The economics of space operations are unforgiving, and Canadian startup Orbit Robotics just unveiled HELIOS — a four-armed humanoid robot that ditches legs entirely for microgravity operations. This isn’t your typical terrestrial humanoid; it’s purpose-built for environments where walking becomes irrelevant, and efficiency matters most.

Cable-driven architecture prioritizes dexterity over terrestrial walking capabilities.

While Earth-bound humanoids like Boston Dynamics’ Atlas perfect their parkour routines, HELIOS takes a fundamentally different approach. You won’t find heavy torque motors or rigid actuators here. Instead, Orbit reportedly built a lightweight skeletal chassis powered by tendon-driven cables and pulleys—like a marionette designed by aerospace engineers.

The four-arm configuration isn’t just showing off. In microgravity, movement relies on grabbing handholds and surfaces rather than walking. Those extra limbs theoretically mean HELIOS can anchor itself with two arms while manipulating cargo or equipment with the other two. Motors supposedly sit near the shoulders to reduce moving mass in the limbs, while rolling-contact elbow joints promise smooth motion without the backlash that plagues traditional hinged systems.

This design philosophy directly challenges the terrestrial humanoid playbook. Companies like Agility Robotics and Sanctuary AI optimize for warehouse floors and factory lines. HELIOS optimizes for floating through space stations, where your greatest asset isn’t balance—it’s the ability to multitask while staying put.

Maintenance duties and cargo handling represent immediate deployment opportunities.

Orbit isn’t building a robot astronaut — they’re building a robotic assistant targeting specific operational inefficiencies. The company claims current crews spend significant time on maintenance tasks that could potentially be automated.

The company’s IKARUS testbed allegedly demonstrates teleoperation and imitation learning capabilities, suggesting HELIOS might learn tasks by watching human operators rather than requiring complex programming. Think of it as motion capture for space work—astronauts demonstrate procedures once, and the robot handles routine repetitions.

Industry observers suggest that humanoid platforms make sense for human-designed environments. When your workplace has racks, handrails, and hatches built for human bodies, a human-shaped robot offers more flexibility than specialized arms like the ISS’s Canadarm2 or Dextre.

The real test isn’t whether four arms work better than two — it’s whether this approach can deliver meaningful cost savings before the next generation of space stations comes online. If orbital operations become as routine as promised, even modest automation could pay for itself quickly in space’s unforgiving economics with significant benefits for workplace safety.

Read More ...

AI-powered consumer agents that can independently research, compare and order products on behalf of customers are raising serious legal and privacy questions.

While AI-assisted chat advice is already relatively common in online shopping, providers are steadily expanding their agents to cover the shopping itself — all based on customer specifications, but ultimately carried out autonomously.

Amazon, for example, is moving in this direction with Alexa for Shopping (formerly Rufus). And Google recently announced at its I/O developer conference an AI agent that can not only place products from multiple platforms into a single shopping basket, but also make payments on the user's behalf.

When AI-controlled software agents act independently on behalf of individuals or companies — making decisions and even processing purchases and payments — it raises a host of questions. Chief among them: is it actually legal?

Even though the first pilot schemes for fully autonomous AI shopping, including payment, are currently limited to the US, so-called agentic commerce is likely already legally permissible in many countries. However legal experts say there are many unresolved and legally complex questions around liability, contract law, consumer protection and payments.

One thing is clear: the more rights and autonomy AI assistants are given when shopping, the more problematic their use becomes. Critics are therefore calling for decisions to always remain with the human.

Experts at German tech magazine C't experts identify three risk areas around AI shopping agents:

1. Unresolved legal questions
   Who is liable if the AI orders the wrong product or falls for a fraudulent shop?
2. Technology vulnerable to manipulation
   Particularly problematic are the extensive permissions that agents require — such as access to emails, payment systems, calendars or online storage. If those permissions are too broad, a compromised agent could cause significant harm through unwanted purchases, or follow hidden buying instructions on manipulated websites such as fake shops.
3. Data protection problems
   To function effectively, AI agents require extensive information about preferences, context and purchase history.
   This is difficult to reconcile with GDPR principles such as data minimisation, transparency and purpose limitation. Retailers could also use the data to build psychological user profiles and exploit them for price discrimination.
   Consumers should remain sceptical of AI shopping assistants and follow these principles, c't advises:
   • Always confirm purchases manually.
   • Never grant full access to bank accounts.
   • Set spending limits.

Read More ...

A new study from Monash Business School has revealed that professional advisors feel offended when clients use AI to get a second opinion on their recommendations.

The research, published in Computers in Human Behaviour, found professionals become less motivated to work with clients who consult AI tools. This effect persists even when the client only uses AI for background information, or as a complementary resource rather than a replacement.

"Advisors view AI as substantially inferior to themselves; thus, being placed in the same category as an AI system feels insulting and signals disrespect, undermining advisors' willingness to engage," Associate Professor Gerri Spassova, the lead author, said.

Imagine spending an hour helping a client plan a complex trip, carefully mapping out flights, hotels, and itineraries — only for that client to take your recommendations and book everything through an AI chatbot instead.

Researchers found professionals who lost business to an AI were far less willing to work with that client again in the future.

Clients who consult AI may be seen as less competent and less warm by the advisors they approach for help.

When clients defer to AI, it prompts advisors to question the value of their own human contribution, and this may get worse as AI gets better.

Many advisors take offense at this, and it is the major reason why they pull back from clients who consult AI.

"One can only speculate," Associate Professor Spassova said. "My intuition is that the situation will not get much better. Firstly, because professional advisors’ jobs are on the line.

"Also, as AI gets better, it may threaten our sense of worth and self-regard, and so when clients defer to AI, it would prompt advisors to question the value of their human contribution."

The study suggests for new client advisor relationships, people should not disclose that they consulted AI before the meeting.

A long history of working together might weaken the negative reaction, but even then, the advisor may still feel cheated.

This applies to doctors, lawyers, and other professionals whose expertise clients might fact-check with AI tools.

A doctor who spent years training does not want to be second-guessed by a patient who spent five minutes on ChatGPT.

AI tools usually give a general overview of a situation and are very likely to make mistakes.

Its judgment is highly dependent on the amount of information you supply, and if you are not detailed enough, its response can be misleading.

Also, AI gives responses to questions based on the way it is asked, and users can easily influence an AI tool to tell them what they want to hear.

Considering these nuances, it would be unfair to judge a professional with years of study and experience based on an uncertain tool.

There is absolutely no need to throw it in the face of a professional that you have consulted AI because it creates a sense of "lack of trust".

Until professional norms adjust to the presence of AI, clients would be wise to keep their fact checking private or risk damaging professional relationships.

Read More ...

AI has arrived, and writing lyrics and composing music will never be the same.

Countless generations of musicians who created things manually would roll over in their graves at the idea of conjuring strings, piano, woodwinds, brass and percussion out of thin air, not to mention the human voice as a timeless vehicle of inspired sound. Music has been a human endeavor – until now.

New tools are blowing older ones out of the water. One such catalyst is called Suno – and it is, frankly, amazing.

Plug in your written lyrics. Write a quick prompt: minor or major key, rhythm, vocal techniques, and press "Create" and a fully formed song springs instantly out of the ether, with the voice of a singer who never lived. Or, don’t write your own lyrics, just tell Suno what you want the song to be about, and the lyrics will just appear, cadenced and scanned perfectly, in verse/chorus form, like the work of an impassioned genie from Tin Pan Alley.

It’s almost, some would say, too easy, but it’s inspired by a real vision of a new world that works differently than what we had in the first quarter of the twenty-first century.

"Some of the most fun I’ve ever had was making music with my friends," Michael Shulman, the creator of Suno, said, detailing how an early version of the app on Discord came out of his realization of how universal music is as a human language.

"Every single person in the world is creative," he said. "Every single person finds enjoyment and fulfillment from making things, and being creative. Everybody loves music."

Suno, he said, is about playing with music, not just playing music. He mentioned early jam sessions in a co-founder’s basement as another part of the impetus for the model that eventually got made.

"They were bad at the beginning," he said, of Suno’s fledgling compositions. "You needed really forgiving ears to really call it music."

But, he noted, people were willing to pay for it, and the thing took off.

Ultimately, Shulman said, most users are just regular people, although the pros are also paying attention.

"We increasingly find that huge numbers of professionals also use the product," he said, citing buy-in from producers as well as songwriters.

Read More ...

Apple’s AI plan may soon put a little money back into customers’ pockets. Some iPhone owners in the United States could receive payouts of up to US$ 95 after Apple agreed to settle a US$ 250 million class-action lawsuit tied to its heavily promoted Siri AI features.

The lawsuit accused Apple of advertising advanced artificial intelligence capabilities that were not available when certain iPhones reached consumers. Plaintiffs argued the company sold buyers on a smarter Siri experience that remained delayed long after launch.

The proposed settlement still requires approval from a federal judge before payments can go out.

Apple unveiled its Apple Intelligence platform during the iPhone 16 launch cycle in 2024. The company promoted a new generation of Siri features alongside the iPhone 16 lineup and select iPhone 15 Pro models.

Apple positioned the AI upgrades as a major selling point. The company promised a more personalized Siri assistant with stronger contextual awareness and deeper app integration. But consumers alleged those features failed to appear when the devices launched.

The lawsuit, initially filed by California resident Peter Landsheft in March 2025, claimed Apple misled buyers through aggressive AI-focused marketing campaigns. Additional plaintiffs later joined the case in federal court in San Francisco. According to court filings, the complaint said Apple "deceived millions of consumers into spending hundreds of dollars on a phone they did not need, based on features that do not exist."

The filing also stated Apple was caught off-guard by consumer demand for the Siri AI tools. Buyers reportedly became frustrated after learning the features would arrive later than expected. Apple still has not fully delivered the Siri overhaul nearly two years after first promoting the upgrades.

Apple denied the allegations in the lawsuit and maintained it acted properly. In a statement reported by USA TODAY, Apple said it resolved the case in an effort to continue "delivering the most innovative products and services to our users."

The company also issued another statement cited by the Associated Press. Apple said, "Apple has reached a settlement to resolve claims related to the availability of two additional features." The statement continued, "We resolved this matter to stay focused on doing what we do best, delivering the most innovative products and services to our users."

Court documents showed Apple defended its broader AI rollout during settlement discussions. The company said it already launched more than 20 Apple Intelligence features and plans to release more Siri-related AI tools through future software updates. Both parties filed the proposed settlement agreement on May 5. A federal judge will review the deal during a hearing scheduled for June.

If approved, the settlement will cover consumers in the United States who purchased eligible devices between 10 June 2024, and 29 March 2025. Eligible devices include the iPhone 16, iPhone 16e, iPhone 16 Plus, iPhone 16 Pro, iPhone 16 Pro Max, iPhone 15 Pro, and iPhone 15 Pro Max.

Consumers could receive at least US$ 25 for each eligible device. The payout may increase to as much as US$ 95 depending on the number of approved claims and other factors. Court filings said eligible customers will receive notifications by email or standard mail with instructions for filing claims through a settlement website.

Read More ...

Over the past month, A.I. detection has been at the center of a series of controversies: Hachette pulled the horror novel "Shy Girl" by Mia Ballard after detectors flagged it as substantially A.I.-generated.

The New York Times cut ties with a freelance book critic who admitted that an A.I. editing tool had regurgitated passages from a Guardian article into his draft. The Atlantic reported that a "Modern Love" column had been flagged as more than 60 percent A.I.-generated.

In certain corners of social media, A.I.-detector screenshots are shared like mug shots, and pile-ons have the grim energy of public stonings.

This may all seem understandable—people want to know if what they’re reading was generated by a bot, and some argue they deserve to know. However, such controversy narrows the issue of A.I.’s steady encroachment to one of process, rather than impact.

Drawing a red line around using chatbots to generate prose may make it easier to ignore the way that the technology may be shaping writing before one even types a single word. And a culture of callouts, scandals, and fear may prevent media and publishing from wrestling with much thornier questions of authorship.

At the center of many of these controversies is a company called Pangram, whose CEO, Max Spero, has become the go-to authority when A.I. authorship disputes erupt. On Twitter/X, where Spero calls himself a "slop janitor," a user flagged a Guardian sports journalist’s writing as A.I.-generated. The publication responded that this was "the same style he’s used for 11 years writing for the Guardian, long before LLMs existed. The allegation is preposterous."

Spero quote-tweeted the exchange with a Pangram time-series analysis of 871 articles by the journalist: "It’s clear that he is increasingly relying on AI. In two weeks in February he churned out nine articles classified by Pangram as fully AI-generated. Receipts below."

Or take Pangram’s appearance in the Shy Girl cancellation. Readers on Reddit and YouTube had been flagging the horror novel as suspiciously A.I. for months, but then Spero ran the full manuscript and posted the result (78 percent A.I.-generated). Hachette pulled the book the day the Times piece ran. A story in the Atlantic soon followed. Spero was on LinkedIn, urging publishers to "strictly moderat[e] AI generated content" and "draft and enforce robust AI-use policy."

A pattern emerges: The crowd suspects a problem, then Pangram validates the suspicion, stokes the mob, and sells the solution. The impulse to dismiss all this as a detector company drumming up business runs into an issue—Pangram actually works way better than you might think. Brian Jabarian, a University of Chicago economist who conducted a rigorous independent evaluation of A.I. detectors, told me flatly, "This narrative that we shouldn’t use A.I. detection doesn’t seem to hold anymore."

Jabarian’s preprint, co-authored with Alex Imas and with no disclosed financial ties to the company, tested the tool across nearly 2,000 passages and found near-zero false-positive and false-negative rates on medium-to-long texts, the length of a typical op-ed or a verbose Amazon review.

Independent benchmarks confirm that Pangram outperforms every other detector tested and is robust against "humanizers," or software designed to smuggle A.I. text past detectors. So when Spero posts a time-series chart of hundreds of articles showing when a journalist’s output started sounding fishily like ChatGPT, I am inclined to believe it. That A.I. detection is finally catching up is, on balance, a Good Thing. A.I.-generated articles already far outnumber human ones. Social media is flooded with low-effort slop. According to Pangram’s own research, a fifth of peer reviews submitted to the A.I. research conference ICLR are fully A.I.-generated, and 9 percent of American newspapers contain undisclosed bot use. In this A.I.-powered asphyxiation of the information ecosystem, Spero has positioned himself on social media as a folk hero hauling in the oxygen tanks. You can tag his company’s bot on Twitter/X, and it will tell you whether a post is A.I. On Spero’s social media to-do list: a "slop hunter of the week leaderboard."

Read More ...