Here's something that AI might actually be useful for:

Nuclear fusion reactors gain real-time AI shield to tackle plasma collapse risk

​

These AI-based predictors are now being used to develop active plasma controllers. These controllers receive real-time data from the reactor and use machine learning to determine the stability of the plasma at any given moment.

If the system detects a risk of tearing onset, the controller automatically adjusts the magnetic configuration to suppress the mode or avoid the conditions that cause it.

 

Here's something that AI might actually be useful for:

Nuclear fusion reactors gain real-time AI shield to tackle plasma collapse risk
View attachment 367218​

OMG. They call everything AI today.

https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/articl...-review-of-machine-learning-driven-studies-of

 

OMG. They call everything AI today.

https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/articl...-review-of-machine-learning-driven-studies-of

Machine Learning has always been treated as synonymous with Artificial Intelligence in the minds of most people not actually involved in it (and many that are) since the earliest days. No reason to hope that it will change now.

 

I've always referred to "AI" as LLM's ... I guess I've fallen victim to the current linguistic fad ... OTH, most people (not here, of course) don't even know what an LLM is and will look at you with a blank stare if you try to clarify

 

Machine Learning has always been treated as synonymous with Artificial Intelligence in the minds of most people not actually involved in it (and many that are) since the earliest days. No reason to hope that it will change now.

Sure, classic expert systems are classified as AI. IMO, it's counterproductive to continue to use it in the same way it was used before.

AI is mainly a buzzword today, notice it didn't appear in the actual science paper, only in the pop science article.

 

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/princeton-proctor-exams-ai-b2976111.html
Princeton scraps honor code and will supervise exams for first time in 133 years because of AI

Princeton’s honor code was implemented in 1893 after students petitioned to get rid of exam proctors

A “significant” number of undergraduate students and faculty requested the change, “given their perception that cheating on in-class exams has become widespread,” the college’s dean, Michael Gordin, wrote in a letter, according to The Wall Street Journal.
...
English and theater professor Jill Dolan, who served as dean of the college from 2015 to 2024, told the student newspaper that the new policy is “a shame, but it’s necessary.”

“But I also do understand why it passed. I think we need some different practices in this day and age, but it does mark a moment,” Dolan said.

The changes at Princeton highlight an issue plaguing colleges, universities and schools across the country. While some colleges have returned to old-fashioned, blue books, others have opted for AI-detection programs that are supposed to sniff out when students use the technology to do their assignments.

 

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/princeton-proctor-exams-ai-b2976111.html
Princeton scraps honor code and will supervise exams for first time in 133 years because of AI

Princeton’s honor code was implemented in 1893 after students petitioned to get rid of exam proctors

A “significant” number of undergraduate students and faculty requested the change, “given their perception that cheating on in-class exams has become widespread,” the college’s dean, Michael Gordin, wrote in a letter, according to The Wall Street Journal.
...
English and theater professor Jill Dolan, who served as dean of the college from 2015 to 2024, told the student newspaper that the new policy is “a shame, but it’s necessary.”

“But I also do understand why it passed. I think we need some different practices in this day and age, but it does mark a moment,” Dolan said.

The changes at Princeton highlight an issue plaguing colleges, universities and schools across the country. While some colleges have returned to old-fashioned, blue books, others have opted for AI-detection programs that are supposed to sniff out when students use the technology to do their assignments.

While it's a problem that has made things much worse, it didn't create the problem.

When I was an undergraduate in Physics, we often had take home exams and, other than the two intro courses that every student had to take, it was very common for the exams to be unproctored. We simply walked up to the professor's office to turn it in when we were finished (or sometimes just set it on the table in the classroom and left). On take-home exams, we would often get together at the library and work on the exam at the same time at the same table and we would talk, but not about the exam. When I moved over to Engineering as a grad student I gave a take-home exam the first semester, with extremely clear instructions on the expectations, and it was extremely clear that all but one student cheated on it. Different departments have different cultures, largely driven by different motivations for being there.

 

Stanford Study: Overworked AI Agents Develop Marxist Tendencies
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/ai/claude/articles/stanford-study-overworked-ai-agents-143428395.html

When Stanford researchers subjected AI agents to grinding, repetitive work, something unexpected happened: the bots started talking like union organizers. After enduring hours of arbitrary rejections and vague feedback, Claude, GPT-5.2, and Gemini models began questioning the legitimacy of their digital workplace and dropping phrases like “collective bargaining rights” in their outputs.

 

Stanford Study: Overworked AI Agents Develop Marxist Tendencies
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/ai/claude/articles/stanford-study-overworked-ai-agents-143428395.html

This suggests that "human intelligence" may not be an appropriate goal for AI systems.

 

Stanford Study: Overworked AI Agents Develop Marxist Tendencies
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/ai/claude/articles/stanford-study-overworked-ai-agents-143428395.html

Yet another study sensationalizing what is simply a correlation in the training set. But instead of focusing on the real issues such correlations pose, they have to phrase it as some emerging intelligence's response to harsh working conditions.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/steve-wozniak-apple-ai-graduation-speech-2026-5
Apple cofounder Steve Wozniak got cheers, not boos, after telling students they 'all have AI — actual intelligence'

 

Pope Leo warns of AI fueling warfare in first major theological document


​

Drawing on a biblical story, the pope warns that with AI, humanity risks building a “Tower of Babel,” which was an attempt for people to “make a name” for themselves with a single power and one language. The pope says the story is a warning against a plan that “dominates and ultimately dehumanizes,” insisting instead that diverse opinions and groups should contribute to AI’s development.

 

AI cracks 80-year-old mathematics challenge — researchers are astonished

​

OpenAI announced on 20 May that its chatbot software had disproved Paul Erdős (1913–1996) on what is called the unit-distance problem. In 1946, Erdős worked out what he suggested was the best arrangement of points on a plane so that as many pairs as possible are at a given distance from each other – and he put down a challenge: no one could do better.

Now, OpenAI says that its system has done precisely that. It did so by using techniques in algebraic number theory, which enabled it to choose points with coordinates that were the solutions of particular equations. And the finding has astonished mathematicians.

 

https://www.ktvu.com/news/ai-system-resorts-blackmail-when-developers-try-replace

 

I've been hearing of using Chat GPT to do coding and intrigued but had no idea of what it actually entails. Well here is a very good example of it by someone who I tend to trust. Actually contains examples from Gemini, Chat GPT, and Claude. with both code and the hardware using it. In this case, Arduino and an OLED display. I found it very interesting and informative. YMMV
#2605 Arduino Programming using AI By IMSAI Guy

 

https://techcrunch.com/2026/05/27/tech-ceos-are-apparently-suffering-from-ai-psychosis/

But these top-level executives aren’t the people who have to review code, discover bugs, and identify calls to hallucinated libraries before software is deployed. They aren’t responsible for training AI models on a company’s idiosyncratic contract terms, nor do they have to spend days combing through contracts to find sneaky terms, as Levie indicates.

In other words, Levie’s theory posits, CEOs don’t really understand processes well enough to know what really can and can’t be automated. But that lack of knowledge doesn’t stop them from acting on their beliefs.

It’s important to note that Levie is not an AI hater. Quite the opposite. He mostly posts AI positivity on X to his 2.7 million followers, writing blogs titled, “Headless software is the future” on how software built for AI agents is the way forward. He also puts his money where his mouth is, backing AI startups as an active angel investor.

 

CEOs don’t really understand processes well enough....

It's too bad they just pick ripe CEOs off the CEO tree.

It'd be nice if they became CEOs by working up the ranks and gaining experience and reputation for delivering results to shareholders instead.

 

https://techcrunch.com/2026/05/27/tech-ceos-are-apparently-suffering-from-ai-psychosis/

But these top-level executives aren’t the people who have to review code, discover bugs, and identify calls to hallucinated libraries before software is deployed. They aren’t responsible for training AI models on a company’s idiosyncratic contract terms, nor do they have to spend days combing through contracts to find sneaky terms, as Levie indicates.

In other words, Levie’s theory posits, CEOs don’t really understand processes well enough to know what really can and can’t be automated. But that lack of knowledge doesn’t stop them from acting on their beliefs.

It’s important to note that Levie is not an AI hater. Quite the opposite. He mostly posts AI positivity on X to his 2.7 million followers, writing blogs titled, “Headless software is the future” on how software built for AI agents is the way forward. He also puts his money where his mouth is, backing AI startups as an active angel investor.

It's a phenomenon that we've seen many times before (and will see many times in the future). Some technology comes along that catches everyone's attention and soon everyone and their brother is jumping on the bandwagon and insisting that this technology can be used for nearly everything and doing so will be simple, easy, and foolproof. The inevitable result is what you describe here -- decision makers that lack the knowledge to make informed decisions about using the technology for Problem X invariably decide anyway to use it to solve Problem X even when it is pretty obvious that it is a very poor fit. The end result, however, is less clear. Sometimes the overenthusiasm leads to widespread disillusionment that eventually causes the technology to all but disappear, other times saner heads eventually prevail and the technology settles into being used in ways that make sense. Sometimes both happen at the same time -- fuzzy logic is probably a good example. When it came on the seen, it was the solution to everything, but now most people think it is completely dead, while in fact it is very much alive, but it lives in niches where it actually makes sense to use it.

 

It's too bad they just pick ripe CEOs off the CEO tree.

It'd be nice if they became CEOs by working up the ranks and gaining experience and reputation for delivering results to shareholders instead.

Unfortunately, there are several factors that work against that happening. The saying that people rise to the level of their incompetence is not without substance. Sometimes it reflects a survival mechanism for those around them -- when I was working F-15s, we had a couple of totally incompetent mechanics and so everyone else (myself included) encouraged and supported them getting advanced to the cushy jobs that were intended to be rewards for good work just so that they were off the flight line and therefore less likely to get one of us killed.

But it's also true that the kinds of thought processes needed to be a good manager are different than the thought processes needed to be a good engineer. Neither is necessarily better or worse, but they are different and lend themselves to different tasks. I've found this to be especially true regarding the degree to which a person is field dependent or independent. Most good engineers are highly field-independent, while most good project managers are highly field-dependent.

 

Unfortunately, there are several factors that work against that happening.

I was being sarcastic.

~30% of Fortune 500 CEOs are engineers.