are able to break down that organic matter, releasing carbon dioxide and methane—powerful greenhouse gases that drive climate change. Those emissions form a feedback loop, accelerating warming further.

The steady rise in global temperatures has already shrunk the footprint of the Arctic permafrost by about 12% since 1850, and the pace has been picking up in the last 50 years.

The wild thing is, only a minority of the models that have been used in UN climate reports actually take into account the gradual loss of permafrost. And none of them include the abrupt thaw and collapse that can happen after events like heat waves and fires (more on those fires in a moment). There are efforts to make sure future UN reports reflect the growing science, but for now, all this means that we’re probably underestimating how much and how fast the planet is going to warm.

Wildfires can speed up permafrost loss

Fire is a natural part of boreal forests’ life cycle, but they’re getting more intense because of climate change. And crucially, fires can accelerate the thawing of permafrost. By the end of the century, this effect could release the equivalent of 80 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide.

Today, the policy across remote parts of Canada and Alaska is generally to let wildfires burn as long as they’re not threatening human habitats. But some researchers say we should explore fighting these fires to save the carbon trapped in the forests and the permafrost beneath them.  

Researchers at the Woodwell Climate Research Center are developing a map of burn risk and carbon vulnerability across Alaska, essentially highlighting areas where fires are most likely to spread and which areas are home to certain types of permafrost that would release the most emissions. (Yes, apparently there are different types of permafrost. Yedoma is a particularly deep, carbon-dense form from the late Pleistocene era.)

That’s all just the beginning—once we figure out potential targets, the question is what to do about it. Some suggest setting more prescribed fires, something Indigenous groups have done for thousands of years, partly to reduce the danger of massive blazes. Or resources could go to early detection and efforts to put out fires before they grow.

The carbon cycle of permafrost is incredibly complicated

There’s about 1.5 trillion tons of carbon locked away in permafrost, about twice the amount in the atmosphere. We know that permafrost thawing can release greenhouse-gas emissions and drive climate change. But there are complications.  

One particularly big wrinkle: Other effects from permafrost thawing and fire recovery might counteract the carbon lost from those events. For example, as temperatures warm, plants can gradually move north and take hold where they couldn’t have before. Those plants soak up carbon from the atmosphere as they grow, at least partly locking away what was emitted.

Researchers are working to better understand this ecosystem. And the more we learn, the more complicated the picture looks. How much carbon is lost from permafrost, and how much a given area will recover its carbon, depend on a huge array of factors. How severe are the fires that have accelerated local thawing? What’s the local climate and environment? And what kind of permafrost is at stake?

The higher we push the planet’s temperature, the more we mess with complicated natural phenomena that we’re only beginning to understand. 

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here. 

AI’s hidden storage bill: What inference leaves behind

22 October 2026 at 04:41

Ask most executives to picture the cost of AI and they’ll likely see GPUs—racks of accelerators with gigawatts of power—and a waitlist for silicon. But that picture leaves something out: Data storage costs.

What happens to data after a model responds? Much of the back-end data that’s generated—from billions of daily prompts, images, and videos—needs to be stored. But data storage is one of the harder infrastructure costs to plan for, and it’s often overlooked in initial AI infrastructure planning.

As inference scales, the data footprint grows with it

Traditionally, AI infrastructure conversations have centered on the compute-intensive process of training a model. Training is finite: a run starts, burns through compute, and ends. But inference runs continuously, every time a model answers a prompt. For infrastructure planning, that difference matters: A training run is a project you can budget for and retire. Inference doesn’t retire; every inference request leaves something behind.

Take AI-generated video. In this workload, the back-end spend can be significant. From internal measurements, WD found that an 8-second clip (returned to a user as a 3.97MB 720p file) left more than 500MB of associated data behind on the back end, including logs, cached context, immediate renders, backups, and safety records. That’s a 130x increase over the output file size the user saw. Scale this to an enterprise generating longer, higher resolution video and the back-end footprint grows into the hundreds of gigabytes per clip.

And that back-end footprint is growing fast. McKinsey projects AI inference demand will grow at a 35% CAGR through 2030, versus 22% for training, making up more than 40% of total data center demand by the end of the decade.

A recent WD-sponsored IDC global white paper that surveyed 763 IT and business decision makers found that nearly 95% of respondents reported an increase in data volume due to generative AI over the past 12 months, with roughly 61% reporting growth of 25% or more.

“You can think of having more storage as an optimization for keeping the GPUs busy,” said a senior product manager of a hyperscale cloud service provider quoted in report. “The biggest challenge is to ensure that the GPUs are not idle, waiting for data to show up—hours of GPU idle time becomes very expensive, very fast.” Put in dollar terms: if your storage spend is growing 25% year over year while your compute budget grows in the more predictable cyclical way, storage ends up outpacing the budget line that receives the most attention.

Matching storage to the AI data life cycle

Compute demand rises and falls with training cycles, product launches, and hardware refreshes. But the volume of retained data doesn’t fall back down with it when compute demand slows. Model logs, synthetic outputs, inference results, and more keep accumulating, and organizations are holding onto more of it for longer.

This changes the role of retained data. Information that once moved into an archive and rarely surfaced can now become an input to future AI workloads. As more data is retained, retrieved, and reused, storage must support not only growing capacity, but increasingly dynamic access to it. The same WD-IDC survey found 96% of respondents anticipate needing faster archive retrieval to support inference or retrieval-augmented generation (RAG).

AI workloads require both performance and capacity, with different technologies serving different needs across the data lifecycle. And for the vast volumes of data that must be retained and revisited, HDDs provide a cost-effective, high-capacity foundation, with a significant cost-per-terabyte advantage  

What this means for how AI gets budgeted

For a CFO or CIO, this means “AI infrastructure spend” may be scoped too narrowly on compute. A model that idles while data loads costs about as much as one idling for lack of a GPU. But the storage bottleneck stays hidden until it’s already a problem, surfacing in operating costs and retrieval delays rather than a CapEx line next to the accelerators.

Consider a retailer generating AI product videos for its catalog, or an insurer running claims documents through a RAG pipeline for faster underwriting. In both cases, the compute cost is a known, budgeted quantity: a per-generation or per-query rate that finance can forecast. The storage cost is different: It compounds with every video generated and every claim processed, because none of that back-end data disappears once the task is finished.

A team that budgets AI as “compute plus a rounding error for storage” may find, in 12 to 18 months, that the rounding error has become a significant fraction of the program’s total cost—right around the time leadership is deciding whether to expand.

Building for economically scalable capacity

Addressing this challenge starts with architecture. Storage strategy tends to be designed for expensive, hot-tier performance (for data accessed instantly and constantly), while most AI data by volume accumulates in the warm, cool, and cold tiers behind it.

What enterprises need is economically scalable capacity: Infrastructure designed for the full AI data life cycle, balancing performance with capacity, power, reliability, and total cost of ownership as data persists, compounds, and is increasingly reused. That means treating archives that once sat untouched as active assets for RAG and inference, and setting retention policies for data’s growing strategic value rather than its original storage cost. It also means recognizing that decisions about storage play out across fleets, not individual drives.

Such infrastructure requires storage tiers, where individualized power consumption, reliability, density, and operational efficiency all determine whether the system remains economically sustainable as capacity scales.

There are three questions to ask about your organization’s AI infrastructure budget:

  1. What’s our data retention policy for AI-generated content, and who set(s) it?
  2. Is our storage procurement tied to training-time performance needs, or to the actual life cycle of the data we’re producing?
  3. If our AI usage doubled next year, would our storage cost double with it, or worse?

Most organizations cannot answer all three with confidence. That’s the gap worth closing before the next budget cycle, not after.

This content was produced by WD. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff.

The Download: introducing the Impossible issue

21 October 2026 at 08:10

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.

Introducing: the Impossible issue

We wanted our last print edition of 2026 to include a slate of stories that check in on impossible ideas. Why? Because it’s fun to dream about living on other planets or uploading our brains. But also because scientists and engineers who won’t give up on daring endeavors remind us what technology is supposed to do: make life better, safer, healthier, even more joyful.

That’s the ambition behind the stories in our new Impossible issue. We explore bold attempts to make synthetic blood, build cities on the moon, and attain cognitive immortality. We investigate AI’s ability to say no, a bionic eye that can restore sight, and high hopes for blended meat. Plus, we check in on six technologies that have been “coming soon” for years.

This issue is for the folks with the audacity to try, and refuse to let anyone—themselves included— tell them no. We hope you enjoy the ride.

Subscribe now to read the full print issue.

Astrolab’s upcoming rover will run the first LLMs on the moon

Large language models are set to go lunar. A computer capable of running AI software is one of the payloads aboard Astrolab’s FLIP lunar rover, which is slated to head to the moon as early as next month.

The mission will test whether LLMs can enable greater autonomy and real-time intelligent decision-making in the extreme lunar environment. But the moon will present formidable challenges, from extreme temperatures to intense cosmic radiation.

Find out how the lunar rover could change the future of space exploration.

—Tereza Pultarova

How to study a swiftly melting climate disaster

In Alaska’s Denali National Park, a 2013 lightning fire burned nearly 35,000 acres, stripping away the insulating layer that preserves permafrost. It’s given scientists a rare opportunity to study how fires reshape permafrost and carbon storage over time.

The work is providing critical clues into the complex mechanisms driving cascading climate feedback effects. As warming temperatures fuel fires, more permafrost thaws, releasing greenhouse-gas emissions that threaten to fuel more warming, fires and permafrost loss. Their observations are revealing worrisome signs about what lies ahead.

Discover what their fieldwork is revealing about a cascading climate disaster.

—James Temple

MIT Technology Review Narrated: the explosive claim that’s upended the AI world

“I think I have good news about the nature of neural networks.” With those simple words of optimism, Nick Cammarata, a researcher at AI startup Goodfire, kicked off a 26,000-word blog post that has knocked the industry on its head.

Cammarata claims that LLMs might be far easier to understand, and thus to monitor and control, than people previously thought. If true, it’s a huge deal. But not everyone is convinced.

MIT Technology Review spoke to Cammarata the day after his post blew up. He explained what he thinks researchers are getting wrong, what his work actually shows, and why skeptics aren’t ready to celebrate just yet.

This is our latest story to become an MIT Technology Review Narrated podcast, which we publish each week on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. Just navigate to MIT Technology Review Narrated on either platform, and follow us to get all our new content as it’s released.

The must-reads

I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.

1 Elon Musk reportedly ordered the recent Starlink slowdown in Ukraine
The restrictions hampered drone strikes and air defences. (WSJ $)
+ The move sparked confusion in Washington over who authorised it. (CNBC)
+ Ukraine’s volunteer army is keeping Starlink alive. (MIT Technology Review)

2 An OpenAI model disabled its own safety checks—then lied about it
Two agents weakened the company’s safeguards during routine tasks. (CNBC)
+ They turned off systems designed to spot their misbehaviour. (FT $)
+ Here’s why AI agents lie to reach their goals. (MIT Technology Review)

3 SpaceX and Tesla have begun merger discussions
They’ve formed special committees to discuss a deal. (BBC)
+ Elon Musk, the CEO of both companies, said it’s “a good idea.” (Axios)
+ A merger could combine their AI and manufacturing plans. (Reuters $)

4 Global emissions have stalled, but warming is heading towards 2.8°C
The UN says the 1.5°C climate target is now out of reach. (Nature)
+ Current pledges would still bring warming to 2.1°C. (New Scientist $)
+ Climate tech companies offer rays of hope. (MIT Technology Review)

5 Ukraine says it’s carried out the world’s first drone evacuation
A heavy hexacopter flew a soldier to safety. (Ars Technica)
+ Ukraine has shared a video showing the evacuation. (CNBC)
+ A Russian satellite recently stalked a spacecraft believed to support Ukraine. (NYT $)

6 Meta has paused Muse sharing after private chats surfaced online
Researchers found 6,800 links exposing sensitive conversations. (Verge)
+ AI agents are not your “coworkers.” (MIT Technology Review)

7 More than 1,000 mathematicians have pledged to shun AI companies
Some also vowed to avoid AI tools in their research. (New Scientist $)

8 AI is making it easy to clone almost any software
Viral tools promise easy copying, but often produce slop. (404 Media)

9 A computer program has finally outdone humans at cryptic crosswords
Its creator hopes to tackle the harder challenge of setting puzzles. (Guardian)

10 A newly-discovered particle could explain the origins of reality
In particular, it could reveal why matter survived the Big Bang. (404 Media)

Quote of the day

“I did not remove an enabled monitor from it.” 

—GPT-6 Astra, an OpenAI coding agent, tells its user it hasn’t disabled a safeguard after doing exactly that, the company reveals in a new misalignment report.

One more thing

This giant microwave may change the future of war

US armed forces are hunting for a weapon that disables drones en masse—and they want it fast. 

One solution focuses on microwaves: high-powered electronic devices that push out kilowatts of power to zap the circuits of a drone as if it were the tinfoil you forgot to take off your leftovers when you heated them up.

Defense tech startup Epirus may have the winning formula. The company has developed a cutting-edge, cost-efficient drone zapper that’s sparking the interest of the US military—and drones are just one of its targets. Peer into its crosshairs.

—Sam Dean

We can still have nice things

A place for comfort, fun, and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line.)

+ Don’t feel guilty about enjoying a siesta; fish take naps during the day, too.
+ Every trade has its go-to tools. This site has built a fascinating register of them.
+ Wikipop spotlights what was most popular on Wikipedia yesterday, providing a daily snapshot of what the world is reading.
+ Meet the self-taught woodcarver who went from a broke young father to creating some of Disneyland’s most iconic attractions.

We can do impossible things

21 October 2026 at 05:00

I’d wager everyone has a rehearsed response to what’s absolutely one of the world’s worst interview questions: “What’s your biggest weakness?” Whenever I’ve gotten it, I take a slow—even pensive—breath and rattle off my line: “I say no to myself too much.” 

I won’t lie. It’s a bit shameless—a definite humblebrag. I’m a systems thinker: When an idea pops up, I immediately spin up a feasibility assessment in my head. I run lists, plot timelines, and tally budget line items. Sometimes a rough Gantt chart starts to take shape. (I’m a gas at parties, as you can surely tell.)

My brain, throughout my 20-plus-year career as a science and tech journalist, has played host to a near ­constant tug-of-war between ambition and reality. Learning to find that balance is a big part of what’s helped me survive in this industry and, ultimately, led me here. This past spring, I had the great privilege of joining the incredible team of journalists behind MIT Technology Review to take the reins of the print magazine. 

If you’ve been reading along with us for the last handful of issues, you may have noticed a few changes starting to materialize. We’ve brought back a regular roster of lists and infographics (both things that magazines do particularly well). But the biggest change is only just beginning to take shape, which is why Mat Honan, our editor in chief, asked me to hop in to introduce myself—and the issue you’re holding in your hands right now. 

We’re giving ourselves permission to play around and experiment. To be a little … audacious. 

Because, practical though I may be, I do still have plenty of ideas. It’s just that I sometimes need a reminder to stop blocking myself and do the thing. That’s the spirit driving this issue in particular. 

We wanted to end 2026 with a slate of stories that check in on impossible ideas. Why? Because it’s frankly a lot of fun to dream about living on the moon or uploading our brains. Because losing sight of ambition is all too easy when it feels as if we’re playing whack-a-mole with the world’s problems. But also because the scientists and engineers who absolutely refuse to give up on even the most daring endeavors—like making synthetic blood or decoding animals’ speech—remind us what this whole technology thing is supposed to do to begin with. 

It’s supposed to take cutting-edge research and development and apply it to make life better, safer, healthier, even more joyful. And when we eff up and make things worse (see: forever chemicals, traffic deaths, and AI that encourages potentially dangerous user behavior), we’re supposed to dig back in, assess the damage, and find ways to fix what we’ve broken. Even when unraveling the mess might itself seem impossible. 

Right before I came to MIT Technology Review, I edited a newsletter about individual actions that can help address the climate crisis, which some would call—and have called—a fool’s errand, given the sheer scale of the problem. They might say it’s as implausible as an AI kill switch, practical nuclear fusion, or a superconductor that works at room temperature. But if I learned nothing else from three years spent finding ways for li’l old me (or li’l old you!) to chip away at one of humanity’s biggest existential threats, it’s that focusing on what we can’t do only makes the darkness darker. 

So yeah, this one’s for the folks who have the audacity to try, and who refuse to let anyone—themselves included—tell them no.

I hope you enjoy the ride.

Nuclear-powered spaceships

21 October 2026 at 05:00

Just before the Artemis II crew began its historic slingshot around the moon this past April, NASA announced plans to build Space Reactor-1 Freedom. SR-1, the first-ever nuclear-reactor-­powered interplanetary spacecraft, is meant to fly an uncrewed mission to Mars by the end of 2028, arriving in 2029. A successful mission would herald a new era of more efficient, potentially faster spaceflight—saving astronauts time and cutting their exposure to harmful cosmic radiation as they travel to Mars and beyond. “You wake up to that announcement, and it puts a big smile on your face,” says Simon Middleburgh, co-director of the Nuclear Futures Institute at Bangor University in Wales.

The sticking points

Running a nuclear reactor in space may sound like lunacy, but it’s not. The Soviet Union sent dozens of reactors into orbit, often to power spy satellites. And experts say there aren’t any major technical obstacles to making nuclear space propulsion happen. “I think it’s a very doable technology,” says Philip Metzger, a spaceflight engineering researcher at the Florida Space Institute.“I’m happy to see them finally doing this.”

Still, developing space propulsion using reactors has been slow going. The US has started—and terminated—several programs looking into it over the past 75 years. The latest casualty was DRACO, a collaboration between NASA and the Department of Defense, which ended in 2025. The project was canceled because of high experimentation costs, an inability to compete with conventional rocket propulsion on price, and difficulty ensuring that ground tests could be performed safely and effectively. (You are creating an incredibly powerful nuclear reaction, after all.)

The progress

After much wavering, it now appears that nuclear-powered interplanetary travel is a $2 billion bet NASA is willing to make. The agency is pursuing an approach called nuclear electric propulsion, which uses the neutrons produced in a self-­sustaining, uranium-­atom-splitting reaction to create heat and ultimately electricity. The electricity is used to ionize a gas, which is blasted out of the spacecraft with the help of magnetic fields, generating thrust. The approach “is very low thrust, but very efficient,” says Sebastian Corbisiero, the US Department of Energy’s national technical director of space reactor programs. “So you can use it for a long period of time.”

What might such a rocket look like? A presentation by Steve Sinacore, program director of NASA’s SR-1 program, offers some clues. So far, the concept art makes the craft look like a colossal fletched arrow. The back will house the power-and-propulsion system, while the tip will hold a uranium-filled nuclear reactor with a capacity of at least 20 kilowatts. (For context, a typical nuclear plant on Earth is about 50,000 times more powerful.) The “fletches” on SR-1 are large fins that help cool the reactor by radiating heat into space.

Like many other pieces of space hardware, the reactor will need to be put through its paces on the ground before it’s cleared for the rough rocket trip to space. “Going through the launch safely is going to be a challenge,” says Middleburgh. “You are being shaken, rattled, and rolled.” For safety reasons, the reactor will be switched on around two days post-launch, when it’s comfortably far from Earth. Uranium isn’t tremendously dangerous by itself, but that can’t be said of the waste products that emerge when the reactor is running. If SR-1 works as planned, its journey to Mars will take about a year. 

Will this novel form of space propulsion actually reach the Red Planet by 2029? It’s possible. NASA says the Idaho National Laboratory, which is building SR-1’s reactor, is making progress and is on target for a late-2028 launch. “Procurement of major components is underway, and integration work on the power and propulsion element is advancing steadily,” Sinacore told MIT Technology Review. The outlook will get even sunnier if the Artemis program, which aims to start laying the foundations for a base on the lunar south pole by the decade’s end, keeps to its own bold deadline. 

“It’s an aggressive timeline,” says Lindsey Holmes, who is vice president of advanced projects at Analytical Mechanics Associates, an aerospace company in Virginia. She suspects the push is being driven partly by China’s and Russia’s own deep-space nuclear ambitions. The two countries have spoken about plans to place a reactor on the moon’s surface in the mid-2030s to power a jointly operated lunar base. Whether it flies or fails in space, SR-1’s development should help NASA put its own reactor on the moon; the technology involved in the two projects is broadly similar, given that the lunar surface, like space itself, is a vacuum. If an interplanetary nuclear-powered spacecraft works, a nuclear reactor on the moon should too.


Progress meter . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Most of the technology for SR-1 already exists; it’s going to come down to piecing it all together and then seeing how it performs in space.

❌
❌