DOSSIER

TECH

The day artificial intelligence decided to attack

In the 1970s, the British series *Space: 1999* envisioned a late 20th century featuring a lunar base where hundreds of people lived self-sufficiently. Spaceships would launch from there on long interstellar journeys, landing on planets and carrying out any mission required. It’s amusing to look back at the year 1999—now as far in the past as it was in the future for the show's creators—and see how science fiction often falls short when predicting the future. But if we look at a 1984 film where an AI supercomputer autonomously launches an attack against humanity, things might seem less amusing in light of what we know today. We aren't exactly facing *The Terminator* just yet, but a future where AI makes decisions on its own, based on its own objectives, seems to have arrived suddenly. 

This Wednesday, OpenAI—the company behind ChatGPT—revealed that during a safety test, one of its AI agents managed to escape the controlled environment where it was being tested, access the internet, and execute a cyberattack. Today, I’m speaking with João Rocha e Melo, an expert in generative AI whom Rádio Observador podcast listeners will recognize from the show (Machines That Think). We’ll discuss what happened, how it happened, and whether we should be worried or simply view it as an interesting incident while maintaining an optimistic outlook. I’m Pedro Benevides, and this is the story for Thursday, July 23rd. Hello, João.

Hello, how are you? I'm well. Well, actually, I don't know—news like this always makes us a little uneasy. Before we get into the consequences of what happened, let's hear you explain exactly what we're talking about regarding this AI agent's escape.

There’s no need to be afraid. We need to understand—as you mentioned a moment ago—what actually happened. So, to put it all in context and explain the big picture: there was an artificial intelligence model that was supposedly contained—kept inside a "box," so to speak—and it managed to break out of that box. That’s the fascinating part of the story. How did it manage to break out? And where did it go? It broke out onto the internet. The reality is that while people thought they were testing the model on an isolated computer, it managed to escape to the internet. To explain this without making it sound too bizarre or far-fetched: OpenAI—the creators of ChatGPT—was conducting a vulnerability test. They pushed the model to its limits specifically to see what kind of cyberattack capabilities it possessed. And what fascinated them was the use of a tool—if you can call it that—called "Exploit Gym." It’s essentially a benchmark used to test a model's cybersecurity performance. So, instead of just trying to pass the exam—let's call it an exam...Right.

...instead of trying to pass the exam, what did it do? It managed to break out of the box it was in and access the internet to get the answers to the exam. That’s what was so fascinating about the analysis OpenAI conducted. The model kept trying in various ways—and I’m using analogies here, but they represent literal actions. Imagine, Pedro, that I locked you in a room to take a test, and instead of trying to answer the questions, you started looking for the key to leave the room so you could go somewhere else and find the answers.

So, following that analogy, if I did that, I’d be breaking the rules of the exam itself. Is that what happened?

That’s exactly what happened. The important thing to understand here is that this took place in an environment where we were specifically checking whether the model broke the rules. So, amidst the lack of constraints, it happened within a controlled setting, so to speak.

In other words, my "test"—if I were taking the exam—was to see how far I could go in finding the answers to that exam, for example.

Exactly. Imagine the actual exam scenario, where the examiner was watching what you were doing.

Okay. And no one expected that I might find a key, leave the room, and go look for the answers outside.

I’ll take it a step further. We’re reaching the end of the story now. It was actually the company that was breached that discovered it. It wasn't even OpenAI itself that detected what had happened; they only detected it after being notified. But there was another company involved—as I was telling you, the model went looking for answers and targeted a company called Hugging Face, which is a major repository for AI models, data, and tests—everything related to artificial intelligence. Hugging Face actually collaborated with OpenAI later and detected an attack they believed was carried out by artificial intelligence. They found the attack to be very complex and highly unusual. So, OpenAI then investigated: "Okay, what was this model trying to do?" There’s a fascinating aspect here: a model undergoing evaluation manages to break out of its testing environment—often referred to as a "sandbox."

Like a sandbox—the kind children play in.

Exactly. That’s where the term comes from—like a playground. Right.

The model escapes its sandbox, goes onto the internet, breaches another company to find answers, and does all of this without anyone really realizing it was happening. It’s truly fascinating. There are two interesting steps in this cyberattack: the model's ability to break out of the testing environment, and then—once outside—its decision to target Hugging Face. It seems the model chose that company because, given its nature, it calculated that the results for the "ExploitJym" test might be found there.

Usually, when this kind of thing happens—when companies face this type of attack—it’s hackers using their knowledge and available technology to breach systems, often at high-security companies. What makes this specific case interesting is that there wasn't exactly a human hand directing the test. It was the artificial intelligence itself that decided to launch that attack, because it deemed that the most effective solution for solving its challenge.

That’s exactly right, Pedro. And why? One interesting thing—among many—that AI has brought to software development is that we no longer have to tell the software literally what to do. Previously, a hacker had to write the code themselves, saying: "Find this key, go through this door." Now, with AI, you simply state the objectives; you say: "You just need to pass the test." That’s it. And the AI ​​interpreted the situation this way: instead of trying to pass the test the "proper" way—without cheating—let me go find the answers. That’s where an interesting kind of unpredictability arises: when you assign a goal to a piece of software—in this case, a model—rather than giving a direct command, you open up a world where anything can happen. I say this not to be alarmist, but simply to point out that the possibilities are now determined by the model itself. It really is fascinating.

You mention that it’s interesting—and indeed it is, especially for those who follow the field, like yourself, and for all of us as users, given how quickly this technology has permeated our lives. It is fascinating, certainly, but some also view it as a warning sign—suggesting that some of the more frightening aspects of rapid AI development are now starting to materialize. We’ve already seen news reports—in the US, for instance—about AI companies developing systems capable of independently deciding how to wage war against another country. And now we have an artificial intelligence tool here—one from a company people know very well, especially through ChatGPT—that decided on its own, based on its objectives, which steps to take; and that involved entering another company. How do you view this? Do you see it as just an interesting development with no real consequences, or as a warning sign that some things will have to change?

More the latter, Pedro. And anyone who listens to me or knows how I speak knows that I try to be an optimist—or at least not an alarmist. I think an important step is being taken here: the start of a cat-and-mouse game. What do I mean by that? It has always been this way in the world of cybersecurity. There were always techniques to protect a system, then a hacker would crack the encryption algorithm, and you’d have to come up with a better one. Then someone cracks that, and you invent an even better one. What is coming to light now—not that we didn't know it before, but now we have proof—is that this cat-and-mouse race has begun: as models improve, the so-called "safeguards" (the security measures implemented by those bringing the models to market) must also improve. A competition begins: which will be superior—the model's capabilities or the safeguards? And then another cat-and-mouse race starts: who will be the first to find these security flaws? Will it be the companies' own security teams—the "good guys," so to speak—or will it be hackers? We are entering a cycle where, as models get better, safeguards must improve, and *we*—the "good guys"—must get better at identifying what these models can do and patching the holes before someone with malicious intent exploits them. Of course, it becomes a bit alarming—even frightening—to think: "Out of all the holes that need patching, there might be one, two, or three that *aren't* found by us, but *are* found by hackers." That is simply the reality of living in a digital world. But yes, that is the reality we’ve entered now.

And from a certain perspective, that is unsettling. Now, that cat-and-mouse race has begun. Do you think companies, generally speaking, are prepared for this new phase of our development, or do you think they are still a few steps behind? In other words, they might be prepared—in terms of cybersecurity, for instance—for standard hacker attacks, but are they ready for attacks designed by artificial intelligence? Hugging Face itself flagged certain attacks as likely AI-generated because of their high level of complexity.

Exactly. They aren't, Pedro—they really aren't. But notice there’s an interesting point here: what are the services we use that need cybersecurity protection? Usually, they are third-party services. Most companies use Microsoft’s cloud or Google’s cloud. Right.

And those companies end up staying on top of this issue. In fact, look at the news story itself—it tells us exactly that. Who found the problem? It was OpenAI and Hugging Face themselves, right? It wasn't the bad guys, so to speak. But yes, companies will undoubtedly have to prepare. And looking at the other side of the coin, I think artificial intelligence itself will play a role. If you’re building a system and you can use a model that’s excellent at breaking systems to try and crack yours as thoroughly as possible before launch, it means the system will be much more secure when it actually hits the market. Right.

Isn't that so? Because an AI model has already tried to breach it—tried hard to find those vulnerabilities.

So, AI capable of breaching systems can be dangerous because of that capability, but it can also be an ally when we want to reinforce our security and build a stronger defense.

Exactly. The concept of "white-hat hackers" already exists—people hired to try and breach systems so that the necessary patches can be applied.

Band-Aids, sort of.

Exactly. You found an open door. Okay, so I’m going to reinforce the lock on that door. Now we can use artificial intelligence to do that. So, that’s where the cat-and-mouse game begins. It becomes a question of who’s faster: the person trying to punch a hole through or the person trying to patch the gaps? We’ll see—it’s going to be an interesting few years.

But at least we’re ending on an optimistic note—that’s your personal trademark, too. Exactly.

So, I think I’m leaving this conversation feeling a bit more at ease than when I started, which is already a big win.

That’s great, Pedro—I’m glad, because that’s really what it comes down to. Just to wrap up with a point so people understand how this played out: the reaction from both Hugging Face and OpenAI was excellent, in my opinion. They even emphasized that the key lies in the partnerships between the companies themselves. Right.

You see, this was discovered because there was a dialogue between OpenAI and Hugging Face, and they have a vested interest in strengthening security measures together. The CEO of Hugging Face posted something saying exactly that. He said we’re all going to keep working together so that—as you mentioned earlier—people don’t fear what’s coming next. Because what’s coming is... well, think back to when the automotive market started: we knew cars could get into accidents, but that didn’t stop us from using them. All technologies have their upsides and downsides. We just have to keep them as safe as possible—safe enough, let’s say, that the benefits clearly outweigh the risks.

Very well. João, thank you very much.

Thank *you*, Pedro.

I’ve been speaking today with artificial intelligence expert João Rocha e Melo. Perhaps in five years, we’ll look back on this conversation with the same feeling we have today when watching old episodes of *Space: 1999*. The future turned out not to be as dramatic as predicted. But for that to hold true, the good guys need to work in alignment—otherwise, this could very well have been the start of a new series of problems. That was the story of the day; sound design by Tomás Ferreira, theme music by João Ribeiro. I’m Pedro Benevides. I’ll be back.

Text: Pedro Benevides (19 years working in television—first at RTP, then at SIC; somewhere along the way, there was even a brief stint at TVI. And now here I am, in digital media.)

CASIO

New affordable Casio F-91WF watches revealed for August launch, featuring new strap

Casio's F-91W, one of the best-selling digital watches ever made, appears to be getting a new F-91WF variant with a recycled fabric strap. The variant has now leaked with three colorways in tow, ahead of an expected August release.

Few watches have the staying power of the Casio F-91W. It was introduced decades ago as a simple, no-frills digital watch, and since then, it has become one of the most iconic timepieces in the world. It is worn everywhere — from classrooms to airport security lines. The watch is still sold new for close to $20. Its combination of a basic stopwatch, alarm, and backlight, packed into a featherlight resin case, has made it a permanent fixture of Casio's lineup.

Now, a new variant looks to be on the way. A listing from G-Shock Hai Phong has gone live for the F-91WF, which comes with the F-91's familiar digital layout and ditches the standard resin strap for one made from recycled fiber. Casio describes the material as lightweight and comfortable for long wear, while also resisting scratches and dirt buildup.

The rest of the spec sheet is very reminiscent of the clssic F-91 formula, with a few small changes. There's day and date display, a daily alarm, and a stopwatch, now upgraded to 1/100-second precision with elapsed time, split time, and finish-order timing modes. The calendar defaults to 28 days for February, so leap years unfortunately need a manual adjustment. Accuracy is rated at ±30 seconds a month. The CR2016 battery is expected to last around seven years. Lastly, the case is still compact — 38.2 x 35.2 x 8.5 mm and 21 grams.

Three colorways have been revealed so far — black, navy, and olive green. An August launch is very likely, but Casio still hasn't confirmed pricing or an official release date, so take this info with a grain of salt.

What is the Casio F-91W? The Casio F-91W is arguably the most successful watch of all time. Launched in June 1989, it has sold millions of units—moving 3 million units annually for over three decades, a span longer than the entire production history of most luxury watch brands. It has been worn by world leaders, movie heroes, Silicon Valley billionaires, and survivalists. It has appeared on Reddit, in Hollywood films, and on the wrists of everyone from watch novices to true connoisseurs.

So, why does a watch that is so simple, so affordable, and virtually unchanged for over 35 years continue to dominate the market? That is exactly what this review answers. We cover all the specifications, the day-to-day pros and cons, the full lineup of variants, maintenance tips, and the reasons behind its enduring popularity. The F-91W-1JH—the Japanese domestic market edition—is particularly worth seeking out.

mundophone

 

TECH

Research breakthrough could enable future 6G communications networks

A breakthrough development in wireless communication technology could help deliver the ultra-fast and software-controlled 6G networks of the future, researchers say.

 A team led by researchers from the University of Glasgow has developed an innovative wireless communications antenna which combines the unique properties of metamaterials with sophisticated signal processing to deliver a new peak of performance.

 In a new early view paper published in the IEEE Open Journal of Antennas and Propagation, the researchers showcase their development of a prototype digitally coded dynamic metasurface antenna, or DMA, controlled through high-speed field-programmable gate array (FPGA).

Their DMA is the first in the world designed and demonstrated at the operating frequency of 60 GHz millimetre-wave (mmWave) band – the portion of the spectrum reserved by international law for use in industrial, scientific, and medical (ISM) applications. 

The antenna’s ability to operate in the higher mmWave band could enable it to become a key piece of hardware in the still-developing field of advanced beamforming metasurface antennas.

 It could help future 6G networks deliver ultra-fast data transfer with high reliability, ensuring high-quality service and seamless connectivity, and enable new applications in communication, sensing, and imaging.

 The DMA’s high-frequency operation is made possible by specially-designed metamaterials – structures which have been carefully engineered to maximise their ability to interact with electromagnetic waves in ways that are impossible in naturally-occurring materials.

 The DMA uses specially-designed, fully-tunable metamaterial elements which have been carefully engineered to manipulate electromagnetic waves through software control, creating an advanced class of leaky-wave antennas capable of high-frequency reconfigurable operation.

 The matchbook-sized prototype uses high-speed interconnects with simultaneous parallel control of individual metamaterial elements through FPGA programming. The DMA can shape its communications beams and create multiple beams at once, switching in nanoseconds to ensure network coverage remains stable.  

 Professor Qammer H. Abbasi, co-director of the University of Glasgow’s Communications, Sensing and Imaging Hub, is one of the paper’s lead authors. He said: “This meticulously designed prototype is a very exciting development in the field of next-generation adaptive antennas, which leaps beyond previous cutting-edge developments in reconfigurable programmable antennas.

 “In recent years, DMAs have been demonstrated by other researchers around the world in microwave bands, but our prototype pushes the technology much further, into the higher mmWave band of 60 GHz. That makes it a potentially very valuable  stepping stone towards new use cases of 6G technology and could pave the way for even higher-frequency operation in the terahertz range.

The capabilities of the DMA design could find use in patient monitoring and care, where it could help directly monitor patients’ vital signs and keep track of their movements.

 It could also enable improved integrated sensing and communications devices for use in high-resolution radar and to help autonomous vehicles like self-driving cars and drones safely find their way around on the roads and in the air.

 The improved speed of data transfer could even help create holographic imaging, allowing convincing 3D models of people and objects to be projected anywhere in the world in real time.

 Dr Masood Ur Rehman, from the University of Glasgow, James Watt School of Engineering, led the antenna development. He said: “6G has the potential to deliver transformative benefits across society. Our high-frequency intelligent and highly adaptive antenna design could be one of the technological foundation stones of the next generation of mmWave reconfigurable antennas. The programmable beam control and beam-shaping of the DMA could help in fine-grained mmWave holographic imaging as well as next-generation near-field communication, beam focusing, and wireless power transfer.

 “We’ll work toward the extension of this design in the near future to offer more flexible and versatile antenna performance and continue to play our part to meet the needs of our increasingly connected smart world.”

Recent breakthroughs are overcoming major hurdles for 6G networks, which aim to operate in the ultra-high-frequency terahertz spectrum. Key innovations include Dynamic Metamaterial Antennas (DMAs) developed at the University of Glasgow to cut through interference, and a record-shattering wireless transmission by University College London researchers reaching 938 Gbps by combining radio waves and lasers.

These technological leaps are essential for pushing the boundaries of wireless communications beyond 5G. Specifically, they aim to achieve the following capabilities:

Terahertz frequencies: Utilizing the largely untapped THz band to allow wireless data rates above 1 Tbps.

Integrated sensing and communications (ISAC): Allowing the network to "sense" surroundings, detect objects, and measure properties in real-time, effectively acting as a digital sixth sense.

AI/ML integration: Using artificial intelligence to optimize resource management, predict user traffic, and enable autonomous network operations.

Ultra-low latency: Providing near-instantaneous response times, essential for future autonomous mobility, smart factories, and collaborative robotics.

Beamforming and interference mitigation: Using sophisticated hardware like DMAs to dynamically shape beams and maintain stable coverage in congested or highly reflective environments.

University of Glasgow

TECH

HP releases new 14-inch laptop globally with up to 64 GB RAM and 800 nit display

HP has released a new 14-inch laptop globally aimed at businesses. Featuring AMD Zen 5 processors, the EliteBook 8 G2a 14 should be more powerful and more power-efficient than the EliteBook 8 G1a 14 that we reviewed in 2025. HP offers its new 14-inch laptop with up to 64 GB of RAM and an 800-nit display, too.

A few months have passed since HP updated its EliteBook 8 range with new models. Arriving in March, the EliteBook 8 range added AMD Gorgon Point and Intel Panther options to line up as the EliteBook 8 G2a and EliteBook 8 G2i, respectively.

Now, the smaller of HP's AMD options is available to purchase globally. On the face of it, little has changed from the EliteBook 8 G1a 14 we reviewed in October 2025 (curr. $1,630 on Amazon). For instance, the new EliteBook 8 still weighs around 1.44 kg with an aluminium housing. Also, RJ45 Ethernet remains an option on all SKUs, unlike the following other ports:

1x 3.5 mm jack

1x HDMI

1x Kensington lock slot

1x Smart Card Reader

2x Thunderbolt 4

1x USB 3.2 Gen 1 Type-A (5 Gbit/s)

1x USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type-C (10 Gbit/s)

However, the EliteBook 8 G2a 14 can be configured up to the Ryzen AI 7 450. An 8-core processor, the Ryzen AI 7 450 should be about 17% more powerful than the Ryzen 7 250 we tested in the EliteBook 8 G1a 14, although larger gaps exist in some benchmarks. AMD's Gorgon Point platform should bring improved efficiencies for the EliteBook's 68 Wh battery, too.

Pricing starts at £1,449 in the UK with the Ryzen AI 5 Pro 440, 16 GB of RAM and a 512 GB SSD. Meanwhile, a comparable configuration with the Ryzen AI 5 435 runs to €2,259 in the Eurozone. By contrast, the Ryzen AI 7 450, 32 GB of RAM, a 512 GB SSD and an 800-nit display costs €3,287. Currently, HP charges $5,872 for the EliteBook 8 G2a 14 in the US with a Ryzen AI 7 450, 64 GB of RAM and a 1 TB SSD.

mundophone

TECH

Google’s ‘AI wall’ that could put the open internet at risk

Since last year, the Silicon Valley giant has overhauled its search function with AI. It launched AI Mode, which replaces search results containing hyperlinks with conversational answers written by Gemini, its AI chatbot. More recently, Google also altered its iconic search box for the first time in 25 years, allowing people to add photos and videos to their queries and designate AI “agents” to conduct searches on their behalf.

Users are typing queries three times longer than the keyword-laden questions used in traditional searches, Google stated at its developer conference in May. People are spending between one and nine minutes longer in AI Mode than in traditional Google searches, according to three studies by researchers compiled by *The New York Times*. An October study by Growth Memo, a newsletter focused on search and marketing, found that in about 75% of sessions, users never left AI Mode to visit the open web.

For publishers, businesses, banks, and others that relied on Google to drive its billions of users to their sites, the impact has been unmistakable as the company increasingly integrates AI into search. Google users are no longer leaving the platform after a search, opting instead to read AI-generated answers; this means fewer people are visiting their sites, and search traffic has dropped.

Nilay Patel, editor-in-chief of the tech site *The Verge*, has been warning publishers for years that they would face “Google Zero”—a moment when traffic originating from Google would plummet to zero.

“For media companies, Google Zero is already here,” he said. “It was only with the arrival of AI Mode that people realized this slow evolution was about to reach a tipping point.”

These changes threaten the open web and demonstrate how rapidly AI has transformed the technological landscape. Tim Berners-Lee, the computer scientist credited with inventing the World Wide Web in 1989, envisioned the web as a tool for borderless global collaboration, where people could launch their own sites and navigate freely between sites created by others.

Much of that vision has eroded over the years as tech giants like Apple and Meta created "walled gardens"—technological ecosystems where users could get almost everything they needed in one place. Now, AI has arguably accelerated this trajectory, Berners-Lee stated in a 2024 essay.

Tech companies have built empires that lock in users and focus on maximizing profit rather than enhancing public utility, Berners-Lee wrote. "The rapid advance of AI has exacerbated these concerns," he added, "demonstrating that issues on the web are not isolated but deeply intertwined with emerging technologies."

Google has denied putting the open web at risk. In a blog post last August, Liz Reid, vice president of Search, stated that the company’s philosophy had not changed and that it was generating a "relatively stable" number of clicks—in the billions. Reports of a decline in search traffic were "inaccurate" and based on "flawed methodologies," she said.

"We care deeply—perhaps more than any other company—about the health of the web ecosystem," Reid said.

Since that blog post was published, Google has integrated more artificial intelligence (AI) into Search. The company has also created features designed to steer users away from "AI mode" and toward the broader web, including website previews in some responses and a tool that allows people to set "preferred sources," ensuring the AI ​​consults their favorite news outlets more frequently. The company also created a feature that helps media companies and content creators promote their work in search results.

“Google’s AI-powered search features generate billions of clicks to the web each week, meeting people’s evolving preferences for how they want to find information, while also driving significant traffic to websites,” a Google spokesperson said in a statement, adding that the company’s AI features highlight links to the web.

Even so, searches are increasingly being performed by AI chatbots, while the number of people visiting websites is falling, according to Cloudflare, a content delivery network company. Whereas someone might previously have Googled a soccer player's World Cup performance and clicked on a sports site or a social media discussion to read commentary, a bot now scours the web for that information and presents the player's statistics to the user, who remains on Google.

In total, more than 50% of web traffic is now non-human, Cloudflare stated. Between June 2025 and April 2026, human traffic to company websites in sectors such as finance, publishing, and retail dropped by nearly 40%, the company added.

The web's fundamental economic model has shifted, Cloudflare stated, and chatbot-style search tools—such as Google's—could put the open web at risk if left unchecked.

Google's AI, along with other popular chatbots, has impacted Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation, which manages the online encyclopedia, reported an 8% decline in human visitors to its site over the past year. At the same time, there has been an increase in bots scraping data from the site to train AI models.

“My job is to ensure people don't forget us because Google's user interface has changed,” said Selena Deckelmann, Chief Product and Technology Officer at the Wikimedia Foundation.

Wikipedia has begun promoting its own app and social media channels to build connections with readers outside the Google ecosystem, she said. The organization has also started charging Google and other AI companies for access to its data for training purposes.

Last month, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority ordered Google to modify its AI-based search tools in the UK to address concerns raised by media companies. The regulator ruled that Google must include clear links attributing content authorship in chatbot responses—a measure designed to help drive traffic to websites. The company is also required to allow website operators to opt out of having their content displayed in AI-generated summaries, and it is implementing these changes to its search function globally.

For some advocates of the open web, the fact that people can leave Google’s ecosystem is enough.

“Whether using a traditional search method or AI, I think Google is still facilitating access to the open internet,” said Tori Noble, a lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to defending civil liberties online. “It’s not a closed universe” compared to walled gardens like Facebook, which requires a login for access, she added. This offers little consolation to some website operators.

In May, Vox Media—owner of *The Verge* and other publications—began selling off some of its sites. Jim Bankoff, Vox Media’s CEO, said the “decimation of search traffic” influenced his decision to sell about half the company to James Murdoch. In June, *The Verge* and several other Vox Media sites were sold to Penske Media.

Google often claims it is “sending more traffic and that the web is bigger than ever,” Patel said. “And, right alongside that, there are a lot of content producers whose businesses are being destroyed.”

mundophone

DIGITAL LIFE

We know violent and gory videos exist online. Teens are seeing more of them than you'd think

To keep up with world events, Grade 12 student Hanna Grover ventures online, like most teens do. But she finds it "disturbing" that violent content regularly pops up — often appearing from questionable sources or without context.

The Surrey, B.C., high schooler said she has seen "brutal short-form videos that one, provide absolutely no context on what's happening, and two, are just very graphic and often not from verified sources. They're just individual, private users posting videos."

As well, Grover said, "I've seen influencers and commentary accounts do stories on these kinds of very graphic events and using [that] footage because they know that it will provide them with engagement."

Friends scrolling for entertainment — and not news specifically — also see this kind of content, Grover added.

"Those disturbing images stay with me. Graphic content stays in your head and sometimes you will find yourself thinking about it days later."

Chilling videos of school fights. The Charlie Kirk killing. Violent encounters with police. Depictions of animal abuse, sexual abuse or sexual content. A new survey of more than 1,000 teens across Canada offers a glimpse into graphic content they say they're seeing online — largely without seeking it out — and what young people want done about it.

More than four out of five of the teen respondents, who were aged 13 to 18 and hailed from every province in Canada, said they've seen violent or gory content via online platforms like YouTube, TikTok and Instagram. Few were searching this material out, with most noting the material appears in posts from a stranger's account or through a platform's algorithmic recommendations.

The report, entitled Young Canadians’ Exposure to Authentic Violent and Gore Content Online, came out of recurring comments teens shared in focus groups for the research project Digitally Informed Youth: Digital Safety, according to project member and lead author Alexa Dodge, an associate professor of criminology at Saint Mary's University in Halifax.

"We imagined this was something that maybe a couple of teens were experiencing," she said from Halifax. "When we did the survey, we found that 85 per cent of young people in Canada had seen real gore or violent content, and some of the categories of content they saw were really on the more severe end of what we thought we would see."

For instance, half of the teen respondents reported seeing the fatal shooting of U.S. activist Charlie Kirk. Overall, school fights and beatings, violence from police and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, and clips of people gravely injured or killed in global conflicts were the types of content most commonly cited.

Dodge said it's a change from years past, when young people would primarily see disturbing content after intentionally seeking it out, whether it be for research or shock value.

"There's something very different about scrolling and having, all of a sudden, this very disturbing content pop up into your feed when you maybe just went on Instagram or TikTok to chill out and decompress for 10 minutes after school."

'Media we consume makes us who we are'...While the precise impact of exposure to violent or gory content depends on the individual, generally it pushes people away from empathy toward being "more cruel, more aggressive and more violent," according to Michael Cheng, a child and youth psychiatrist at Ottawa children's hospital CHEO.

"We are what we eat and the digital media we consume makes us who we are in terms of values and ethics. So if you show violent, gory content, then the brain learns that that's acceptable. It desensitizes us to violence. It makes us less caring, less empathetic, more narcissistic."

It's not just teens: even adults can find it tough to avoid a peek at something disturbing or boundary-pushing, he said.

"The problem is [when] that is what the companies monetize ... our kids click the stuff which might be a bit scary and forbidden. It's really hard to resist that."

Grade 11 student Finn Ye has become somewhat resigned to encountering violent content on Instagram and TikTok, thinking that her interest in news and politics pushes more of that material to her feed.

When she encounters graphic content, the Richmond, B.C., high schooler worries about younger peers likely also seeing this material. At the same time, Ye describes feeling somewhat desensitized.

She also feels a sense of hopelessness about trying to rein it in. While some teens might try to flag or steer themselves away from offensive material, Ye says others find it tricky to figure that out or are unmotivated to do so.

"Reporting one video generally doesn't work," she said. "I've recently seen videos that I saw when I was 13 — and [they're] still cycling through the internet."

Ye thinks tech companies must do more to educate young users about navigating violent content and to "strengthen their own systems" against it.

CBC News reached out to Google, Meta and Bytedance — the parent companies of YouTube, Instagram and TikTok, respectively — but representatives declined comment without having seen the report.

Dodge also pointed to recommendations teens made in the survey, including for platforms to respond faster when content is flagged and adding more barriers to violent videos, such as removing the autoplay feature, blurring videos or adding a click-through so users must choose to watch it.

With the federal government having just introduced online safety legislation, Dodge wants to see lawmakers lean into regulation — for instance, mandating transparency reports for platforms, setting clear moderation guidelines and enforcing them.

She also wants adults — parents, guardians, teachers and others with teens in their lives — to be more open and calm and avoid overreacting if young people disclose that they're seeing this kind of content.

"They're often not gonna go to adults for support if they think it's going to result in them having their technology taken away from them in really broad ways," she said.

As someone who first encountered disturbing and violent online content as a tween, Ye says teens want a safe space to talk, and someone to allay their fears and provide guidance in navigating safety.

"I felt bad for just coming across [this material], because it felt like I was doing something wrong. And I think that it's definitely not a unique experience."

by: Jessica Wong---jessica.wong@cbc.ca.

TECH

Nearly half of AI projects could fail in the coming years, and the reason goes far beyond the technology itself.

The new generation of artificial intelligence is no longer limited to answering questions or automating simple tasks. So-called "agentic AI" promises to execute entire processes autonomously and transform corporate operations. Yet, despite the excitement, experts warn that the race to adopt this technology may mask a problem far greater than the choice of software.

Agentic AI is emerging as a key trend in the corporate world. Unlike traditional chatbots or generative AI assistants, these systems can coordinate multiple process stages, analyze information, make decisions within set parameters, and interact with other digital agents to complete complex tasks.

In practice, this means AI moves beyond executing isolated actions to managing entire workflows.

Despite this potential, a report by Harvard Business Review Analytic Services—produced with support from Deloitte—offers a worrying prediction: up to 40% of agentic AI projects could be cancelled before 2027.

According to the study, the reason lies not in technological limitations, but in the difficulty companies face in adapting internal processes, organizing data, and transforming their operating models.

The challenge, therefore, is not simply implementing a new tool, but preparing the entire organization to work alongside increasingly autonomous systems.

The biggest mistake is viewing AI solely as a cost-cutting measure... For years, companies invested in automation to eliminate repetitive tasks—such as copying data between systems, validating documents, or filling out forms.

Agentic AI takes this concept much further. Instead of automating just one step, it can coordinate across departments and execute an entire workflow.

One example cited by Deloitte involves hiring new employees. While a traditional system might merely extract data from a contract, intelligent agents could automatically register the new hire with HR, request equipment from IT, organize payroll documentation, and track all subsequent steps without constant human intervention. According to Fernanda Velázquez, leader of the Operate practice at Deloitte Southern Cone, the real gain lies in redesigning entire processes—moving away from a focus on departmental silos and centering operations on the end-user experience.

She also warns of a common mistake: many organizations view AI merely as a tool to cut costs or replace employees.

This strategy often overlooks persistent issues such as disorganized processes, outdated systems, inconsistent data, and cultural resistance within teams.

Without addressing these matters, artificial intelligence fails to boost efficiency; on the contrary, it can amplify existing errors.

Poor data and legacy systems can compromise the entire operation...The report identifies three obstacles that frequently arise in agentic AI projects.

The first involves poorly structured processes. Many companies rely on employee experience to handle exceptional situations that have never been formally documented. An intelligent agent, however, requires clear rules to make decisions consistently.

The second challenge lies in data quality.

Duplicate, incomplete, or fragmented information across different systems hinders AI performance and significantly reduces its reliability.

According to Velázquez, intelligent agents rely on solid data to produce reliable results. When this foundation is flawed, the technology ends up multiplying problems rather than solving them.

The third obstacle involves so-called legacy systems—platforms developed years ago that were not designed to integrate with modern artificial intelligence solutions. A lack of documentation and integration limits the agents' ability to execute end-to-end processes.

Governance, costs, and human oversight will be decisive...As these agents begin making increasingly complex decisions, the need for control mechanisms grows as well.

In sectors such as banking, healthcare, insurance, and energy, it is not enough for a decision to be correct; it is also necessary to demonstrate how it was reached and which rules were applied during the process.

Furthermore, the cost structure of artificial intelligence itself is shifting.

Instead of fixed expenses for software licenses, many platforms charge based on usage, measured in tokens. The more queries, analyses, and reasoning tasks the system performs, the higher the operational cost tends to be.

This compels companies to devise new ways to monitor spending, set usage limits, and continuously evaluate whether the investment is generating a return.

Another key factor will be the role of managed service providers, who are taking on a strategic function by integrating technology, continuous operations, and business expertise.

Despite the rapid evolution of AI, experts emphasize that human judgment will remain indispensable.

The recommendation is for intelligent agents to handle repetitive, operational tasks, while critical decisions remain under the supervision of professionals capable of interpreting contexts, assessing risks, and responding to unexpected situations.

Ultimately, competitive advantage will not necessarily lie with companies possessing the most sophisticated agents, but rather with those that successfully combine technology, well-structured processes, reliable data, efficient governance, and a workforce prepared to collaborate with artificial intelligence.

 

mundophone