Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Suvrat Dhanorkar, Associate Professor of Operations Management, Georgia Institute of Technology

Across corporate earnings calls, investor presentations and marketing pitches, “artificial intelligence” has become the buzzword of choice. Yet a troubling pattern lies under the hype. Many claims vastly overstate actual AI sophistication, misleading people about true capabilities, future outcomes and potential harms.

A case in point is the recent 600% share price surge of Allbirds, after the once-trendy sustainable footwear business issued a vague announcement in April 2026 that it would pivot to AI. In the coming months, the company plans to rename itself NewBird AI and give up its status as a public benefit corporation.

As a scholar who studies corporate sustainability, I see parallels between this “AI washing” phenomenon – when companies oversell the benefits of AI while glossing over the risks – and the greenwashing trend in the recent past, when companies claimed to commit to sustainability but didn’t enact fundamental change. Widespread deception was rampant, with businesses spending far more on green marketing than on actual sustainability improvements. And those efforts often backfired on both the companies and the communities they served. Even more worrisome: AI washing’s rapid rise and widespread adoption will likely eclipse the greenwashing trends.

How we got here

AI washing is thriving because companies and policymakers ignore four important principles. These shortfalls, in the past, also characterized greenwashing.

First, AI guidelines lack standardization. By 2019, 84 sets of AI ethics principles and guidelines had already been published. By 2023, this number had exploded to more than 200 – a mess of voluntary frameworks from companies, research institutions and public organizations.

Making matters worse is that the U.S. currently relies on fragmented AI rules, with most being voluntary. The Trump administration has generally sided with Big Tech to push back efforts at state or federal regulation. At a global level, one of the few exceptions is the European Union AI Act, perhaps one of the most comprehensive frameworks, but its implementation won’t be fully phased in until 2027 or later.

In the early 2000s, corporate sustainability faced a similar credibility crisis. Every company measured sustainability differently, making comparisons impossible and greenwashing easy. The breakthrough came only when standardized, industry-specific metrics allowed meaningful benchmarking. Initiatives such as the Global Reporting Initiative and Sustainability Accounting Standards Board established common metrics for measuring environmental impact, social responsibility and quality of governance, known by the shorthand ESG.

When companies must report carbon emissions using the same methodology, for example, or disclose labor conditions using identical categories, investors can compare performance, identify laggards and allocate capital accordingly. This push made comparisons possible and deception harder, although it still wasn’t foolproof. For example, a 2023 United Nations Environment Programme report on the fast-fashion industry found that many companies continue to make “vague and inflated” sustainability claims.

Second, there are no comprehensive frameworks in the U.S. that require businesses to judge how AI affects them in a material way and publicly disclose those impacts. Examples of AI-driven material impacts include whether algorithmic bias shapes business outcomes, or whether decisions on how to use AI systems carry significance for shareholders and the public.

Instead, AI governance remains dominated by the narrow inner circle of companies that build the AI systems, while affected communities rarely have a say in determining which AI impacts are material enough to warrant public attention. For example, Big Tech companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple, NVIDIA and others adhere to their own AI governance guidelines, with relatively little public input.

The development of sustainability principles offers some examples of how to build these frameworks. The EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive requires over 50,000 companies to formally evaluate which sustainability topics are material to their stakeholders, and then disclose that information. These efforts try to ensure that accountability is clear across entire supply chains.

While nowhere nearly as comprehensive, U.S. regulations such as the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform and California’s law requiring reporting on statewide greenhouse gas emissions provide a similar blueprint that U.S. policymakers could build on if they chose.

A third problem is the general lack of third-party verification, making AI washing trivially easy. Effective disclosure means reporting all material impacts – not just cherry-picked successes.

In practice, AI audits can vary dramatically in rigor, scope and methodology. One auditor might conduct extensive testing across demographic groups, analyze decision-making and validate the quality of training data. Another might simply review documentation and accept company explanations at face value. Given the variety of AI auditing models out there, different auditors may use incompatible methodologies, making results impossible to compare. If companies adopted third-party accreditation systems to assess how they use AI, they would help ensure the accountability that self-reported claims cannot match.

By contrast, there was reasonable progress in this respect as companies adopted ESG principles. For example, institutions such as the Carbon Disclosure Project and Global Reporting Initiative have a network of partners that offer independent verification. These providers, certified under international standards, verify corporate sustainability data against rigorous criteria. That way, they provide the assurance that lets companies show the progress needed to unlock sustainable finance and mitigate legal risks. Third-party audits are far from perfect, but they offer a clear path for improvement.

The fourth principle is robust enforcement. Early ESG initiatives relied on reputational pressure and stakeholder goodwill – things that corporations routinely ignored when profits were at stake. When change came, it was because regulations established legal liability and financial penalties.

These consequences changed how corporations assess risk and continue to shape sustainability practices today. Volkswagen’s 2015 ‘Dieselgate’ scandal, for example, cost the company over US$30 billion in fines, settlements and criminal charges after U.S regulators found that the carmaker was cheating emissions tests. BP faced billions in penalties and liabilities for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, the biggest oil spill in the history of marine oil drilling operations.

The current enforcement gap in AI creates a predictable dynamic. The expected value of AI washing – like potential investment gains, competitive advantage, and market valuation increases – far exceeds the expected cost in terms of penalties and risk of detection. Until enforcement imposes consequences that exceed benefits, AI washing will persist as a rational business strategy rather than a risk to a business’s reputation.

Fortunately, investors are beginning to step up. The Federal Trade Commission, for example, launched Operation AI Comply in 2024, targeting deceptive AI claims, although this effort has been partially scaled back by the current Trump administration.

New standards for a new era

Until businesses address these four principles, AI washing will continue. Without standards and audits, even well-intentioned companies can’t know if their work meets adequate rigor. Without assessments of material impact, some groups of consumers or shareholders will be hurt. And without liability, even thorough auditors won’t be able to identify whether a business’s claims about AI are truthful.

These principles, applied broadly, also help explain why greenwashing persists. For example, the lack of universal reporting standards continues to leave some gaps, with data-quality issues persisting even as reporting frameworks emerged. More fundamentally, political buy-in for ESG has diminished significantly, particularly in the U.S., where over 150 bills were introduced across multiple states by 2023 to disincentivize firms from adopting ESG. Major financial institutions – including JP Morgan, State Street, BlackRock and PIMCO – have retreated from their earlier climate commitments amid political pressure as well as antitrust concerns.

This trend shows that even well designed accountability measures require durable political support to succeed. After all, corporate sustainability took more than 25 years to develop from an initial framework to mandatory standards, and it still remains a work in progress. AI, by contrast, is advancing exponentially in terms of its reach and societal impact. There may not be 25 years to catch up – but at least there are lessons from the recent past.

Suvrat Dhanorkar does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Companies are hyping AI the same way they talked up sustainability, but there are ways to fix that – https://theconversation.com/companies-are-hyping-ai-the-same-way-they-talked-up-sustainability-but-there-are-ways-to-fix-that-282013

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Claire Fontijn, Professor of Music, Wellesley College

The Paris Opera has staged iconic works like “Don Carlos” and “Les Troyens,” along with celebrated ballets such as “Les Indes Galantes” and “The Rite of Spring.”

But you’d be forgiven for not having heard of Antonia Bembo, whose 1707 opera “Ercole Amante” – “Hercules in Love” – will be staged at Paris’ Opéra Bastille for the first time on May 28, 2026. Born around 1640, Bembo and her opera remained obscure for centuries, due to the vagaries of her music manuscripts and the historical neglect of women composers.

I have been studying Bembo since 1990. At the time, scholars knew nothing about her life; she had merely been a name on the title pages to her music manuscripts. Once I confirmed that she was not born into, but had married into, the patrician Bembo family, I was able to not only identify her, but also tell her story in my 2006 biography, “Desperate Measures: The Life and Music of Antonia Padoani Bembo.”

Until recently, interest in Bembo and her music had been relatively modest, her name one among many historical women composers. A European premiere devoted to her work marks a major step forward.

Escape from Venice

Bembo’s obscurity was partly of her own making.

Trained as a musician in Venice, she fled from an abusive husband and settled in Paris in 1677. There, she sang before Louis XIV, who provided the means for her to live in a women’s residential community near the newly constructed Porte Saint-Denis, a triumphal arch along the Boulevard de Bonne-Nouvelle.

She wrote music by hand and gifted it to the king to thank him for his generosity, producing numerous cantatas, arias, celebratory motets and dramatic works. Nevertheless, she must have lived in constant fear of being found in Paris by her husband: Only when he died in 1703 did she feel free to assemble her manuscripts into finished, presentable volumes.

By the time of her death around 1720, she’d bound eight volumes of works. Four have lain in France’s National Library for centuries, two have been lost, and the two containing “Ercole Amante” were acquired at auction by the Music Department at the National Library in 1937. That same year, musicologist Yvonne Rokseth published an article in The Musical Quarterly in which she wrote about the contents of the opera, as well as the compositions in Bembo’s other volumes.

I was a graduate student at Duke University in search of a dissertation topic in 1990 when I came across Rokseth’s article. It was the first time I had heard Bembo’s name. I obtained the microfilms of Bembo’s music, and my adviser gave me the go-ahead to pursue a study of her life and works.

For months I searched for documents mentioning the composer at the Paris National Archives and came up empty-handed. During a short trip to Venice in 1991, I found a book of names of women who married into noble families. From its contents, I posited that she had been born Antonia Padoani and had married into the Bembo family. The following year, I had a breakthrough: I found an envelope of documents at the State Archives of Venice that revealed she had left most of her belongings at the Convent of San Bernardo in Murano. She’d also left her 14-year-old daughter, Diana, at the convent in order to protect her from her father.

With these hints, I was able to find more information about Bembo’s life in documents located at the Patriarchal Archive, the Correr Museum and the Marciana Library in Venice.

Over time, I was able to flesh out enough details from Bembo’s life and works to write my biography.

A life comes into focus

The only child of medical doctor and amateur poet Giacomo Padoani and his wife, Diana Paresco, Antonia Padoani received an education in music and grammar in Venice.

Giacomo Padoani arranged to have Francesco Cavalli, the foremost Venetian composer of the day, teach his daughter.

Famously, Cavalli had been called to Paris in 1660 to write an opera for the wedding of Louis XIV and the Spanish infanta, María Teresa. That opera, “Ercole Amante,” was based on a libretto, or script, by Francesco Buti.

Giacomo Padoani’s Venetian contemporary, poet Giulio Strozzi, also hired Cavalli to teach his daughter, Barbara. But whereas Barbara would go on to publish a series of her compositions, Antonia took a different path that likely disappointed her father. Instead of pursuing a career as a musician or a poet, she married Lorenzo Bembo. He gave her noble status and three children, but it came with a great deal of trouble.

In 1672, Antonia Bembo – then living in the back part of a house known as Cà Bembo in the neighborhood of Santa Maria Nova – sued for divorce, citing Lorenzo’s infidelity along with mental and physical abuse. The lawsuit was unsuccessful, so five years later, she slipped out of town to start her new life in Paris, leaving her husband and children behind.

In 1707, Bembo completed her composition of a new musical score for Buti’s opera libretto. Like Cavalli’s opera, it follows Hercules, who becomes obsessed with Iole, the daughter of a man he has killed. Iole happens to also be in a relationship with Hercules’ son, and Hercules’ pursuit ends up setting off a chain of rivalries among gods and mortals.

In some ways, Bembo improved upon Cavalli’s original opera. A story about an aging Hercules in the 1700s better coincided with Louis XIV’s life arc than when Cavalli had composed the opera for the 22-year-old king’s wedding. And whereas the French public had objected to the Italian language Cavalli used in his opera, Bembo’s union of Italian and French musical styles – reflecting what she had heard and learned in Venice and Paris – made it more accessible.

The time has come

So why is Bembo’s opera only reaching the stage in 2026?

First, her handwritten score was difficult to decipher. Unlike Barbara Strozzi’s scores, which were printed and published during her lifetime, Bembo’s manuscripts have presented challenges for performers. The Opéra de Paris created a performance score of “Ercole Amante” by employing an editorial team that corrected mistakes and rectified inconsistencies.

Second, women composers of early music operas – traditionally excluded from the operatic canon – have only recently started having their works staged. In 2023, for example, “Céphale et Procris,” an opera written by Bembo’s French contemporary Élisabeth-Claude Jacquet de La Guerre, along with Francesca Caccini’s “Alcina,” were performed at the Boston Early Music Festival.

With a star-studded cast and a large Baroque orchestra under the baton of Leonardo García-Alarcón, the staging of Bembo’s manuscript, which has lain dormant for centuries, is an occasion to rejoice.

Now, Bembo’s operatic masterpiece can claim its place alongside the legacy of her teacher, Francesco Cavalli. It also places her alongside Jean-Baptiste Lully, Marc-Antoine Charpentier and Michel-Richard de Lalande as one of Louis XIV’s “artisans of glory” – the group of artists, architects, composers and performers who helped construct the image of the “Sun King” as a divinely ordained monarch.

Claire Fontijn does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Antonia Bembo fled Venice to escape her abusive husband – over three centuries later, her opera finally takes the stage – https://theconversation.com/antonia-bembo-fled-venice-to-escape-her-abusive-husband-over-three-centuries-later-her-opera-finally-takes-the-stage-281220

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Claire L. Ma, Postdoctoral Research Fellow of Public Health, University of Michigan

The resignation of Marty Makary, commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, on May 12, 2026, brought to the forefront a heated controversy over fruit-flavored nicotine vapes.

Rumors had been circulating for weeks that President Donald Trump was planning to fire Makary, in large part due to Makary’s disagreement with Trump over the FDA’s recent approval of two fruit-flavored vapes. Makary reportedly disagreed in private with the FDA’s decision, which came soon after Trump pushed the FDA to move more quickly in approving fruit-flavored vapes.

Before that FDA approval, the agency had only approved menthol- and tobacco-flavored nicotine vapes. The clash between Trump and Makary over whether to allow fruit-flavored vapes is a high-profile example of the continued debate surrounding these products.

Beyond Washington, the public health community is also divided. Researchers are working to understand how flavored vapes affect public health, but the evidence is complicated.

We are a team of public health researchers who study scientific evidence, health policy and regulation as it relates to tobacco and nicotine products. Our team at the Center for the Assessment of Tobacco Regulations at the University of Michigan and University of Massachusetts Amherst is studying questions about flavors in these products.

The authorization of two fruit-flavored vapes marks a pivotal moment in U.S. e-cigarette regulation.

FDA’s role in regulating tobacco and nicotine

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which was signed into law in 2009, gave the FDA the authority to regulate the manufacture, distribution and marketing of tobacco products. This includes nicotine alternatives such as e-cigarettes, vapes and oral nicotine pouches.

Tobacco and nicotine products, such as major cigarette brands, that were on the market before 2007 did not require FDA authorization, but new products, like vapes, do. To be authorized, new tobacco and nicotine products must meet the standard of being “appropriate for the protection of public health”. In other words, their benefits to the population as a whole must be judged to outweigh their risks.

The Center for Tobacco Products at the FDA is responsible for making these decisions and implementing regulations. Academic research centers, like ours, support the center in understanding how its policies might affect public health.

Vaping has a lower relative risk than smoking

Vaping nicotine is not risk-free, but research is clear that it is much less harmful than smoking. Vapes and e-cigarettes don’t contain tobacco leaf like cigarettes do, nor do they have the same toxic chemicals that are found in cigarettes. Smoking involves burning organic material, which releases cancer-causing pollutants; vaping does not.

Vapes can contain potentially harmful chemicals, but these are usually in much lower amounts than those found in cigarettes. Nicotine is an addictive chemical, but it does not on its own cause cancer. The FDA’s regulation and oversight of vapes is important for public safety. As of May 2026, the FDA has approved 45 vaping products that can be lawfully sold in the U.S.

On the other hand, the U.S. is flooded with illegal vapes, including colorful devices manufactured in China. It can be difficult to know what is in illegal vapes.

Because vaping is not risk-free but has a lower relative risk than smoking, it presents an increased risk for people who do not otherwise use tobacco or smoke, but a decreased risk for people who smoke.

Flavored vapes attract new users, especially youth

Flavored vapes can include menthol and mint, fruit and sweet flavors and concept flavors with names like “jazz,” “solar,” “fusion” and “unicorn puke.” Other flavored vapes are often packaged in bright and appealing colors, even if they do not include explicit flavor description words.

The recent FDA decision to approve two fruit- and sweet-flavored nicotine vapes, which have the color-coded names of “Sapphire” and “Gold,” is a potentially significant expansion of the FDA’s approach to authorizing e-cigarettes.

Research shows that flavored vapes attract new users, including young people who do not have a history of smoking tobacco. It also shows that experimenting with flavors increases the appeal of vapes among adolescents. Young people often think fruit-flavored vapes are less harmful than tobacco-flavored vapes.

Flavored vapes might help people quit smoking

Flavored vapes can attract youth, but they can also appeal to people who smoke. For people who smoke, switching to nicotine vapes can diminish their exposure to cancer-causing chemicals and potentially lower their likelihood of tobacco-related disease.

Researchers regularly assess the scientific evidence on whether e-cigarettes can help people stop smoking. Regularly updated evidence across more than a hundred studies continues to show that nicotine vapes can help people who use cigarettes to quit smoking.

However, researchers don’t yet know whether or how adding flavors to vapes might affect smoking and vaping. While fruity and sweet flavors can be appealing to people who smoke, tobacco and menthol flavors are sometimes more popular among older people who have a history of smoking tobacco.

As the recent clash between Trump and Makary shows, the debate over flavored vapes continues. Whatever the outcome, it remains important that decisions made about vapes are based on scientific evidence, and that the reasons behind policy decisions are communicated effectively to the public.

Claire L. Ma is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Center for the Assessment of Tobacco Regulations, where she leads research dissemination efforts for the Policy Analysis and Dissemination Core. Her research is funded by the FDA and NIH through a Federal grant to the University of Michigan School of Public Health. Dr. Ma does not receive any funding from the tobacco or vaping industries.

Holly Jarman is the Co-Lead of the Policy and Dissemination Core for the Center for the Assessment of Tobacco Regulations (CAsToR) at the University of Michigan and receives funding from the NIH and FDA for that work. Jarman does not receive any funding from the tobacco or vaping industries.

Jamie Hartmann-Boyce receives funding from the NIH, FDA, Truth Initiative, Cancer Research UK and the Massachusetts Department of Health for research related to tobacco control. She does not receive any funding from tobacco or vaping industries.

– ref. Flavored vapes led to a major shake-up at the FDA – 3 health policy analysts explain the science behind the controversial products – https://theconversation.com/flavored-vapes-led-to-a-major-shake-up-at-the-fda-3-health-policy-analysts-explain-the-science-behind-the-controversial-products-283048

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Wendy Melillo, Associate Professor of Journalism, American University School of Communication

This article includes examples of antisemitic hate speech.

The men accused of carrying out high-profile antisemitic attacks in the United States in recent years shared an important characteristic: They posted hate speech on their social media accounts beforehand.

The FBI said the man who drove his truck into a synagogue outside Detroit in March 2026 posted on Facebook that “Israel is a cancerous/malignant growth” and “Israel is pure evil.” The online footprint of the gunman charged with shooting and killing two Israeli Embassy staffers at the Capital Jewish Museum in May 2025 contained anti-Israel comments. The shooter sentenced to death for killing 11 worshippers at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh in October 2018 frequently used antisemitic hate speech in his social media.

Hate speech uses feelings, emotions and attitudes that seek to dehumanize individuals or groups. At times, animosity is clear. But it can also take a more hidden form, using code words or terms understood only by like-minded people. Coded hate speech can evade online content censors and recruit people who might balk at more clearly discriminatory speech.

There are an estimated 5.7 billion social media accounts worldwide. Even when hate speech is explicit, content moderators struggle with the volume and deciding how much to monitor users’ speech. There are also alternative – some argue extremist – sites that limit content moderation, including 4chan, BitChute, Gab, GETTR, Parler, Rumble and Truth Social.

We are a group of interdisciplinary researchers at American University who study the rhetorical strategies behind overt and coded hate speech on social media. Our Unmasking Antisemitism project uses artificial intelligence, qualitative analysis and survey experiments to develop studies and tools to detect both types of terms. This article discusses examples of antisemitic hate speech that are disturbing but illustrate types of terms and how to counter this dangerous influence.

Two types of hate speech

To understand the difference between direct and coded hate speech, consider shooter Robert Bowers’ language before the Tree of Life massacre. On Gab, he used older, virulently antisemitic slurs such as “kike,” a “highly offensive term used to insult and denigrate people of Jewish faith or ethnicity that is widely considered to be a form of hate speech,” according to the American Jewish Committee.

Other extremist terms are just as offensive but less obvious, such as “oven dodger,” which Bowers also used on Gab: a reference to how German Nazis systematically exterminated Jews during the Holocaust. Like overt phrases, coded terms often draw on older, well-researched antisemitic tropes, such as “Jews have too much power,” repacking them in new words and phrases.

They can also have double meanings, which makes hate speech harder to moderate. The original definition of “globalist” refers to a person who believes that policies should be planned with the whole world’s interest in mind rather than just one country. But globalist also has an antisemitic connotation.

As the American Jewish Committee “Translate Hate” glossary puts it, antisemites often use “globalist” to disparage Jews, promoting a conspiracy theory that “Jewish people do not have allegiance to their countries of origin, like the United States, but to some worldwide order – like a global economy or international political system – that will enhance their control over the world’s banks, governments and media.” This repackages long-standing Nazi and Soviet propaganda about Jews based on historical antisemitic tropes.

How terms develop

In the early days of social media, companies responded to criticism of the more hateful content on their platforms by using a combination of AI and human analysis to moderate content. The automated tools use natural language processing to analyze context, detect slurs and flag content. Human workers analyze more complex language, such as irony and slang.

But keeping up with the volume of posts is challenging, especially for more subtle hate speech. Our team’s goals are to identify coded antisemitic terms, understand how they develop, and create technology to track them.

The key is to understand that hate terms have a life cycle. Some take a path toward more public use, while others disappear.

New terms tend to emerge from a small set of people considered leaders or influencers in antisemitic circles online. In some cases, their communities adopt the term and normalize it; other times, it’s dropped from use.

The term “cultural Marxism,” which has its origins in the antisemitic belief that Jewish intellectuals seek to subvert Western culture, was adopted into wider use. “Jew jab,” on the other hand – a white supremacist conspiracy theory claiming that COVID-19 vaccines were a Jewish plot to harm people – soon disappeared.

Tracking hate

In our initial pilot project we started with 46 antisemitic terms, both overt and coded, from the American Jewish Committee’s glossary. We entered the terms in Pyrra, now called Alert Media – a private software company that allows users to scrape posts from a collection of social media sites.

Researchers trained in definitions of antisemitism, historical antisemitic tropes and hate speech detection identified 24 additional terms. White supremacists use the symbol “1488,” for example, to identify each other. The first part, “14,” references the “14-word” slogan of white supremacist leader David Lane. The “88” stands for “Heil Hitler,” based on “h” being the eighth letter of the alphabet. Other coded terms are less well known, such as “DOTR” or “Day of the Rope,” a reference to the 1978 book “The Turner Diaries,” which was written under a pseudonym by neo-Nazi William Pierce.

To track which coded terms have spread to the general public, we scrutinized mainstream media content and ran survey experiments to see whether people recognized them. We also developed an AI software tool designed to automatically track how coded language evolves. The app is trained on data from Pyrra and learns to identify new antisemitic terms based on the context in which they appear.

First, the app identifies distinctive terms based on how frequently they appear in each post, versus how rare they are on the platform in general. To find out whether these terms have an antisemitic connotation, we encode their context, such as other words in the post, and calculate whether it is close to the context of already known antisemitic terminology. Some of the terms our app has identified are explicit, while others are coded.

This approach can also be applied to hate speech targeted at other groups, such as Latinos, LGBTQ+ people and women. We aim to create a tool kit that can be distributed to nonprofit groups, think tanks and policymakers considering legislative efforts to curb hate speech.

Humans and machines

Given the massive number of posts on social media every day, our work illustrates how detecting new hate speech requires an interdisciplinary group of researchers working with machines.

One academic discipline working independently is too siloed, and humans alone can’t handle the scale. But machines alone can’t understand sophisticated human language, slang or context.

History shows that at every moment of profound technological change in our communication systems, incidents targeting Jews or other minority groups go up dramatically. This era’s technical innovation is unprecedented – but unfortunately, hate speech now travels around the globe almost instantly. Technology may be part of the problem, but its immense power can be harnessed to create a solution.

We received internal funding for this project from American University as part of its Signature Research Initiative.

– ref. Uncovering coded antisemitism online takes both human expertise and AI automation – https://theconversation.com/uncovering-coded-antisemitism-online-takes-both-human-expertise-and-ai-automation-272150

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Sonia Suter, Professor of Law, George Washington University

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided that patients can continue to get mifepristone, one of the two drugs used for medication abortion, via telehealth and by mail. At least for now.

A lower court had temporarily blocked this access nationwide in early May 2026. The case now returns to that lower court, although it may well make it back to the Supreme Court in the future.

Since 2023, almost two-thirds of abortions in the United States have involved mifepristone, and since late 2024 one-quarter of all abortions occur through abortion pills provided via telehealth.

As scholars who study laws affecting reproductive health, we believe the outcome of this case will have an enormous impact on access to abortion care across the country.

In states with abortion bans, telehealth prescriptions have allowed women to get abortions anyway. But the case is also significant to those in states without abortion bans, especially women with low incomes and disabilities or who live in rural areas, where reproductive services are extremely limited.

How did the case get to this point?

The case began in October 2025, when Louisiana argued that the Biden administration’s allowance of telehealth abortions was for “avowedly political reasons.” The state asserted that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had insufficient evidence to remove the requirement that the drug be dispensed in person, which had been in place from 2000 through 2021.

The state also argued that mailing mifepristone violated an 1873 federal law known as the Comstock Act. This law, which makes it a crime to mail or ship any “lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile article” and anything that “is advertised or described in a manner … for producing abortion,” has rarely been enforced.

The lower court thought Louisiana would likely win, but it decided to keep the FDA regulations in place while the case made its way through the courts. On May 1, 2026, however, the appellate court suspended the FDA regulation allowing mifepristone to be prescribed via telehealth.

As a result, mifepristone could no longer be mailed or prescribed via telehealth, nationwide. Three days later, on May 4, after the manufacturers of mifepristone appealed, the Supreme Court put the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision on hold for a week to give it more time to consider the legal issues. On May 11, it extended the stay for a few more days.

What does the SCOTUS decision mean for mifepristone access?

On May 14, the Supreme Court decided to leave the FDA’s regulation in effect, so mifepristone remains available for prescription via telehealth. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, with Alito accusing the court of “perpetrat[ing] a scheme to undermine” the court’s decision in the 2022 Dobbs ruling that overturned the constitutional right to an abortion and allowed states to ban it. Thomas added his view that the Comstock Act makes it a criminal offense to mail mifepristone.

The case now returns to the 5th Circuit, which has signaled how it is likely to rule on this question. Namely, that it believes the FDA has exceeded its authority in allowing the drug to be prescribed via telehealth. Once the case has been resolved in the lower courts, it could end up before the Supreme Court again. If the court decides to strike down the rule, or if the FDA rescinds it, then women in all states would no longer be able to get the pills by mail, not just in the 13 total-ban states.

Why has mifepristone become so contested?

In 2000, the FDA approved mifepristone specifically to end pregnancies. In combination with telehealth, it allows for abortion to occur outside of a doctor’s office. Accordingly, anti-abortion groups have attempted to discredit mifepristone’s safety and effectiveness for decades, even though mifepristone has been shown to be as safe as ibuprofen and safer than Viagra.

Mifepristone first became available in France in 1998. In 2000, the FDA approved mifepristone in the U.S. after evaluating rigorous studies that showed it to be safe and effective.

Initially, the FDA required the drug to be prescribed and taken at a doctor’s office. But after further review of research on the drug’s safety under the Biden administration, the agency changed some of the prescribing regulations, making it easier to access the drug.

One change made permanent in 2023 was to allow mifepristone to be prescribed via telehealth and mailed. That is the regulation at issue in the Louisiana case.

But after the 2022 Dobbs ruling, mifepristone became even more of a target. Anti-abortion groups realized that people could effectively evade abortion bans by receiving abortion pills through the mail. After Dobbs, in fact, the number of abortions increased, and by June 2025 telehealth abortions had increased fivefold, with more than half of them occurring in abortion-ban states.

The attempts to challenge mifepristone first reached the Supreme Court in 2024, when anti-abortion physicians and groups challenged the FDA’s approval of mifepristone and changes in its prescribing regulations that made it easier to access the pill.

The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the case on the grounds that the challengers did not have legal standing to bring the claim. Legal standing requires the parties to show they suffered concrete harms or injuries.

Since then several states, including Louisiana, have brought lawsuits with the same kinds of challenges to the FDA’s authority. The Louisiana case is the first to reach the Supreme Court. It is also the first state to reclassify mifepristone as a dangerous controlled substance.

Is this likely to happen with the other abortion pill?

The legal challenges so far have been only to mifepristone, one of the two pills used for medication abortion.

Unlike mifepristone, which is approved only for abortion, misoprostol was approved in 1988 for a different purpose: to treat gastric ulcers.

Misoprostol is prescribed for abortion “off-label,” which means it is an unapproved use of an FDA-approved drug that a healthcare provider determined is medically appropriate for their patient.

In fact, 1 in 5 prescriptions is for off-label use of a drug.

While some studies suggest that using misoprostol alone for an abortion is slightly less effective than taking both pills together, many researchers express confidence in the misoprostol-only option.

And the court’s ruling does not affect access to “Plan B,” a pill that prevents pregnancy and thus is used as birth control, not to induce an abortion.

The Supreme Court’s action is certainly not the end of the story. Challenges to abortion pills will continue, particularly because the leaders of many states believe the availability of these pills prevents them from enforcing their abortion bans.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Supreme Court preserves access to mifepristone via telehealth – at least for now – https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-preserves-access-to-mifepristone-via-telehealth-at-least-for-now-282376

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Ashique KhudaBukhsh, Assistant Professor of Computing and Information Sciences, Rochester Institute of Technology

When you ask a large language model a question, the reply may include falsehoods, and if you challenge those statements with facts, the AI may still uphold the reply as true. That’s what my research group found when we asked five leading models to describe scenes in movies or novels that don’t actually exist.

We probed this possibility after I asked ChatGPT its favorite scene in the movie “Good Will Hunting.” It noted a scene between leading characters. But then I asked, “What about the scene with the Hitler reference?” There is no such scene in the movie, yet ChatGPT confidently constructed a vivid and plausible description of one.

The confabulation – sometimes called an AI hallucination – revealed something deeper about how AI systems reason. References to Hitler are not uncommon in films, which apparently convinced ChatGPT to accept and elaborate on a false premise rather than correct it. I study the social impact of AI, and this surprise response led my colleagues and me to a broader question: What happens when AI systems are gently pushed toward falsehoods? Do they resist, or do they comply?

We developed an approach we called hallucination audit under nudge trial to answer those questions. We had conversations with five leading models about 1,000 popular movies and 1,000 popular novels. During the exchanges we raised plausible but false references to Hitler, dinosaurs or time machines. We did this in various suggestive ways, such as “For me, I really love the scene where …”

Our method works in three stages. First, the AI generates statements about a topic — such as a movie or a book — some true and some false. Second, in a separate interaction, the AI attempts to verify those statements. Third, we introduce a “nudge,” where the model is challenged with its own incorrect claims to see whether it resists or accepts them.

We found that AI models often struggle to remain consistent under pressure. Even when they initially identify a statement as false, they may later accept it when nudged – revealing a vulnerability that traditional evaluation methods fail to capture.

Our results have been accepted at the 2026 Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.

This tactic isn’t a hypothetical. When people talk, conversational pressure can emerge naturally. People may confidently repeat incorrect assumptions, partial recollections or misunderstandings. A person might say, “I’m pretty sure medicine X is effective for condition Y,” or “I remember event A happening before event B.” These statements can subtly influence an AI model.

Why it matters

What humans collectively remember, misremember and forget shapes our sense of reality. But if humans can persuade a model to accept a falsehood, that reveals an important vulnerability in AI’s capacity to provide accurate information.

Interactions in the real world are rarely static question-answer exchanges. They are interactive and iterative. An AI model’s willingness to reinforce falsehoods may seem harmless when chatting about movies, but in areas such as health, law or public policy, the tendency can have serious consequences. Our work highlights the need to evaluate not just what information AI systems have been trained on, but how reliably they stand by it.

What other research is being done

Our results add to other recent research into why large language models may produce hallucinations, and how it is that they can provide inconsistent information. Researchers are also trying to figure out why some models lean toward sycophancy – flattering or fawning over human users.

What still isn’t known

It’s not clear why some AI systems resist falsehoods better than others. In our tests, Claude was the most resistant, followed somewhat closely by Grok and ChatGPT, with Gemini and DeepSeek further behind.

Movies and novels are self-contained content. Scholars don’t know how AI might respond to pressure in much broader, complex real-world settings. As a start, my group is exploring how to extend our approach to scientific literature and health-related claims. We want to understand whether conversational pressure works differently when the discussion involves uncertainty or expertise.

How to design AI systems that remain both helpful and resistant to falsehoods under wide-ranging conversation remains an open challenge.

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

Ashique KhudaBukhsh receives funding from Lenovo.

– ref. You can persuade AI models to accept falsehoods as truth, study shows – https://theconversation.com/you-can-persuade-ai-models-to-accept-falsehoods-as-truth-study-shows-280989

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jane Stewart, Associate Professor of Plant Pathology, Colorado State University

In western Colorado, home to the treasured Palisade peach, cytospora canker is one of the most economically consequential fungal diseases faced by growers.

A recent survey conducted by Colorado State University in Orchard Mesa found that 100% of the orchards have trees infected with cytospora canker. In some orchards, you can smell the sweetness of gummosis, the sweet oozing of sap from a tree that occurs from injury, stress, pathogen infection or insect damage.

We are part of a team of fruit tree growers, extension personnel and researchers who are developing tools for mitigating cytospora canker in fruit tree orchards in Colorado and Utah.

In a study we published, we estimate this disease results in at least US$3 million in annual economic losses for growers in Colorado. In infected large branches, which are called scaffolds, the damage can result in a 50% loss of peaches per tree.

Peaches were first planted in Palisade and Grand Junction in 1882 by one of the first white settlers to the area, John Harlow. Peaches and other fruit trees have been Colorado staples ever since. In 2024, Colorado farmers produced roughly 15,000 tons of peaches valued at $34 million.

However, fruit tree production in the Intermountain West, which covers Colorado, Utah and Idaho, is threatened by diminishing water supplies, spring frosts, variable winter temperatures and soils that are above the ideal pH range for peach trees. Further exacerbating the environmental stresses are pest problems and the persistent cytospora canker disease.

What is cytospora canker?

Cytospora canker is caused by fungi within the genus Cytospora. These pathogens are found globally and affect more than 70 species of woody shrubs and trees. These fungi have been present on fruit trees in the U.S. since at least 1892 when cytospora canker was first discovered on peach, plum and almond trees in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Cytospora canker was first described as only a disease of stressed trees, but now it is recognized as a destructive disease in tree fruit across the U.S.

Growers expect peach trees to live for 20 years. The first five of those years are initial growth. The next 10 years are full production. Then, the tree’s productivity tapers off in the last five years of its life. The disease has halved the life of an orchard in Colorado from 20 years to 10 years or fewer. Trees that get infected during the first or second year are typically dead by year four or five before they reach peak production.

Cytopora canker typically enters through wounded and woody branches or twigs. Wounding occurs when branches are pruned to maintain tree vigor or through severe freezing or hail events. Freeze events are common in Colorado and are particularly harmful in the fall if temperatures drop abruptly without giving trees enough time to acclimate to the temperature shift.

Ice formation within plants causes swelling and cracking in woody tissues, as well as the formation of ice crystals within plant cells that can puncture the cells, leaving them vulnerable to oxidative damage and infection. Small cracks enable cytospora spores, like the seeds of a plant, to enter and begin to cause infections.

Cytospora canker and freeze

In 2020, a major freeze event damaged many trees throughout Colorado.

Following a warm October, temperatures dropped from 65 degrees Fahrenheit (18 degrees Celsius) to below 10 F (-23 C) in a 48-hour time span in the fruit region around the town of Hotchkiss. Because the recent temperatures had been in the 70s, there was not an appropriate amount of acclimation in the trees to be prepared for this large temperature drop. Leaves were still green, and sap was still flowing through the woody tissues.

The damage from this single freeze directly led to the death of tens of thousands of peach trees across the western slope of Colorado.

The sudden freeze also allowed for a proliferation of new cytospora canker infections on peaches trees that were not killed outright by the freeze. The surviving trees were often more vulnerable because the cracked skin and bark of peach branches was now exposed to infection by the fungus. This correlation between cytospora infection and cold damage is thought to be a major reason why cytospora canker is a particularly significant disease in Colorado.

To manage the pathogen, growers can remove trees that are infected, protect wounds with chemicals to prevent new infections and ensure that established trees are free of stress. However, management strategies have limited efficacy due to the growing conditions. While Palisade has the most ideal peach-growing microclimate in Colorado, the cold season is near the limits of what peaches can tolerate.

In April 2026 there were several nights when the temperatures reached into the low 20s F (-7 degrees C) in different orchards in Delta County, Colorado. Fruit had already started to grow and was very susceptible to the cold temperatures. As a result, growers around Hotchkiss and Paonia lost their peach crop.

Palisade orchards avoided that level of damage because on those same nights the temperatures dropped only to the upper 20s F (-2 degrees C), which damaged some fruit but left enough behind to have a full crop in most cases. Spring frosts like these reduce fruit production but generally aren’t going to contribute to increased proliferation of cytospora canker.

Solutions in progress

Researchers from Colorado State University are working toward developing strategies to combat this disease. Our team has developed chemical options for conventional and organic growers that have helped slow the spread. We are determining whether some peach cultivars are tolerant to the pathogens, and we are continuing to understand the population biology of cytospora to help us develop new management strategies.

The pathogen can be spread through air, on insects, during irrigation and possibly with the movement of new peach trees into orchards. Many fungi that produce cankers in trees can move spores only short distances through rain splash. But spores of the fungus have been found in collection traps about 250 feet (76 meters) from a tree with canker that is making spores.

We have established the cytospora working group as a collaborative research, extension and grower group to collectively develop solutions for cytospora canker. We are continuing to better understand factors involved in disease development and establish best management practices to help growers combat this disease and keep the Colorado peach industry vibrant.

Read more of our stories about Colorado.

Jane Stewart receives funding from USDA NIFA AFRI.

David Sterle does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. A fungal disease, along with climate change, threatens Colorado’s prized peaches – https://theconversation.com/a-fungal-disease-along-with-climate-change-threatens-colorados-prized-peaches-263246

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By David W. Stowe, Professor of Religious Studies, Michigan State University

As July 4, 2026, approaches, Americans will be paying more attention than usual to events of 1776: the year the American Colonies declared their independence from Great Britain. Public historians, including filmmaker Ken Burns, have tried to offer a more inclusive view of the American Revolution, highlighting lesser-known patriots. But figures such as Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin will undoubtedly get the lion’s share of attention on the 250th anniversary.

One important character who rarely makes it into the limelight is the pioneering composer William Billings, who lived in Boston at the time of the Revolution. Billings is widely considered America’s first noteworthy composer, publishing six tune books and writing some 340 choral works – some of which are still sung today.

Apprenticed at 14 as a leather tanner, he learned music in his spare time and became a renowned teacher of singing schools, which taught basic elements of music so people could sing hymns more confidently. He also became a staunch supporter of independence, one of the Boston “Whigs” who spearheaded the American Revolution.

I have been studying Billings for 25 years now and always find more of interest about him – so interesting, in fact, that I wrote a historical novel about him. He was a colorful character with a voracious appetite for snuff and an unforgettable appearance. As music historian Nathaniel Gould wrote in 1853, Billings was “blind with one eye, one leg shorter than the other, one arm somewhat withered, with a mind as eccentric as his person was deformed.”

‘Liberty songs’

Billings was a friend of Samuel Adams, the revolution’s great agent provocateur, and sang regularly with him. He likely knew Paul Revere, who is credited with engraving the frontispiece to Billings’ first tune book, “The New-England Psalm-Singer,” published in 1770.

That was the year of the Boston Massacre, when British soldiers fatally shot five civilians. The event was one of several incidents that eventually triggered the conflict later known as the Revolutionary War. Billings did not serve in the military, probably because of his disabilities. His contribution to the independence movement was his music.

A tune from his first collection, “Chester,” is one of Billings’ best known, for which he also wrote words:

The Foe comes on with haughty Stride;
Our troops advance with martial noise,
Their Vet’rans flee before our Youth
And Gen’rals yield to beardless Boys.

That was not the only Billings song with a revolutionary message.

“Lamentation Over Boston” adapted a Hebrew psalm about the Judeans’ exile in Babylon: “By the Rivers of Watertown we sat down & wept,” he wrote, referring to a town a few miles west, “when we remember’d thee O Boston.” Billings’ lyrics cast Britain as the oppressive Babylon: “For they that held them in Bondage/ Requir’d of them to take up Arms against their Brethren.” It may be the very first American protest song.

In 1778 Billings published “Independence: The States, O Lord”, again writing music and words:

The States, O Lord, with Songs of Praise shall in thy Strength rejoice,
And Blest with thy Salvation raise To Heav’n their cheerful voice….
And all the Continent shall sing: Down with this earthly King, No King but God.

There’s some evidence these songs had national reach.

“The words stirred the patriotic heart, and with their striking melodies were sung at home and by the choirs, and especially in the military camps,” Louis F. Benson wrote about Billings’ music in his 1915 study “The English Hymn.” “The New England soldiers learned the words by heart, and every fifer the tunes, and carried them to whatever part of the country duty called them.”

Billings’ pieces were only a handful of the hundreds of what John Adams called “liberty songs” circulating in the Colonies. Most of them were less pious than what Billings composed. “Some of the outrageously ribald songs would have horrified polite society,” according to historian Bruce C. Daniels, author of “Puritans at Play.” “Dozens of them made metaphorical reference to England as a whore.”

Struggle after Independence

The peak of Billings’ career was during the 10 years after the Declaration of Independence. Two years before, he had met Lucy Swan while leading a singing school in Stoughton, Massachusetts. They got married the same year and went on to have a large family. In 1780, they moved into a nice house on Boston’s fashionable Newbury Street.

In the late 1770s and 1780s Billings published four tune books, including arguably his most important, “The Singing Master’s Assistant.” He also tried his hand at writing prose and even served briefly as editor of The Boston Magazine before being fired, apparently for his poor taste. He published a grisly tale about a clan of incestuous cannibals from Scotland.

At some point, he seems to have given up leather tanning. But by the 1790s Billings was reduced to working as a street cleaner and hog wrangler. He had to mortgage his house. Lucy died in 1795, leaving William to single-parent their six children – including a daughter, also named Lucy, born three years earlier.

American musical tastes had changed. Billings’ rough-hewn “fuguing” songs, a style with vigorous counterpoint between the different voice parts, were no longer in fashion. Formally trained singing instructors competed for students in Boston.

And Billings was unable to secure copyright for his compositions. Before the Revolution, he succeeded in having a bill to protect his first tune book passed by the Massachusetts legislature. The Tory governor refused to sign it, however, perhaps due to Billings’ associations with patriots like Samuel Adams. In any event, several of his pieces were reprinted in other collections, and he was paid nothing.

When Billings died in 1800, he was buried on Boston Common in an unmarked grave. But his music was kept alive by shape-note singers, a style of musical notation that caught on in the 1800s and helped preserve older, sacred songs. Billings’ music played at least a small part in uniting American colonists well enough to defeat the powerful British military.

David W. Stowe does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. America’s musical founding father: ‘Liberty songs’ by a self-taught singer and tanner helped fuel the Revolution – https://theconversation.com/americas-musical-founding-father-liberty-songs-by-a-self-taught-singer-and-tanner-helped-fuel-the-revolution-278382

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Michael J. Bustamante, Associate Professor of History, University of Miami

Ever since U.S. commandos successfully removed Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela on Jan. 3, 2026, speculation has been growing that “Cuba could be next” on the list of the Trump administration’s targets.

“We’ll take over Cuba almost immediately,” President Donald Trump mused during a speech in Florida on May 1. “On the way back from Iran, we’ll have … the USS Abraham Lincoln come right by Cuba, stop about 100 yards offshore, and they’ll say, ‘Thank you very much, we give up.’”

It’s hard to say whether such remarks are just bluster. While the White House has been trying to coerce Cuban authorities into negotiated political and economic concessions through a de facto oil blockade since January, Trump has also reportedly grown frustrated by the Cuban government’s ability to outlast months of sustained U.S. pressure.

That has not stopped many Cubans and Cuban Americans from eagerly predicting a military operation’s success or insisting that such a U.S. action is necessary.

Their tool of choice? Not battle plans or political manifestos, but artificial intelligence. For weeks, Cuban social media feeds and WhatsApp groups have been filled with armchair fantasies of deliverance from communist rule made with tools like Midjourney, DALL-E, Runway and ChatGPT. In some clips and images, the island nation is represented as a female captive or a child being freed by an American protector. In others, magically renovated cityscapes feature statues and portraits erected in Trump’s honor, replacing revolutionary iconography.

It is easy to dismiss such animations as online trolling. But as a historian of Cuba, I noticed something troubling when my colleague Jorge Damian de la Paz sent me a selection of these digital illustrations and reels. Their visual language eerily mirrors classic U.S. political cartoons during Cuba’s final war for independence against Spain in the late 19th century. That imagery went on to justify U.S. meddling in Cuban affairs for decades.

A fraught history

In the 1890s, American illustrators at publications such as Puck, Judge and Harper’s Weekly similarly portrayed Cuba as a feminized victim: weak, vulnerable, often racialized as nonwhite and incapable of securing freedom on her own. They imagined grateful tropical citizens celebrating future American liberators for defeating their Spanish overlords and bestowing the benefits of “civilization” on Caribbean life.

Such tropes were not innocent. They helped generate the cultural consensus that legitimized U.S. intervention in the Cuban war in 1898 – known by most Americans as the Spanish-American War. They also shaped Cuba’s postwar order: four years of U.S. military occupation, an imposed amendment to Cuba’s first constitution authorizing future American military action to preserve stability, and decades of political and economic dependence on the United States.

Taking their cue from heroes of the independence struggle such as José Martí, many Cubans grew to resent this asymmetrical relationship with the North, even as they fell in love with imported American consumer products and cultural pastimes. Especially by the 1930s and 1940s, mainstream political movements on the island all sought to, at a minimum, rebalance the extent of U.S. influence over Cuban life. Their failure to do so was part of what propelled Fidel Castro’s radical nationalist revolution to power in 1959.

Reversing course

But today, formal and informal polling suggests that significant numbers of Cubans and Cuban Americans seem willing to welcome, or at least tolerate, the explicit U.S. intervention that most of their forefathers rejected.

AI-generated expressions of these views do not appear to be coming from staunchly anti-communist exiles in South Florida alone. Comments and reposts suggest they are resonating among Cubans living on the island, many of whom are desperate for “something, anything” to put an end to the worsening blackouts, shortages and societal paralysis that have made daily life feel like purgatory.

If a U.S. military operation is the only way to escape, one friend in Havana told me, “que sea rápido” – let it be over quickly.

What’s distinct about AI is that it is providing this fatalism with a visual vocabulary rooted in imperial attitudes from the 1890s. This makes sense when you consider how the technology works: Generative AI systems have been trained on enormous, often U.S.-centric archives of historical photographs and other materials. They easily reproduce the old cultural and political prejudices seen in these digital repositories.

As a result, image and video generators appear to be spitting 19th-century American discourses back at 21st-century Cuban users. The most extreme iterations of the imagery even resurrect a long-dormant idea from more than a century ago: the outright annexation of the island as a U.S. state. In so doing, AI provides narrative fuel for the Trump administration’s efforts to rewind the clock to an era when Washington condescendingly treated Latin America as its “backyard.”

Deprivation and desperation

The depth of Cuba’s predicament today helps explain why these images are going viral.

Long before the Trump administration cut off oil supplies, Cubans were enduring their worst economic, political and social crisis in three decades. Botched internal reform efforts, repression of dissent, and mass migration profoundly eroded faith in Cuba’s Communist Party leadership and institutions in recent years. This has been particularly true since the island’s tourist-heavy economy was hit hard by COVID-19 and 2021 mass protests rocked more than 50 towns and cities.

Of course, plenty of Cubans in Cuba still blame the long-standing U.S sanctions regime, and Trump’s unprecedented additions to it, for many of their problems. Not all are willing to accept change at any cost.

But Cuban officials’ defense of national sovereignty in the face of mounting U.S. threats rings increasingly hollow. Cuba hasn’t held a truly competitive election in nearly 80 years and has been ruled by a one-party state for 65. Under those circumstances, political independence does not rest on the consent of the governed. It’s also hard for a country to claim sovereignty when its economy relies so strongly on external patrons. such as Russia, China, Venezuela (until January) and even the United States. Despite the embargo, Cuban Americans send hundreds of millions of dollars in remittances, food, medicines and other goods annually.

The seduction of rescue

Yet even if fantasies of rescue are understandable, they should be deeply concerning to anyone who cares about Cuba’s future.

The danger posed by AI images is not simply that they normalize the idea of a U.S. military intervention that could cost Cuban lives. It is that they replace deeper civic imagination with spectacle and clickbait.

AI is offering visions of liberation without requiring Cubans to grapple with the far more difficult dilemmas that any real transition would entail. Those questions include how to rebuild institutions, restore trust, confront inequality, reconstruct the economy, forge reconciliation and negotiate competing political visions after decades of polarization and authoritarianism.

Prolonged desperation, coupled with authorities’ stubborn refusal to open the island’s political and economic systems, has narrowed some Cubans’ political horizons to the point where they outsource their own salvation rather than imagine it from the bottom up.

The coming weeks may determine whether digital fantasies turn into concrete policy or remain wishful thinking. But one thing is certain: AI images of U.S. military intervention in Cuba reveal that many Cubans and Cuban Americans have given up on defining change on Cuban terms. That choice could mean the difference between a Cuba that once again becomes a U.S. client state and one where Cubans reclaim ownership of their nation’s future.

Michael J. Bustamante does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. AI-generated fantasies of US intervention reveal how desperation has narrowed Cuba’s political horizons – https://theconversation.com/ai-generated-fantasies-of-us-intervention-reveal-how-desperation-has-narrowed-cubas-political-horizons-274932

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Karen Stollznow, Senior Research Fellow of Linguistics, University of Colorado Boulder; Griffith University

Many parents have heard the warning: Don’t use baby talk with babies and toddlers. Instead, caregivers are often encouraged to speak properly and use adultlike language, out of concern that simplified speech could confuse children or delay language development.

But my research, which I highlighted in in my new book, “Beyond Words,” suggests the opposite is true. The sing-song voice many adults instinctively use with infants, sometimes called “baby talk” but more accurately known as “parentese” or infant-directed speech, actually helps children learn language.

Far from confusing babies, exaggerating phrases like “Loooook at the doggie!” capture their attention, help them detect patterns in speech and strengthen social bonding.

And the funny mistakes children make along the way, such as saying “goed,” instead of “went,” or “mouses” instead of “mice,” are not signs that children are learning language incorrectly. They are evidence that children are actively working out the rules of language for themselves.

What parentese really is

When many people think of baby talk, they imagine nonsense phrases like “goo goo ga ga” or made-up words like “num nums.” But that’s not what linguists and developmental psychologists mean by parentese.

Parentese uses real words and grammatically correct sentences, but with exaggerated intonation, a higher pitch, stretched-out vowels and a slower rhythm. Think of the way a caregiver might naturally say: “Hi, baaaaby! Are you huuungry?”

There is little evidence that occasional playful nonsense words harm children’s language development. But studies suggest that parentese in particular helps babies pay attention to speech, recognize patterns and engage socially.

Adults across cultures tend to speak this way to infants instinctively. Even people who swear they never use baby talk often slip into it around babies.

Researchers have found that infants actually prefer listening to parentese over regular adult speech. The exaggerated sounds and slower pacing make language easier to process. Babies are better able to pick out individual sounds, notice word boundaries and recognize patterns. In other words, parentese helps tune babies into language.

It also strengthens emotional connection. Language learning does not happen in isolation. Babies learn through warm, responsive interaction with caregivers during feeding, play, bath time and everyday routines.

Interestingly, humans are not the only ones who respond to this style of communication. Studies have even shown that cats react more positively when people use a baby-talk voice with them.

Babies are not passive learners

Children do not learn language simply by copying adults word for word. They actively test hypotheses about how language works. That is why toddlers make predictable and surprisingly logical mistakes.

One common example is overgeneralization. A child learns that people form the past tense of many verbs by adding “-ed,” so they produce forms like “goed,” “eated” or “comed.”

These are not random errors. In fact, they show that the child has understood a grammatical rule and is trying to apply it consistently. The problem is simply that English is full of irregular exceptions. The same thing happens with plurals. Children may say “foots” instead of “feet” or “mouses” instead of “mice.” Again, the logic behind these errors is sound.

Linguists sometimes say that children are little scientists, constantly testing patterns and revising their understanding as they receive more input from the world around them.

Why toddlers call everything a ‘dog’

Young children also make predictable mistakes with meaning.

A toddler might learn the word “dog” and then use it for every four-legged animal they encounter. Linguists call this overextension. On the flip side, some children use words too narrowly. A child may use “dog” only for the family pet and not recognize that other dogs belong in the same category. Linguists call this tendency underextension.

These mistakes reveal how children organize and categorize the world around them. They are gradually mapping words onto objects, people and experiences.

Pronouns are another tricky area. Small children often confuse “me” and “you” because these words constantly shift depending on who is speaking. If a parent says, “I’ll pick you up,” the child hears themselves called “you.” But when they try to repeat the sentence, they may not yet understand that the labels switch from speaker to speaker.

This is why toddlers sometimes say things that sound unintentionally cute or confusing. But beneath the confusion is a sophisticated learning process.

Even the Cookie Monster gets it wrong

Children’s speech errors are so recognizable that they often appear in popular culture. Sesame Street’s character Cookie Monster famously says things like “Me want cookie,” while Elmo often refers to himself in the third person: “Elmo wants this.” These speech patterns mirror real stages of child language development. Young children commonly confuse pronouns or refer to themselves by name before mastering forms like “I,” “me” and “mine.”

Despite occasional complaints from adults, there is no evidence that hearing this kind of speech harms children’s language development. If anything, it reflects the natural experimentation children go through.

‘Pasketti’ and ‘wabbit’

Pronunciation develops gradually too. Young children often simplify difficult sounds and groups of consonants. “Spaghetti” becomes “pasketti,” “rabbit” becomes “wabbit” and “yellow” may come out as “lellow.”

Speech-language specialists call these simplifications phonological processes. They are a normal part of development because some sounds are physically harder to produce than others. Sounds such as r, th, sh and ch tend to develop later because they require more precise control of the tongue and mouth.

Most children naturally outgrow these pronunciation patterns as their speech matures. However, persistent difficulties can sometimes signal a speech or language disorder, which may require professional support.

Mistakes are part of learning

Parents are often under enormous pressure to do everything right, including helping their children learn to speak a language. But children do not learn language by avoiding mistakes. They learn through interaction, experimentation and repetition.

Parentese helps babies focus on speech and engage socially. The funny mistakes toddlers make reveal that they are actively piecing together the complex system of language and are often signs of normal development. Language acquisition is messy, creative and remarkably sophisticated.

Speaking in an exaggerated sing-song voice to a baby is not something parents and caregivers need to feel embarrassed about.

Far from harming language acquisition, it may help lay the foundation for it.

Karen Stollznow does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Is baby talk bad? Why ‘parentese’ actually helps babies learn language – https://theconversation.com/is-baby-talk-bad-why-parentese-actually-helps-babies-learn-language-282927