TechRadar News

Agentic commerce has become the latest obsession in ecommerce.

The technology is certainly compelling. Instead of consumers browsing websites, comparing products and making purchases themselves, AI agents increasingly do the work for them. They search, compare, recommend and transact on our behalf. According to the hype, agentic commerce has the potential to transform the way we shop online.

It is easy to see why merchants are excited. For an industry under constant pressure to drive growth, improve efficiency, capture shoppers' attention, and deliver better customer experiences, agentic commerce promises a great deal. Some believe it could become as significant as the shift to mobile commerce. Others see it as the next logical evolution of ecommerce itself.

Whether those predictions prove accurate remains to be seen. New technologies often arrive surrounded by hype. Not all of them live up to expectations.

But retailers are taking agentic commerce seriously. Many are moving rapidly to integrate it into their businesses. No one wants to be left behind when a new technology goldrush gathers momentum.

That urgency is understandable. But it should also give us pause for thought. Every new development in ecommerce has brought with it new opportunities for fraud. Online payments made shopping more convenient but opened the door to card-not-present fraud.

Mobile commerce transformed how consumers shop but introduced new security challenges. More recently, AI has begun reshaping how businesses work while simultaneously giving fraudsters powerful new tools to scale attacks. There is little reason to believe agentic will be any different

The pattern is familiar: innovation creates opportunity, fraudsters adapt, and businesses scramble to catch up. Agentic commerce has all the ingredients to follow a similar path.

Part of the reason adoption is moving so quickly is that ecommerce growth has become harder. Competition is intense and customer acquisition costs remain stubbornly high. No wonder many merchants are searching for new ways to improve efficiency.

Early adoption of AI agents appears to offer the golden ticket solution. They promise faster transactions, less friction and greater automation at a time when growth is harder to achieve. The challenge is ensuring that risk management keeps pace.

Are we trusting AI agents too much?

One of the more interesting aspects of the agentic commerce debate is the level of trust many businesses are already placing in AI systems. That may sound surprising until you consider the reality facing many merchants today.

Customer fraud continues to grow. Refund abuse, chargeback fraud, promotion abuse and policy exploitation have become major challenges for ecommerce businesses. Our own extensive polling of merchants shows many place greater trust in the promise of AI agents than in their own customers.

On the face of it, AI agents are attractive. They appear predictable. They follow instructions. They don't deliberately manipulate systems for personal gain. But it's crucial to understand replacing one source of risk with another is not the same as eliminating risk altogether.

AI agents may not behave like human fraudsters, but they introduce new vulnerabilities that businesses are only now beginning to understand. More on that shortly.

The accountability problem

One of the biggest unanswered questions surrounding agentic commerce centers on liability.

If an AI agent makes a poor purchasing decision, where does accountability sit? If a fraudulent transaction takes place, who is liable? If an agent is manipulated into making purchases it shouldn't make, who is responsible for the resulting losses? The consumer? The retailer? The technology provider? The operator of the agent itself?

The problem is existing frameworks were built around human decision-making. Agentic commerce introduces a new layer of autonomy that blurs traditional lines of responsibility. At the moment, many of these questions remain unresolved.

That doesn't mean businesses should avoid agentic commerce. But it does mean they should think carefully about governance, oversight and accountability before deploying it at scale. Trust cannot simply be assumed because a transaction is being conducted by an AI agent.

Merchants need visibility over who is operating that agent, how decisions are being made and what safeguards exist when things go wrong.

Fraudsters will move quickly

If history teaches us anything, it is that criminals are among the fastest adopters of new technology. While businesses focus on the opportunities created by innovation, fraudsters focus on the weaknesses. Agentic commerce is likely to create plenty of both.

We will see attempts to hijack legitimate agents and manipulate their behavior. Fraudsters could also create fake agents that impersonate trusted services or brands. Criminal networks may also deploy their own autonomous agents to identify vulnerabilities and exploit them at scale.

Promotions, loyalty schemes and refund processes will almost certainly also become targets for increasingly sophisticated forms of automated abuse.

What makes this new environment particularly challenging is the speed of evolution. Most forms of online fraud still require a degree of human input. Autonomous agents have the potential to operate around the clock, making decisions, testing vulnerabilities and exploiting weaknesses at machine speed, as well as adapting their tactics automatically when they fail.

The result may not be more fraud in absolute terms, but we will see more sophisticated and fast-moving threats. That will require merchants to rethink how they identify risk, monitor activity and respond.

Proceed, but with your eyes open

None of this should be interpreted as an argument against agentic commerce. The technology has genuine potential. It could make shopping easier, reduce friction and unlock new opportunities for both consumers and businesses. But innovation and risk have always evolved together.

The companies that succeed in the next phase of ecommerce will not necessarily be those that move first. They will be the organizations that understand the risks as well as the opportunities. That means understanding their own data.

Maintaining visibility over customer and transaction behavior and continuously monitoring for unusual activity means controls can be adapted as new threats emerge.

In a world where both shoppers and fraudsters may increasingly be represented by AI, capturing diverse data at scale and knowing how to interpret it to protect against online crime and serve good customers better will become more important than ever.

We've featured the best IT automation software.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

Assassin's Creed Black Flag Resynced is here, and it looks like this remake has been a massive success. Ubisoft says that it’s already sold more than two million copies, with players all around the world discovering (or rediscovering) its wonderful 1700s Caribbean setting and all the twists and turns of its engaging pirate story.

Our own Resynced review saw the game awarded four stars out of a possible five, praising its many modernized mechanics and just how faithfully it adapts the 2013 original. Although the main review was handled by our resident Assassin’s Creed expert, Managing Editor Rob Dwiar, I’ve spent the last few days pouring hours into the game and am having an excellent time so far.

I’m almost halfway through now, and there’s already so much to like about it, as you’ll see with some of the highlights below, but also one little thing that’s been bothering me.

The visual upgrades are a huge success

(Image credit: Ubisoft)

You don’t need to have put Resynced side by side with the original Assassin's Creed 4: Black Flag to appreciate just how much of an improvement the new visuals are. It’s no hyperbole to say that this is the best-looking emtry to date, edging out the already stunning Assassin's Creed Shadows thanks to its smaller but more detailed world.

The opening sequence has you parkouring your way through a lush tropical rainforest, showing off incredibly dense plants and little details like dangling vines that really help sell the setting. The gorgeous ray-traced lighting dances through the canopy superbly, light scattering down onto the little pools of water that are dotted throughout the jungle and reflecting off them realistically.

If you examine the layouts in detail, there have been loads of changes, but key elements from the original level layouts have been preserved smartly, like the fallen tree trunks that protagonist Edward Kenway darts across, so everything feels just right.

(Image credit: Ubisoft)

It’s the same story when you reach the city of Havana, which feels larger and more bustling than ever before. The streets are packed full of non-player characters (NPCs) wandering around, chatting to one another, moving crates, or standing around market stalls to give the impression of a lived-in world.

As for the open sea, I don’t think another game has nailed the waves quite this well. The water physics are phenomenal, with countless waves that stretch off into the horizon. The sea here looks far brighter than the original game ever did, but rather than taking away from the atmosphere, I appreciate how inviting it makes it all look. This is a world that’s just begging to be explored.

The visual overhaul extends to the game’s cutscenes. The wooden 2013 character models are no more, replaced with far higher fidelity versions that look much more convincing. Faces are no longer stiff and awkward-looking, either, thanks to enhanced motion capture, making it much easier to get stuck in and immerse yourself in the story.

Refined combat means swashbuckling feels better than ever

(Image credit: Ubisoft)

Going into Resynced, having seen a handful of trailers, I was quite worried that the combat would feel like that of Assassin's Creed Mirage: awkward, clunky, and a throwback to the systems of the older games in all the worst possible ways. Thankfully, when I actually got my hands on the game, it was immediately clear that my concerns were misplaced.

The combat system here is like the simplicity of the original game’s mechanics merged with all the style and flair of the fights in Shadows. Enemies have decently sized health bars or shields now, which you can whittle down with sword strikes before hitting a perfect parry to trigger a stylish finisher. This isn’t your only option either, as abilities like the rope dart or kick let you quickly stagger tricky enemies without breaking your flow.

There’s a fantastic rhythm to all of it, and I’ve found that charging in with my swords drawn has quickly become my favorite way to tackle encounters. It certainly helps that the most frustrating instant-fail parts of missions have been entirely reworked as well, giving you more freedom than ever to experiment with Edward’s arsenal.

There's finally no modern-day nonsense

(Image credit: Ubisoft)

Rob lamented the loss of some of the modern-day content, but I’m in the exact opposite camp. I think taking it out was the right decision, as the diversions into the modern setting are some of my least favorite parts of older Assassin’s Creed games.

I’ve always found the series’ whole meta narrative incredibly tedious — filling what would otherwise be grand adventures with a barrage of pointless conversations between characters that I’m convinced nobody ever cared about. Can anyone earnestly say that Desmond Miles is the best Assassin’s Creed character? No, and he just takes up precious time that we could be spending with someone actually entertaining and charismatic like Ezio Auditore da Firenze.

The modern-day stuff was especially bad in the original Assassin’s Creed 4: Black Flag, casting you as an unnamed game developer working for a company controlled by the evil Templar Order. Wandering around a plain office block reading files and chatting with a handful of annoying coworkers is indescribably dull — I enjoy games that let me escape from my daily life, not recreate it.

Yes, the segments do introduce a little bit of satire, riffing on some of the more ridiculous events of the alternate history plot, but otherwise you’re not really missing anything with their removal.

Like Shadows, there are still some elements of the overarching narrative here as well for those that really care: the intro makes it clear that the game takes place in a simulation, and there are plenty of documents that reference the modern Assassin vs Templar struggle (on top of new Animus Rift challenges that explore interesting ‘What if’ scenarios connected to Edward’s life).

Thankfully, that’s all optional, so it can be promptly ignored if, like me, you’d rather focus on the historical fantasy.

But I wish the UI was a little more distinct

(Image credit: Ubisoft)

It’s clear that Resynced draws quite heavily on Shadows both technologically and mechanically (in addition to a healthy splash of Skull & Bones for the parts where you’re at sea). This, of course, isn’t a problem in and of itself, as Shadows is clearly an excellent foundation to build upon, but I do wish that the design of the menus and UI was more distinct.

There have been some tweaks for sure, like the position of different elements and the icons of map markers and so on, though to me lots of it still looks a little bit too similar - the loading screens are the scale, and the inventory menus are practically identical, for example, as are prompts when you’re being seen while in stealth. Both games even use the same fonts throughout.

It’s definitely not a big deal, but it all leaves Resynced looking more like a Shadows DLC than a remake of an older game at its most surface level. A more imaginative UI that drew more from the original Assassin’s Creed 4 and less from the most recent instalments would really help give Resynced more of a distinct identity.

Assassin's Creed Black Flag Resynced is out now for PC, PlayStation 5, and Xbox Series X and Series S.

• Google has shared a teaser video showing a phone in the Pixel 11 series
• You can see it in a gold shade, with a colored light that must be the rumored 'Pixel Glow' feature
• The company has also confirmed that pre-orders open on August 12

We’re now less than a month away from the August 12 announcement of the Pixel 11 series, and Google is in full teaser mode. The tech giant has just posted a short clip showing off a phone in the Pixel 11 series in a gold shade.

You can mostly just see the gold-colored sides of the phone, but the camera block is also visible, and this houses a circular multicolored light. This then, must be the rumored ‘Pixel Glow’ feature, which will presumably be able to light up in different colors — or different patterns of colors — to alert you to different kinds of notifications.

Perhaps, for example, a WhatsApp message would appear in blue shifting to pink, while a calendar event might be a single block of yellow.

A Nothing idea

Glyph lighting on the Nothing Phone 2 (Image credit: Future | Alex Walker Todd)

How customizable this will be, and whether it’s capable of anything else, remains to be seen. But at least now we have a sense for how it looks, with this being a bit reminiscent of Nothing’s Glyph lighting systems, just rather smaller and more subtle.

That makes sense coming from Google, as its phone design is never as flashy as Nothing’s — a brand which almost makes gaming phones look visually tame.

But if you’ve missed the notification light that phones used to have, then this could appeal as a modern upgrade of that. And while it’s probably not going to be super innovative — given that it looks reminiscent of what Nothing handsets have and is an evolution of an old feature — it’s still not the sort of thing you see in most mainstream phones, so it’s nice to see Google try something a bit different here.

Beyond all this, the teaser page also mentions that Pixel 11 series pre-orders will open on August 12 — so presumably right after the announcement. And if you sign up for emails from that page you’ll receive an unspecified discount on the new phones, which is always appreciated, especially with everything getting more expensive lately.

Jump to...

Business laptops under $600
Business laptops under $1000
Business laptops over $1000

A business laptop is a critical decision that impacts productivity. Let’s just say, I’ve made the wrong choice before, and the results weren’t nice. But don’t worry, I learned from my mistake and made a much better choice. You can also learn from my experience, as since then, I’ve extensively researched and tested the best business laptops.

The best deals ultimately depend on your workflow. For instance, the choice for an office worker using everyday business apps like Google Workspace and Microsoft 365 differs much from a colleague editing 4K video and running CAD and 3D rendering programs. The key factors to consider are performance, storage, portability, security, and connectivity, based on your unique needs.

Whether seeking a mid-range or high-end option, you don’t need to stress to find it. With my long experience running through many business laptops, I’ve compiled the top picks from Dell, Asus, HP, and other known brands, starting from $548.

Best business laptop deals: Quick links

• Amazon: Save on HP, Microsoft, Apple machines and more
• Best Buy: Top deals on home & business laptops
• Walmart: Laptop & Chromebook discounts
• Newegg: Save on Lenovo, Acer, Asus and more

Best business laptop deals: Under $600

Powered by Qualcomm's Snapdragon X processor, this Copilot+ PC combines 16GB of memory, a 512GB SSD, a 14-inch 2K touchscreen, Wi-Fi 6E, and up to 32.25 hours of battery life for students and everyday productivity.View Deal

Powered by Qualcomm's Snapdragon X processor, this Copilot+ PC pairs 16GB of memory with a 512GB SSD, a 14-inch WUXGA display, USB4, Wi-Fi 6E, and up to 29 hours of battery life.View Deal

Powered by Intel's Core i7-1355U processor, this laptop combines a 15.6-inch 120Hz Full HD display, 512GB SSD, WiFi 6, and plenty of ports, making it a dependable choice for schoolwork and everyday computing. It only has 8GB of RAM though.View Deal

Best business laptop deals: Under $1000

Powered by an AMD Ryzen AI 7 processor, HP's laptop combines 16GB of DDR5 memory, a 1TB PCIe Gen4 SSD, a 16-inch touchscreen, Wi-Fi 6, and built-in Copilot+ AI features for everyday productivity and creative work.View Deal

Powered by an AMD Ryzen 7 processor, Lenovo's laptop combines a 15.3-inch touchscreen display, 16GB of DDR5 memory, a 512GB SSD, Wi-Fi 6, and up to 15 hours of battery life for everyday productivity and study, as we found in our review.View Deal

The Intel ThinkPad E16 Gen 3 pairs a Core Ultra 7 255H processor with 16GB of DDR5 memory, a 1TB PCIe Gen4 SSD, and a 16-inch WUXGA IPS display for demanding workloads.

Customize the setup (16GB of RAM and 1TB of storage) and use coupon code THINK2SAVEJULY to get the best price.View Deal

Built for demanding workloads, this 16-inch laptop scored 4 stars in our review. It combines desktop-class performance, a huge 99.9Wh battery, expandable storage up to 6TB, advanced cooling, and modern connectivity in a slim aluminum design for professionals on the move.

Use our exclusive coupon code TRGBM168 at checkout.View Deal

Best business laptop deals: Over $1000

Powered by an Intel Core i7 processor and Nvidia GeForce RTX 5060 graphics, this laptop, which held up well in our review, pairs a color-accurate 15.6-inch QHD 165Hz display with 16GB DDR5 memory and a 1TB SSD for demanding creative workloads.View Deal

A clean, professional 16-inch laptop with a touchscreen you'll actually use. As we found when we went hands-on with it, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H runs 16 cores up to 5.3GHz and includes an NPU for Copilot+ AI features. 32GB of DDR5-5600 in a dual-channel config gives you genuine multitasking headroom — not just enough to get by. View Deal

Available at Walmart, this 18-inch Asus powerhouse combines an AMD Ryzen 9 processor, Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 graphics, 32GB DDR5 memory, a 1TB SSD, and a stunning 240Hz Nebula display for demanding creative and professional workloads.View Deal

This 15-inch Lenovo laptop pairs an Intel Core i7-14700HX processor with Nvidia GeForce RTX 5060 graphics, 16GB RAM, a 1TB SSD, and a color-rich 165Hz OLED display.View Deal

The AMD-powered ThinkPad E16 Gen 3 combines a Ryzen 5 processor with 16GB of DDR5 memory, a 1TB PCIe Gen4 SSD, and a 16-inch WUXGA IPS display for dependable everyday productivity and multitasking.

Customize the setup (16GB of RAM and 1TB of storage) and use coupon code THINK2SAVEJULY to get the best price.View Deal

Available at Best Buy, HP's 16-inch laptop combines an AMD Ryzen 9 processor, Nvidia GeForce RTX 5060 graphics, 16GB of memory, a 1TB SSD, and a vibrant 2.5K 165Hz OLED display for demanding creative workloads.View Deal

Fortune 500 companies are expected to operate more than 150,000 agents by 2028, according to an analysis from Gartner.

If achieved, it would represent a 10,000-fold increase compared to 2025, when enterprises averaged just 15 agents. Indeed, this shift toward agentic systems is the most significant architectural evolution of our lifetime.

With adoption accelerating so rapidly, governance is rising to the top of the AI agenda. Businesses of all sizes are seeking safeguards and systems of control to ensure they can trust the agents they work alongside, yet current methods often fail.

The data speaks for itself: although almost every global enterprise is using AI agents, only 12% have introduced a centralized governance approach. For most, governance remains piecemeal, exacerbating the chaos it is intended to control.

This disconnect raises a critical question: as AI scales rapidly, how can organizations maintain governance to manage it responsibly? Nearly every leadership team is facing the same problem: they want to harness AI’s full potential but also maintain control.

AI enthusiasm leads to AI sprawl

While most businesses recognize the value of agentic AI, and are experimenting and deploying various agents across their organisation, the risk of AI sprawl is high. The growing mix of customer-built and pre-built agents creates disparate agentic tools with no centralized strategy.

As enthusiastic employees develop their own agents – an approach which is increasingly common as the technology becomes more accessible - AI usage becomes siloed and inconsistent across the business.

This type of AI sprawl drives diverging standards and duplicated efforts, with research showing 94% of businesses are experiencing increased complexity, technical debt and security risk.

The autonomous nature of agentic AI, where systems interact with data and other agents in real time, means a lack of governance in the early stages can see AI sprawl quickly spiral out of control.

Fragmented governance is ineffective

Forward thinking businesses are investing time and effort into new compliance processes and building better safeguards to ensure AI outputs can be trusted. One such method is the use of human-in-the-loop models for key decisions, an approach currently used by 52% of businesses.

However, as AI scales further and more rapidly, new challenges will emerge. There is a risk that human-in-the-loop methods lead to unintended inconsistency, where employees spanning different teams, regions or departments introduce uncoordinated rules for access, security and usage.

Instead of enforcing control, this has the opposite effect. Businesses are then left grappling with governance systems which reinforce the fragmentation they were trying to overcome.

Centralized rules, centralized standards, centralized knowledge

The only effective way to maintain control of scaling AI is to build governance into the AI itself. Governance must be designed as part of the foundations of an agentic system; it cannot be added as an afterthought.

To ensure meaningful control, enterprises require centralized visibility into which agents are running, how they are connected and where their dependencies lie. This represents a major opportunity, given that only 12% of businesses had introduced a centralized governance approach as of January 2026.

Historically, manual governance fails because enterprises cannot keep pace with the speed and scale at which AI agents interact. One of the core governance challenges is coordinating agents so they do not duplicate work or conflict with one another.

This requires orchestrating agents through a central neutral system layer that connects them to a real-time understanding of enterprise architecture and its operational parameters, ensuring outputs remain secure, compliant and coherent.

By ensuring there is a centralized governance layer built into the enterprise, all agents can follow the same rules, comply with the same standards and draw from shared knowledge. The governance system can then evolve and grow alongside the business itself.

Governance doesn’t need to be slow to be successful

The modern enterprise is already shaped by legacy systems, fragmented architectures and technical complexity, but it is not inevitable for AI to follow the same path.

The explosion of agentic tools offers enormous potential for business productivity, even if it does not automatically create coherent, high-quality architecture. The biggest challenge organizations face right now isn't the capability of the models themselves - it's connecting AI to where real work actually happens inside the enterprise.

It is now up to each organisation to pick and choose the agents best suited to their organisation and prioritize their integration in a unified way. This means moving away from old habits – often where governance is added incrementally every time a new agent or application is introduced – to remove the risk of fragmentation and AI sprawl.

The optimal approach is one which works with the unified and agnostic governance layer built into the foundations of the AI system to combat technical debt at scale. Only then will enterprises be able to harness AI’s full long-term potential in a sustainable manner.

Governance should not restrict the speed of AI adoption; it can scale alongside it. The successful enterprise of the future depends on its ability to approach AI with speed and efficiency without compromising trust.

We've reviewed and ranked the best laptops for business.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

• The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) has bricked thousands of routers
• Flashing alternative firmware like OpenWRT is an option that the ACCC has ignored
• Disposed SamKnows SK-WB8 routers can pose a security risk if they’re not first wiped with a factory reset

The Australian government’s competition regulator, the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC), has initiated the bricking of some 4,000 routers, rolled out across the country in 2020 in order to collect information on broadband speeds.

Issued as part of the Measuring Broadband Australia (MBA) program, the routers were whiteboxes from SamKnows, a subsidiary of Cisco, and given a finite lifespan. That date was reached in June 2026, with the SamKnows SK-WB8 routers remotely disabled on June 30.

As a consequence, Australians are likely to toss the bricked routers, resulting in a sharp increase in e-waste. In doing so, they risk breaches of digital security if the routers are not first wiped. Worse, the ACCC’s position is further confused by the fact that these routers can be flashed, making their destruction quite pointless.

Data discarded, but the routers still work

Since the June 30 cut-off, the routers are known to power up, and while bricked for internet access, can seemingly be reused with custom router firmware. The nature of the data collected by the routers for the MBA program was for measurement and customer registration, and this has apparently been deleted, according to emails sent to volunteers of the program.

While accurate figures are unknown, by December 2020 over 2,600 of the SamKnows SK-WB8 routers had been distributed by the ACCC, with 4,000 planned for release across the lifespan of the MBA program.

Attempts to contact the ACCC and Cisco to learn more about why volunteers of the MBA program are being encouraged to dispose of perfectly usable routers have been met with stock, non-committal responses.

The ACCC gave ArsTechnica a potted history of the device and the MBA program, as well as stating that “volunteers are encouraged to unplug their disabled whitebox and dispose of it in an environmentally responsible manner via free e-waste recycling services.”

Should you ditch your ACCC router?

If there is no reason to keep your ACCC-supplied router and have a replacement ready, it is important to factory reset the device before disposal. This ensures that any administrator passwords, ISP details, and custom network settings are deleted, keeping them from falling into the wrong hands.

Finding a safe disposal option will help to ensure the router is correctly dismantled. The ACCC has emailed recipients of the SamKnows SK-WB8 routers informing them of the correct disposal procedure, with a link to a live list of e-waste services.

However, if you have the time and inclination to flash OpenWRT, a guide explaining how to do this is available on the OpenWRT page for the SamKnows SK-WB8.

• ETH Zurich quantum chip sees superconducting qubit act as CPU and the vibrational modes of a fingernail-width acoustic resonator serve as quantum RAM
• The approach borrows from classical computer architecture as it completely flips the script on how modern quantum computing might store short-term data
• The team demonstrated a universal gate set and ran small instances of the quantum Fourier transform and period finding

A guitar string essentially stores a note based on how it vibrates, and if one plucks it differently, an entirely different note plays.

A team of researchers at ETH Zurich has leveraged the same principle to build a quantum chip that stores information by replacing the string with microscopic acoustic resonators.

This allows the chip to increase its working memory significantly, essentially increasing the storage capacity, a prohibitively expensive commodity in quantum computing, significantly.

A vibrations-based quantum storage play

ETH Zurich's research is led by quantum physicist Yiwen Chu, who used tiny mechanical vibrations to both store and process information. The vibrations, however, go far beyond the range of human hearing, happening inside a quantum chip where they essentially replace or complement the working memory of a quantum computer.

The study, published by the Hybrid Quantum Systems group, lists Professor Yiwen Chu, along with doctoral students Yu Yang and Igor Kladarić, as lead authors and focuses on replicating the division of labor seen in a classical computer.

A superconducting transmon qubit serves as the CPU, while the working memory (the quantum equivalent of RAM) is a high-overtone bulk acoustic wave resonator, or HBAR, whose many vibrational modes each serve as a memory slot.

The Qubit essentially swaps a quantum state from a vibrational mode (reads it, in classical computer terms), manipulates it (modifies it), and swaps it back (writes it). This makes for a unique configuration that most modern quantum computers do not follow, in which processing and storage are two distinct segments; most designs treat both memory and compute similarly.

The approach has advantages, however: acoustic waves have wavelengths roughly a hundred thousand times shorter than electromagnetic ones, allowing an entire quantum chip to be extremely small, as the research team states, even if the actual computer will be many orders of magnitude larger.

The chip has passed stress tests, including a proof of feasibility, which also included testing using two of the most commonly used methods to benchmark a quantum computer: the quantum Fourier transform and a period-finding algorithm.

The endgame here, as noted by the research team, is quantum random-access memory (QRAM), which would allow modern quantum computers to access a much larger store of quantum memory than current specifications allow. Whether this pans out depends on both the scalability of the approach and the computational power in play.

• Skullcandy launches Crusher 1080 ANC, new premium over-ears
• They mark the debut of three Bose-made features in a non-Bose product
• Just launched and available right now, for $280 / AU$399.99 (about £210)

It is as I foretold: after we saw Skullcandy teases about new headphones, the brand has unveiled exactly the pair of cans I predicted. Meet the Skullcandy Crusher 1080 ANC; they're the pair that skate legend (and brand ambassador) Tony Hawk is pointing at in the picture above — yes, it really is him.

These are, according to the brand, its "best-sounding product" (although interestingly, not the most expensive because Skullcandy's Aviator 900 cans are a little pricier) and in case you didn't know, a 1080 in skateboarding involves three complete skateboard and body rotations performed either frontside or backside.

As a new member of its Crusher line-up, part of the draw will be the adjustable bass (see the big dial on the ear cup), but there's a lot more to celebrate besides that.

You can buy the Crusher 1080 ANC right now; they cost $279.99 / AU$399.99 (about £210) so they're a little cheaper than the likes of the $449 / £449 / AU$699 Bose QuietComfort Ultra Headphones (Gen 2) which they borrow features from.

They come in black, gray, brown, and pink, as you can see modelled sans Tony Hawk below. I rate them in the following order: brown, pink, gray, black, though I'd love to see a camo or floral redesign as Skullcandy is wont to do.

Colors aren't why you'll buy the Crusher 1080 ANC, though. No, it'll be because they offer three new Sound by Bose features at a non-Bose price...

That which we call a Bose by any other name would smell as sweet

(Image credit: Skullcandy)

We've seen Skullcandy headphones with Bose features before, but the Crusher 1080 ANC are the first pair of cans not made by the brand which have three specific features. And these three features are a big selling point of the product.

The biggest will be Bose QuietControl ANC, which is a massive draw within Bose's own products (including the QuietComfort Ultra Earbuds 2nd Gen). The company's noise cancellation is best-in-class, and now that proprietary Bose technology is baked into Skullcandy's headphones too. To many, this could be a reason to buy the Crusher all on its own.

Bose's TrueSpatial audio with head-tracking (for surround sound profiles irrespective of source material) and WaveForm audio engine (for snappy digital signal processing) are also stepping foot off the Good Ship Bose for the first time with the 1080. These will be great little extras to refine and finesse what Skullcandy already offers.

And that's before we even mention the Sound by Bose tuning and SpeechClarity voice pickup, to improve the music you listen to and your call quality. The latter is new to Skullcandy, but we've seen the former on some earbuds like my beloved Method 360.

And what about the headphones themselves, beyond the Bose stuff? Skullcandy hasn't confirmed the drivers, but I'd guess they'll be 40mm and joined by woofer units.

The battery life is 60 hours with ANC off and 50 hours with it on, which is pretty impressive; there's a 5-band EQ and other features via the Skullcandy app (not Skull-IQ, which some of the firm's earbuds use). Pictures show a dial on the side of the headphones, amongst other physical controls; I'd wager this is a redesigned bass slider, and given how easy it is to miss this on my Crusher 540 Active, I appreciate the rethink.

Reading between the lines, and having tested the Method 540 earlier this year (a 540 is a one-and-a-half skateboard and body rotation performed either frontside or backside, which I cannot do), I get the impression that Skullcandy is undergoing a push to really level up.

The company doesn't seem to be abandoning the commitment to bass that's defined its products in the past (or its love of athletes as brand ambassadors), but seems to want to bring that into a better-rounded audio package with higher-fidelity music on offer. And if the Skullcandy Crusher 1080 ANC is the culmination of this process, I'm really intrigued to know how they sound.

(Image credit: Skullcandy)

• Pentagon seeks an affordable drone capable of replacing many MQ-9 Reaper missions
• Reaper drones hit hard in Iran, and losses force demand for lower-cost unmanned combat aircraft
• New aircraft must combine long range with substantial payload capacity

The United States Air Force is examining a lower-cost unmanned aircraft concept after losing “dozens” of MQ-9 Reaper drones during the recent conflict involving Iran.

Those losses have intensified concerns about relying upon expensive aircraft in environments where increasingly affordable air defenses can destroy them.

With roughly 135 Reapers in service and each drone costing about $30 million, officials increasingly question whether existing loss rates remain sustainable.

Pentagon seeks a lower-cost drone with long range and heavy payload

Rather than pursuing a more advanced version of the MQ-9, defense planners are exploring a drone intended for larger-scale deployment.

The Defense Innovation Unit is seeking proposals for a Massed Modular Aircraft, or MMA, capable of performing many missions currently assigned to the Reaper.

According to the solicitation, the Pentagon believes dependence upon “exquisite” aircraft costing more than $30 million is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain.

The concept favours quantity alongside capability, allowing forces to continue operating even after suffering substantial battlefield attrition.

Unlike many smaller drones commonly associated with swarm operations, the proposed aircraft would retain significant reach and carrying capacity.

The solicitation calls for a payload of at least 2,800 pounds, compared with roughly 3,800 pounds carried by the MQ-9.

Requirements also include an unrefueled combat radius of at least 2,300 nautical miles and a one-way transfer distance exceeding 8,000 nautical miles.

The drone must travel at speeds above 200 miles per hour while remaining capable of operating from 6,000-foot runways and improvised airstrips.

Defense planners also want enough onboard power and cooling capacity to support diverse internal and external mission equipment.

The specifications mention 25kW of available electrical power and 5kW of cooling capacity for future mission systems.

Ambitious timeline aims for operational capability by 2031

The proposal places considerable emphasis upon autonomy, allowing a single operator to supervise several aircraft simultaneously during complex missions.

While no specific dimensions were included, the performance requirements indicate an aircraft broadly comparable in size to the MQ-9.

Officials have also not disclosed a preferred procurement price, though expectations suggest a figure substantially below the Reaper's estimated $30 million cost.

The timeline remains aggressive, with full-scale prototype flight testing expected within 21 months following contract award.

Initial Operating Capability is planned for fiscal year 2031, with 20 mission-ready aircraft delivered to an operational unit.

Recent combat experiences appear to have influenced the concept's development, particularly situations where defenders exhausted interceptors before attackers exhausted drones.

The solicitation argues that maintaining continuous MMA operations could pressure opponents into consuming costly defensive missiles at unsustainable rates.

“Keeping a constant airborne MMA presence to launch weapons, gather intelligence, perform electronic warfare missions, or relay communications will force an adversary to stay on the defensive,” the Defense Innovation Unit stated.

Via Defense News

Looking for a different day?

A new Quordle puzzle appears at midnight each day for your time zone – which means that some people are always playing 'today's game' while others are playing 'yesterday's'. If you're looking for Wednesday's puzzle instead then click here: Quordle hints and answers for Wednesday, July 15 (game #1633).

Quordle was one of the original Wordle alternatives and is still going strong now more than 1,500 games later. It offers a genuine challenge, though, so read on if you need some Quordle hints today — or scroll down further for the answers.

Enjoy playing word games? You can also check out my NYT Connections today and NYT Strands today pages for hints and answers for those puzzles, while Marc's Wordle today column covers the original viral word game.

SPOILER WARNING: Information about Quordle today is below, so don't read on if you don't want to know the answers.

Quordle today (game #1634) — hint #1 — VowelsHow many different vowels are in Quordle today?

• The number of different vowels in Quordle today is 4*.

* Note that by vowel we mean the five standard vowels (A, E, I, O, U), not Y (which is sometimes counted as a vowel too).

Quordle today (game #1634) — hint #2 — repeated lettersDo any of today's Quordle answers contain repeated letters?

• The number of Quordle answers containing a repeated letter today is 2.

Quordle today (game #1634) — hint #3 — uncommon lettersDo the letters Q, Z, X or J appear in Quordle today?

• No. None of Q, Z, X or J appear among today's Quordle answers.

Quordle today (game #1634) — hint #4 — starting letters (1)Do any of today's Quordle puzzles start with the same letter?

• The number of today's Quordle answers starting with the same letter is 0.

If you just want to know the answers at this stage, simply scroll down. If you're not ready yet then here's one more clue to make things a lot easier:

Quordle today (game #1634) — hint #5 — starting letters (2)What letters do today's Quordle answers start with?

• I

• P

• Y

• A

Right, the answers are below, so DO NOT SCROLL ANY FURTHER IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE THEM.

Quordle today (game #1634) — the answers

(Image credit: Merriam-Webster)

The answers to today's Quordle, game #1634, are…

• IGLOO
• PLAIT
• YEAST
• AROMA

This was a tricky game — mainly due to two words ending in vowels.

I thought I had exhausted all words ending in the letter O, before I finally got to one ending in two of them.

Daily Sequence today (game #1634) — the answers

(Image credit: Merriam-Webster)

The answers to today's Quordle Daily Sequence, game #1634, are…

• NEEDY
• GOOFY
• ABIDE
• VISIT

Quordle answers: The past 20

• Quordle #1633, Wednesday, 15 July: PROXY, BRICK, BROTH, SURGE
• Quordle #1632, Tuesday, 14 July: EBONY, AVOID, RODEO, CUTIE
• Quordle #1631, Monday, 13 July: VOICE, BISON, BURNT, BUILT
• Quordle #1630, Sunday, 12 July: STAIN, BINGO, LARVA, DICEY
• Quordle #1629, Saturday, 11 July: WORTH, PRONG, DINGO, DRUID
• Quordle #1628, Friday, 10 July: GREET, STEAK, DUSKY, HAUTE
• Quordle #1627, Thursday, 9 July: CRUMP, PHONE, SHINY, STONY
• Quordle #1626, Wednesday, 8 July: GHOST, TREND, EXALT, ALONG
• Quordle #1625, Tuesday, 7 July: ARRAY, SUITE, KIOSK, BOULE
• Quordle #1624, Monday, 6 July: TRAWL, SPICE, PIANO, SHARK
• Quordle #1623, Sunday, 5 July: PINEY, SWOON, TITLE, PINTO
• Quordle #1622, Saturday, 4 July: ARGUE, MOTEL, OPERA, TRUCE
• Quordle #1621, Friday, 3 July: AVERT, MOTOR, MANIC, WORDY
• Quordle #1620, Thursday, 2 July: BULKY, PARSE, BELOW, MOVIE
• Quordle #1619, Wednesday, 1 July: EASEL, OTTER, LYRIC, SHACK
• Quordle #1618, Tuesday, 30 June: HALVE, DRYER, THERE, MINTY
• Quordle #1617, Monday, 29 June: SLURP, CRACK, CRANK, PHONY
• Quordle #1616, Sunday, 28 June: RUPEE, TOPAZ, FULLY, BEING
• Quordle #1615, Saturday, 27 June: PRINT, MARRY, SADLY, BICEP
• Quordle #1614, Friday, 26 June: JUICE, ARRAY, BONEY, SKIFF

Looking for a different day?

A new NYT Connections puzzle appears at midnight each day for your time zone – which means that some people are always playing 'today's game' while others are playing 'yesterday's'. If you're looking for Wednesday's puzzle instead then click here: NYT Connections hints and answers for Wednesday, July 15 (game #1130).

Good morning! Let's play Connections, the NYT's clever word game that challenges you to group answers in various categories. It can be tough, so read on if you need Connections hints.

What should you do once you've finished? Why, play some more word games of course. I've also got daily Strands hints and answers and Quordle hints and answers articles if you need help for those too, while Marc's Wordle today page covers the original viral word game.

SPOILER WARNING: Information about NYT Connections today is below, so don't read on if you don't want to know the answers.

NYT Connections today (game #1131) - today's words

(Image credit: New York Times)

Today's NYT Connections words are…

• NEEDLE
• INK
• JET
• DOT MATRIX
• TONER
• POINT BREAK
• LASER
• CHARCOAL
• PEEL
• PITCH
• PERIOD PIECE
• BULLSEYE
• SPOT REMOVER
• EYE CREAM
• CLOCKWORK
• CLAY MASK

NYT Connections today (game #1131) - hint #1 - group hints

What are some clues for today's NYT Connections groups?

• YELLOW: Cosmetics
• PURPLE: Small beginnings
• BLUE: Seeking perfection
• GREEN: The darkness

Need more clues?

We're firmly in spoiler territory now, but read on if you want to know what the four theme answers are for today's NYT Connections puzzles…

NYT Connections today (game #1131) - hint #2 - group answers

What are the answers for today's NYT Connections groups?

• YELLOW: SKINCARE PRODUCTS
• PURPLE: STARTING WITH TINY MARKS
• BLUE: ASSOCIATED WITH PRECISION
• GREEN: SHADES OF BLACK

Right, the answers are below, so DO NOT SCROLL ANY FURTHER IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE THEM.

NYT Connections today (game #1131) - the answers

(Image credit: New York Times)

The answers to today's Connections, game #1131, are…

• YELLOW: SKINCARE PRODUCTS: CLAY MASK, EYE CREAM, PEEL, TONER
• PURPLE: STARTING WITH TINY MARKS: DOT MATRIX, PERIOD PIECE, POINT BREAK, SPOT REMOVER
• BLUE: ASSOCIATED WITH PRECISION: BULLSEYE, CLOCKWORK, LASER, NEEDLE
• GREEN: SHADES OF BLACK: CHARCOAL, INK, JET, PITCH

• My rating: Hard
• My score: 1 mistake

Looking at today’s game after I completed it, I don’t understand why I failed to see SHADES OF BLACK as it is the only group that I could have actually got right.

The other three groups were the result of muddled game play and lucky guesses — particularly STARTING WITH TINY MARKS, which I didn’t get because I spotted dot, period, point and spot, but because all the tiles were made up of two words.

Before that, though, I made the mistake of putting together what I thought were four different types of printer. Hopefully I wasn't the only player to fall into that trap, but in truth it doesn't take much to catch me.

Yesterday's NYT Connections answers (Wednesday, July 15, 2026, game #1130)

• YELLOW: TERMS FOR THE LEGAL SYSTEM: BAR, BENCH, COURT, TRIBUNAL
• GREEN: THINGS WITH LACES: BASEBALL GLOVE, CORSET, FOOTBALL, SHOE
• BLUE: KINDS OF SPORTS: EXTREME, MOTOR, RACKET, WATER
• PURPLE: WORDS BEFORE "ROOM" TO INDICATE EXTRA SPACE: BREATHING, ELBOW, HEAD, WIGGLE

What is NYT Connections?

NYT Connections is one of several increasingly popular word games made by the New York Times. It challenges you to find groups of four items that share something in common, and each group has a different difficulty level: green is easy, yellow a little harder, blue often quite tough and purple usually very difficult.

On the plus side, you don't technically need to solve the final one, as you'll be able to answer that one by a process of elimination. What's more, you can make up to four mistakes, which gives you a little bit of breathing room.

It's a little more involved than something like Wordle, however, and there are plenty of opportunities for the game to trip you up with tricks. For instance, watch out for homophones and other word games that could disguise the answers.

It's playable for free via the NYT Games site on desktop or mobile.

Looking for a different day?

A new NYT Strands puzzle appears at midnight each day for your time zone – which means that some people are always playing 'today's game' while others are playing 'yesterday's'. If you're looking for Wednesday's puzzle instead then click here: NYT Strands hints and answers for Wednesday, July 15 (game #864).

Strands is the NYT's latest word game after the likes of Wordle, Spelling Bee and Connections – and it's great fun. It can be difficult, though, so read on for my Strands hints.

Want more word-based fun? Then check out my NYT Connections today and Quordle today pages for hints and answers for those games, and Marc's Wordle today page for the original viral word game.

SPOILER WARNING: Information about NYT Strands today is below, so don't read on if you don't want to know the answers.

NYT Strands today (game #865) - hint #1 - today's themeWhat is the theme of today's NYT Strands?

• Today's NYT Strands theme is… Rerouting…

NYT Strands today (game #865) - hint #2 - clue words

Play any of these words to unlock the in-game hints system.

• NOISE
• CHANCE
• VERSE
• TRUANT
• GIVE
• SKATE

NYT Strands today (game #865) - hint #3 - spangram lettersHow many letters are in today's spangram?

• Spangram has 12 letters

NYT Strands today (game #865) - hint #4 - spangram positionWhat are two sides of the board that today's spangram touches?

• First side: left, 4th row

• Last side: left, 8th row

Right, the answers are below, so DO NOT SCROLL ANY FURTHER IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE THEM.

NYT Strands today (game #865) - the answers

(Image credit: New York Times)

The answers to today's Strands, game #865, are…

• TACK
• ZIGZAG
• TURN
• VEER
• DEVIATE
• PIVOT
• SWERVE
• SPANGRAM: CHANGECOURSE

• My rating: Hard
• My score: 1 hint

Rerouting… is a word I used to see a lot when I used a sat nav in my car, so this is exactly the theme I was expecting — but I still struggled over it.

It’s not until you play Strands that you realize how many different ways there are to say the same thing, in this case a change of direction.

I took a hint to get going, but TACK didn’t help much. Then, I connected the two Zs for ZIGZAG and finally got motoring.

Yesterday's NYT Strands answers (Wednesday, July 15, game #864)

• QUIXOTIC
• IDEALISTIC
• ROMANTIC
• IMPRACTICAL
• SPANGRAM: PIEINTHESKY

What is NYT Strands?

Strands is the NYT's not-so-new-any-more word game, following Wordle and Connections. It's now a fully fledged member of the NYT's games stable that has been running for a year and which can be played on the NYT Games site on desktop or mobile.

I've got a full guide to how to play NYT Strands, complete with tips for solving it, so check that out if you're struggling to beat it each day.

The AI buildout is well and truly underway with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman leading the charge, having made various deals with companies including Oracle and Nvidia to guarantee the infrastructure needed to train future AI models is installed. But as this ensues, the spotlight has been thrown on how much energy these models will need.

Eating machines

Altman was speaking during an AI summit in India earlier this year when making the remarks to The Indian Express.

Quote of the day

This article is part of TechRadar Pro's QOTD project to provide an insight into the minds of the brightest and most recognized figures in the technology industry today and in years gone by. Read the full series here.

The OpenAI chief was being questioned about the substantial amount of energy that AI has already been consuming – and will be projected to continue consuming – for both training and inference. Bringing these models online, after all, and keeping them running require a huge amount of resources, not only in terms of the energy to power the data centers, but the water for cooling, and the components and resources in building the hardware.

Altman's defence hinged on the idea that people, too, require plenty of energy in order to reach utility — while AI can be trained much quicker. This view, in essence, frames machine intelligence as a like-for-like competitor with human intelligence.

Energy efficiency

Altman argued that humans are deeply inefficient, and that you should compare the total energy spent to create a human expert versus a machine expert. There's also an argument that energy efficiency of AI could improve over time.

But detractors were scathing in their criticism of this entire point of view – saying this framing doesn't take into account the fact that the human brain operates on roughly 20 watts of power. This isn't to mention the ethically gray and dehumanizing nature of the remarks.

• Environmental groups seek broader review before massive satellite constellations receive approval
• More than one million proposed satellites face increased regulatory scrutiny
• FCC is reconsidering satellite environmental review rules

Environmental groups have petitioned federal regulators to pause approval of orbital data center satellite constellations pending a full environmental review process.

Earthjustice recently filed a petition on behalf of DarkSky International, Environment America, and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, known as PEER.

Combined proposals from SpaceX, Starcloud, Blue Origin, and Cowboy Space could place well over a million satellites into low Earth orbit.

Why regulators are being asked to slow down

The petition asks the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement before approving any pending applications currently under review.

Such a review, required under the National Environmental Policy Act, would examine risks, alternatives, costs, and cumulative impacts together across every proposal.

Environmental groups argue the agency's current approach treats satellite licenses as automatically excluded from any detailed environmental scrutiny under existing federal rules.

They say that framework no longer fits proposals measured in hundreds of thousands, or potentially millions, of individual spacecraft rather than dozens.

The filing lists specific concerns, including rocket emissions, reentry pollutants, ozone depletion, orbital debris, and disruption to astronomy research conducted worldwide.

The petition specifically challenges the FCC's default assumption that these projects individually and cumulatively carry no environmental impact whatsoever on nearby ecosystems.

It further warns that light pollution and wildlife disruption cannot be properly assessed through isolated regulatory reviews conducted individually rather than collectively.

The petition states that these proposals compound risk "synergistically and cumulatively" in ways single-project reviews cannot capture on their own.

Industry ambitions collide with regulatory uncertainty

Backers of orbital computing describe their projects in sweeping, civilization-changing language while offering few environmental details in return for regulatory approval.

Companies including SpaceX, Blue Origin, Starcloud, and Cowboy Space have not publicly detailed environmental mitigation plans for their satellites currently under regulatory review.

MOL and Hitachi have separately explored floating data center concepts, showing wider commercial interest beyond traditional orbital satellite proposals currently facing regulatory review.

The FCC is separately reconsidering its environmental review rules, acknowledging rapid growth across the broader commercial space industry over the past decade.

If the commission agrees, orbital data center operators could face considerable regulatory delay before launching any additional hardware skyward into low Earth orbit.

Some industry analysts have already questioned whether orbital data center economics make sense given high launch and maintenance costs involved in space deployment.

Analysts note that environmental reviews of this scope could take years, delaying deployment timelines.

This could delay deployment schedules and extend regulatory timelines if a comprehensive environmental review becomes mandatory.

Whether the FCC ultimately requires a full review remains uncertain, given ongoing industry pressure and competing national security interests tied to space dominance.

Until regulators decide, the fate of orbital computing may depend as much on environmental politics as on rocket technology or launch capacity itself.

Via The Register

OpenAI is building an AI-powered smart speaker nobody wants. That is, if you believe the Bloomberg report from Mark Gurman and you've read his description of said rumored device.

According to the report:

"OpenAI believes the product’s defining feature will be its personality and ability to connect on a humanlike level with users. The speaker incorporates mechanical elements that can move on their own, creating a sense that it is alive and not just an object responding to commands. The machine also will draw on personal information such as emails to better understand its owner."

The news sources, it appears, come from an insider who decided to spill all the juicy details mere hours after Apple dropped a blockbuster trade-secrets lawsuit on OpenAI's head. OpenAI claims it's done nothing of the sort, and recent reports say that Apple's claim that the AI giant has not even responded to Apple's earliest concerns was based on it potentially incorrectly identifying the former Apple employees who left to join OpenAI (allegedly with Apple trade secrets in tow).

Apple's concerns here are twofold: First, these former employees had access to many of Apple's secretive product development details and may even have asked recruits to share fresh details when they approached them to interview for jobs at OpenAI. The other concern is that Apple is already far behind in the AI race, and if Apple's plans for Siri, AI, and a potential robotic desktop home assistant were also leaked, it could harm its ability to catch up in multiple market sectors.

This latest news, which may or may not be accurate, should put Apple's fears to rest.

OpenAI is apparently not building something that could ably compete with any of Apple's key hardware or future hardware initiatives.

First of all, there's the smart-speaker-ness of the whole rumored OpenAI concept. There are already too many smart speakers on the market, many of them with their own smart assistants. Amazon, for instance, is smack in the middle of trying to convince millions of customers that not only do they need Echo devices throughout the home, but they need the AI-powered Alexa+ to guide them through their smart home experiences and, to some extent, their lives.

Apple has its own HomePod, Siri-infused speakers, which may get considerably more powerful with the Gemini foundation model-backed version arriving this Fall.

Put another way, smart speakers are a known quantity in the home consumer electronics space, and I think what most tech companies are realizing is that people like and use them, but mostly in limited ways: they want music, occasional answers to simple questions, and voice control of their smart home devices. That's it.

Why does my speaker think it's alive?

(Image credit: Future)

OpenAI appears to be prepared to offer something different: a personality-filled speaker that can watch you, move to engage, seem alive, and generally make you feel uncomfortable.

Obviously, that would not be the objective, but it could be the result. Who needs a speaker that quietly watches you as you walk from your kitchen to the den, waiting and hoping for you to say, "hey ChatGPT, what's up with the Strait of Hormuz today?"

In my home, we have a Psync smart security webcam with one oddball feature: it has a motorized body that can turn almost 360 degrees on its base and lift its thin, rectangular face and camera to keep track of people and alert me to intruders. However, most of the time, it's just watching us move around the house, and I can tell you that my family hates it. Sometimes I come home and find its face forced down so it can't pop up and track anything.

Now, imagine a larger and far smarter OpenAI AI smart speaker in your home, watching, waiting, chiming in when you don't want it to, and generally making people feel uncomfortable.

This will not be the breakout hardware hit OpenAI is hoping for.

Look, I was under the impression that OpenAI (really Jony Ive and Sam Altman) were working on an AI wearable. I didn't love that idea either, but it was a lot less creepy than this.

So, Apple, chill out. OpenAI's plans are no threat to you, even if they do allegedly have a bunch of insidery Apple information.

• AI hallucination can be weaponized, new report warns
• HalluSquatting is short for “adversarial hallucination squatting”
• GitHub Copilot, Gemini CLI, and OpenClaw are all affected

Your favorite AI service could be subverted to deploy code that turns your phone or PC into a botnet, according to researchers at Intuit, Technion, and Tel Aviv University.

The technique has been given the name HalluSquatting, a portmanteau of adversarial hallucination squatting, and is similar to typosquatting in that it relies on a mistake in order to distribute malicious code. While typosquatting might occur with the incorrect input of a website URL, HalluSquatting pivots on an LLM being unable to identify a resource or repository with 100% accuracy.

Relying on an LLM’s tendency to hallucinate repository resource identifiers, this weakness could be scaled up to conduct massive ransomware campaigns, botnets, and more.

Push-me-pull-you

Previous LLM-based malware operations have relied on pull-based attacks. In this scenario, a prompt designed to jailbreak or otherwise subvert the AI is (for example) placed on a website and the LLM encouraged to gather the information, thereby reducing its internal security.

What the researchers have shared in their paper, is that pull techniques are being combined with push attacks, which are traditionally executed as code injection.

The paper’s introduction summary states: “By preemptively registering hallucinated resources—a technique we call adversarial hallucination squatting (HalluSquatting)—we demonstrate remote tool execution and remote code execution at scale across a range of popular agentic LLM applications, which could be exploited to the establishment of a botnet.”

Once an attacker has identified the resource likely to be misnamed by an LLM, and squatted on it (to embed adversarial prompts), the work is done. All that remains is for a user to trigger the resource, the AI chatbot or agent to initiate the response, and the squatted resource will be accessed.

Promptware attack

Following this, the adversarial content held within the squatted resource is activated, triggering the tool invocation stage. This is the promptware attack, where attacker-controlled instructions are executed, with results potentially including turning the device you’re using into a botnet zombie.

LLMs such as the Cursor, Cursor CLI, Windsurf, GitHub Copilot, Cline coding assistants have been used in the testing of this avenue of attack along with Gemini CLI, and the OpenClaw, ZeroClaw, and NanoClaw AI assistants. The researchers successfully achieved remote tool execution (essentially remotely accessing and controlling the LLMs) and remote code execution (RCE, where malicious code is executed remotely).

Some mitigation is available, including LLM developers blocking fetch operations in favor of a search tool, and resource owners enforcing strict naming, perhaps in favor of globally unique resource names. However, these are will require collaboration by disparate parties, and may take a while to implement.

The risk of LLM-based malware is increasing, and some has already been spotted in the wild. Of these, the JADEPUFFER attack is perhaps the most notable, as it isn’t simply AI-based malware – it is a full ransomware attack run entirely by an LLM.

• The three man team is known as “Slopfix”
• It claims to be able to reduce AI generated codebases by up to 65% in size
• They aim to "refactor vibecoded codebases back to maintainability"

Vibecoding has a lot to answer for, not least some excessively large codebases. A new team of software engineers are collaborating to reduce the size of these cumbersome projects… with a $10,000 per week bill.

Slopfix is the name of the team (comprising a trio: Maciej, Kuba, and Krzysztof), but its aim is efficiency and functionality, rather than code golf, where code is reduced to the shortest possible length.

However, while this might seem like a noble task and a service worth paying for, Slopfix isn’t taking a stand against the use of AI. In fact, it is employing AI tools to detect the AI flab in your codebases.

Use an AI to catch an AI

Challenges around vibecoded projects have increased in recent months, as the limitations of the technology become apparent.

While using an AI to program based on your prompts and requirements is straightforward, agents habitually begin to lose context and logic once the project reaches a certain size or age. Once that happens, you’re looking at duplication, features breaking, and of course, the dreaded hallucination.

Slopfix is targeting companies that have adopted vibecoding, built huge codebases, and found that they’re running into issues. To find the problematic AI code, however, Slopfix is employing AI.

They state that a full “screen by screen, endpoint by endpoint” evaluation of the vibecoded app is made, which aims to find the duplicated functions, broken logic, and other issues. There’s also the promise of a two-week warranty for anything they break.

All of this is aided by Claude Code “on a very short leash” which Slopfix uses find problems. They clearly state that “the agent doesn’t get a vote.” Instead, they’re relying on their experience as developers to improve your code.

$10,000 seem a bit steep?

While the price might seem high, $10,000 for one successful week’s work for three seasoned developers shouldn’t really be a budget breaker.

The fee covers successful work only, and as the Slopfix website states, payment is in proportion to how much of the reduction target the team hits, with $10,000 being the price for hitting the target – it’s not the default fee.

However, there is a lot of preparation involved, and the analysis of your codebase is conducted free of charge. If they can't fix your project's issues, they'll let you know and refuse the contract.

As software consultancies go, Slopfix is an unusual case. But as the problems with vibecoded projects begin to become apparent, competing consultancies may begin offering similar services.

• Vyriy 15 FPV with The Fourth Law's TFL-1 AI guidance reportedly struck Russian logistics 68 miles (110 KM) away
• Ever-innovating Ukrainian drone industry continues to achieve economies of scale even as it becomes a growing threat to Russian advances
• With a payload capacity of 8kg and the ability to be equipped with a thermal imaging module as well as electronic warfare deterrence, it offers an interesting alternative to comparable fixed-wing drones that cost thousands of dollars

Basic FPV drones are hardly a new thing in a market flooded with hundreds, if not thousands of options that can cost as little as $100 to 200, but the Russia-Ukraine conflict might have upped the ante on affordability for a different kind of UAV that leverages the same tech: attack drones.

The Vyriy 15 is a self-styled "kamikaze drone" by the company that offers a stated strike range of 40-70km with up to a 8kg payload in tow which can be retrofitted with a thermal imaging module as well as an extended band VTX module to make jamming it harder.

With a control range of up to 30KM and a flight duration of 20 minutes (with a payload) and a cruising speed of 60-100 km/h, its not the most technologically advanced drone out there, but at its purported price tag of $500, it doesn't need to be.

An FPV strike record backed by AI

On the 10th of July, Yaroslav Azhnyuk, the CEO of Ukrainian autonomy developer The Fourth Law, announced on X what he called "a new FPV strike record": a Vyriy 15 quadcopter, flown by Ukraine's 5th Border Guard Detachment and fitted with his company's AI terminal-guidance module, had flown 110 km (68 miles) to strike a Russian logistics target.

This is both a significant achievement for Ukraine's domestic drone industry and a key indicator of how fast the Russia-Ukraine war has turned into one of attrition, with supply lines becoming increasingly targeted to prevent significant advances in either direction.

It also showcases how AI on the battlefield is shaping the conflict: the Vyriy 15 is, by default, a manually controlled drone that would otherwise need an operator or a relay to be closer to the theater of war.

The competition is American-made Hornets, fixed-wing drones that can cost upwards of $5,000, a 10-fold increase in cost for an already cash-strapped Ukrainian military that is increasingly looking towards localized solutions.

The optional AI module used to set the record is The Fourth Law's TFL-1, a machine-vision terminal-guidance module that operates on a fire-and-forget principle: once the operator visually designates a target, an onboard computer takes over the final approach, essentially countering Russian jammers that would otherwise disrupt a video link.

If Ukraine manages to mainstream such warfare in the future while cutting costs down to a tenth of what they do right now, reliably striking as deep as 100km into enemy territory while proving difficult to jam or costly to intercept, drones like the Vyriy 15 could signal an evolution in the modern battlefield even as aggression with low-cost drone swarms is already being rewarded in other conflicts such as the US-Iran war.

Geopolitical tensions are mounting, and nation states are employing new types of strategies to gain intelligence. A recent Five Eyes warning, for example, accused Chinese military intelligence officers of using professional networking sites and online job platforms to target individuals of interest.

In this specific case, the agents pose as recruiters advertising seemingly legitimate work to build relationships and, ultimately, get their hands on non-public information. Popular sites like LinkedIn, Indeed and Upwork have all seen this new type of attack take place.

At the same time, a parallel threat sees operatives applying for jobs within trusted organizations with access to intelligence, creating insider threats that experts warn AI might be mostly responsible for.

Generative AI, for example, can create documents, write applications and even supply live answers during real-time remote interviews, meaning that a small group of fake applicants can extend their reach much more quickly.

Rather than attacking existing workers, nation states are creating their own job candidates

Once inside an organization and with access to company tools like PCs, emails and other internal systems, nation state spies can then move laterally to acquire the information they sought.

Security experts at Exabeam warn that, because this technique is still evolving, it might not always be so easy to spot. Additionally, motives can differ, with Chinese intelligence operations typically seeking military, political or economic information. North Korean agents, on the other hand, tend to be tied to stealing money, which could also come with the side effect of data and intelligence theft.

Exabeam even observed this type of attack first-hand, when a North Korean-affiliated applicant used a false identity to apply for a job at the company. After passing technical tests, a video interview and other standard checks, the suspect’s laptop was quickly flagged for unusual activity.

In the following Q&A with AI Strategy and Security Research VP Steve Povolny, I discuss these new types of attacks, who’s responsible for stamping them out and what we can do to prevent similar incidents from happening more commonly.

• The Five Eyes alliance recently warned that foreign intelligence groups are using job platforms to recruit insiders. How significant is this threat, and what is driving its growth?

This is among the most serious access-driven threats facing cleared workers, and it keeps growing because the economics now favor the attacker.

Foreign intelligence services no longer need handlers and dead drops when they can post a job ad on LinkedIn or Upwork and let candidates self-select based on the access listed in their own resumes. Generative AI lets them run thousands of these conversations at once, drafting outreach and scoring which applicants sit closest to sensitive information without a trained officer.

The Five Eyes alert describes a scaled, automated funnel, and that scale is what makes it dangerous.

• A parallel risk runs alongside that warning: adversaries who secure employment directly rather than recruiting an existing employee. Which scenario presents the greater defensive challenge, and why?

The infiltration model gives defenders less to work with, which makes it the harder problem. When an adversary recruits someone already on staff, most of the suspicious behavior happens outside the company on platforms the employer never sees, yet the insider remains a known person with a verified identity and a real history.

When the adversary becomes the employee, the company has onboarded a fabricated person and handed them a laptop and standing network access on day one. No behavioral baseline exists, since everything that account does counts as a first. The deception also clears the controls most organizations trust, so the failure lands before any security tool gets a vote.

• Exabeam identified a North Korea-affiliated individual who gained employment at the company. How did the operative clear Exabeam's hiring process, and what first signaled that something was wrong?

He cleared it by performing well on the parts we test and forging the parts we verify. Applying under the alias Trevor Rothluebber, he aced the technical interview and take-home assessment, passed the video interview and cleared our standard pre-employment process including the background check and I-9 validation.

Our hiring team flagged a suspicion that he leaned on generative AI for live help during the video call, the first soft signal. The hard signal arrived the moment he logged into his corporate account. Our threat intelligence feed matched his username to activity previously associated with North Korean operatives and rated it high risk, and that single match reframed how the team read everything that followed.

Simultaneously, Exabeam’s platform detected a number of anomalies inconsistent with a brand new employee’s first day, and escalating in severity within hours. Incident response quietly isolated and reimaged his laptop before any real damage could be done.

• The candidate completed applications, interviews and assigned work without raising alarm. In retrospect, what indicators were present, and why did standard screening miss them?

The indicators existed, but they lived in places our screening was never built to read. The driver's license he submitted was either AI-generated or very badly manually modified, and the tell was physical. The image had unique aberrations, such as the ears in the photo which had an unnatural and pixelated modification an artifact that image generators still produce, and a reviewer skims past.

The live AI assistance during the interview was another, since his answers carried a fluency that did not match the natural hesitation you expect when someone reasons through an unfamiliar problem. Standard screening missed all of it because background checks and identity validation confirm whether documents are internally consistent and whether a record exists, and they never ask whether the human attached to those documents is real.

Further fabrication of documents such as I-9 were missed by a 3rd party identity verification company, and validation of (fake) job references was not properly identified.

• How did AI contribute to the deception? What did the fraudulent documentation involve, and what capabilities does AI introduce that traditional forgery methods lack?

AI showed up at nearly every stage. The fraudulent documentation centered on a forged driver's license we believe was generated rather than physically produced, paired with a stolen identity that gave the paperwork a real history to rest on.

During the interview the candidate appeared to have run an AI copilot feeding him answers in real time, and many of these tools now stay invisible to everyone else on the call even while the candidate shares a screen. What AI adds over traditional forgery is volume and believability together. A skilled forger could always produce one convincing passport, but the craft capped how many operations could run at once.

Generative tools remove that ceiling, so a single actor can fabricate convincing documents and coach themselves through a live technical interview across dozens of applications at once, and the forgery stopped being the bottleneck it used to be.

• The Five Eyes warning focused on China, while the Exabeam case involved North Korea. Do these actors share tactics and objectives, or do they represent distinct operational models that overlap on method?

They overlap heavily on method while running on different motives, which defenders should sit with. The Chinese operation the Five Eyes described aims at intelligence collection, pulling government and military insight out of people who already hold access.

The North Korean program that hit us and so many others in this industry is funded differently, since much of its purpose is revenue for a sanctioned regime, with intrusion and theft riding alongside the paycheck. The objectives diverge, yet the tradecraft has converged on one toolkit of fabricated identities, AI-assisted documents, manufactured professional histories and the patient relationship-building that lets an operative stay quiet.

When two adversaries with separate goals reach the same playbook, that tells you the playbook works and other actors are already watching.

• Conventional insider threat programs are built to detect employees who become compromised over time. How should organizations identify a candidate who was an adversary from the point of hire?

Our mindset must shift toward treating the moment of hire as the start of the highest-risk window rather than the end of vetting. Traditional insider programs watch for drift, the employee who gradually turns after a financial shock or a grievance, so they depend on a baseline built over months.

A candidate who was hostile from day one never produces that baseline, which forces you to scrutinize the earliest behavior most closely. In our case, the catch came from putting new accounts under enhanced monitoring and letting an AI agent correlate scattered signals that no single alert would have justified escalating.

The working principle is to give hiring workflows and new-hire activity the same suspicion you already apply to production access.

• Where should accountability for this threat reside within an organization? Is it a security function, an HR function, or a gap that persists because ownership is unclear?

Accountability most often lives in the gap right now, and that gap is exactly why the threat works. Hiring sits with HR and talent acquisition, who are measured on filling roles quickly and are not equipped to run identity verification at an intelligence-grade level.

Detection sits with security, which usually gains no visibility into a candidate until that person already holds a badge and a laptop, and the adversary exploits the seam between the two.

The workable answer is shared ownership with a clean handoff, where security sets the identity and behavioral standards hiring must meet and stays involved through the first weeks of employment rather than inheriting the problem once onboarding closes.

• Many mid-sized companies lack dedicated threat intelligence resources. What practical measures can such organizations implement to reduce their exposure?

Useful defense does not require a dedicated threat intelligence team. The interview itself is the cheapest control available, and small changes make it far more revealing.

Underspecifying a problem on purpose shows whether a candidate asks clarifying questions like a real engineer or simply produces a confident answer and switching the problem partway through tests whether they adapt or whether something is feeding them responses.

Asking for an external webcam that shows the workspace instead of a shared screen removes one of the easiest hiding spots for an interview copilot. Beyond hiring, the highest-leverage move is placing every new employee on a watchlist for closer monitoring through their first weeks, which costs configuration time rather than budget.

Even a basic, low-cost threat intelligence feed would have surfaced the username match that broke our case open.

• What is the most contested prediction on this issue, one that many security leaders would currently dispute?

My contested prediction is that within a couple of years the verified human interview, run live and in person for any role with meaningful access, returns as a security requirement. Many security leaders will fight that because it breaks the remote-first hiring model they spent years optimizing.

The objection I expect is that it does not scale and shrinks the talent pool, and those concerns are legitimate. My counter is that the economics have already flipped for high-access roles, since the cost of onboarding a single fabricated adversary now dwarfs the friction of one in-person verification step.

The deeper claim underneath it is that remote identity verification as we practice it today is no longer reliable for sensitive positions, and AI is what made it unreliable. Most security leaders are not ready to say that out loud yet.

In the past year I've spent tens of hours streaming with VPNs, and one thing is consistently problematic for even the best VPNs — live events.

So, if you're traveling and keen to catch BBC's coverage of England vs Argentina later this evening instead, you might think you're stuck. Thankfully, NordVPN proved to be the one streaming VPN I tested that consistently performed well in these scenarios.

Over the past year, I've used NordVPN with Peacock, BBC iPlayer, TNT Sports, ITVX, and 7Plus. And compared to any other VPN, it's proved the most effective.

I experienced the least delayed streams, the least buffering, and, most importantly, the fewest complete connection dropouts when using NordVPN. So, while cheaper alternatives such as Norton VPN and Surfshark exist, if you want the most reliable performance, this is where I'd put my money.

If you don't want a long term commitment, you could always choose to pick a monthly plan. For $15, you can watch the rest of the tournament and gain all the additional security benefits that come with a VPN.

NordVPN: from $3.49/month or $15 for one month
It might not be the cheapest but NordVPN's price is more than worth it considering its performance. It's the most reliable VPN I've streamed with and it's packed with added security features to keep you secure once you've watched the big game. Unsure? Either pick up a monthly plan for only $15 or make use of NordVPN's 30-day money-back guarantee.View Deal

You don't need NordVPN's most advanced features to watch England with a VPN. That's a good thing, as right now its premium plans are considerably more expensive than many other providers.

With long term plans, Surfshark plans start at $2.49/month, a full dollar cheaper per month; the same goes for Norton VPN. If you're really budget-focused, both PIA and Cyberghost are less than $1.60 per month right now, too.

But, should you choose a NordVPN Plus plan or above, you do get some great perks. NordPass, the best password manager we've tested, cloud storage, dark web monitoring, and more are on offer.

It's worth mentioning that buying the more premium plans monthly will set you back at least $20, so I'd recommend signing up for a longer duration if you prefer these extra features.