The AI vibe shift is real: Why the backlash is growing; Mashable, June 6, 2026

 Chris Taylor, Mashaable; The AI vibe shift is real: Why the backlash is growing

"But outside the AI bubble, a backlash is brewing, and not only among students booing pro-AI commencement speakers. 

Just 10 percent of Americans say they're thrilled about the future of AI, a Pew poll found in March; that same month, some 80 percent of registered U.S. voters in an NBC poll said neither Democrats nor Republicans are doing a good job on the AI front. That number also appears in an April survey of white-collar workers: 80 percent are straight-up refusing to use AI even when it's mandated. In the last 30 days, 54 percent of workers reported bypassing company AI tools and completing jobs themselves.

Those numbers suggest general strike-levels of discontent with AI across every industry, out there in the real America beyond Silicon Valley and Wall Street, if not an outright revolutionary mood. 

Data center protests, fueled by the 70 percent of Americans who say they don't want data centers near them, are only likely to grow going forward — especially now that they are producing tangible results. At least 48 data center projects were blocked or delayed in 2025, according to Data Center Watch, and the fight is only getting more fierce."

A uni professor admitted using AI to write an opinion piece. Here’s what it revealed about trust in the technology; The Guardian, June 5, 2026

Josh Taylor, The Guardian ; A uni professor admitted using AI to write an opinion piece. Here’s what it revealed about trust in the technology

"When a pro vice-chancellor at a university this week admitted to using AI in writing an opinion piece for a major Australian masthead, but did not disclose that use prior to publication, it highlighted the growing gap between people’s use of AI and trust in the technology." 

How a Throwaway Line Turned Writers Against a Cheerleader for Children’s Books; The New York Times, May 22, 2026

Elisabeth Egan , The New York Times; How a Throwaway Line Turned Writers Against a Cheerleader for Children’s Books

"Barnett was thrilled when he got word in the summer of 2024 that Carla Hayden, then the librarian of Congress, had named him national ambassador for young people’s literature...

He is the ninth author in the role. The program is a partnership between the Library of Congress and the literary nonprofit Every Child a Reader; previous honorees include Jon Scieszka, Jacqueline Woodson, Jason Reynolds and Meg Medina...

“Make Believe” sparked a firestorm with a single line.

On Page 22 of the 102-page book, Barnett explains Sturgeon’s Law, in which the science fiction writer Theodore Sturgeon stated that “90 percent of everything is crud.”

Building on this idea, Barnett writes: “I have a nagging fear that children’s literature suffers from a slightly higher crud percentage than literature as a whole. So I now offer Barnett’s Addendum to Sturgeon’s Law: Maybe more like 94.7 percent of kids’ books are crud.”

Fellow children’s authors were aghast: How could their national ambassador say such a thing?...

Later I texted one final question: “Do you think you were wrong to say 94.7 percent of kids’ books are crud?”

Barnett responded, simply, “Yes, I should have used a different argument.”"

PHILLY COPS ADMIT THAT THEY’RE TRACKING “FIRST AMENDMENT ACTIVITY” CRITICAL OF AI; The Intercept, June 1, 2026

 Matt Sledge,  Sam Biddle , The Intercept; PHILLY COPS ADMIT THAT THEY’RE TRACKING “FIRST AMENDMENT ACTIVITY” CRITICAL OF AI

"AMERICANS SPEAKING OUT against artificial intelligence data centers on social media are falling under police surveillance, a confidential law enforcement bulletin obtained by The Intercept reveals.

A fusion center in Philadelphia combed through spicy internet comments from AI critics and concluded there is a growing risk of physical violence against data centers from “domestic violent extremists,” ranging from white supremacists to anarchists.

“Domestic violent extremists (DVEs) are likely interested in targeting artificial intelligence (AI) data centers, posing a physical and cyber threat to infrastructure in the Philadelphia regional area,” the Delaware Valley Intelligence Center wrote in a December alert.

The fusion center distributed its warning, marked “for official use only,” through the national fusion center network of state, local, and federal police agencies.

Like many of the reports produced by fusion centers, the bulletin points to news reports and social media posts, but cites little in the way of tangible threats. It acknowledges “a lack of specific information on plans to target AI data centers in the Philadelphia area,” but warns law enforcement that three planned data center facilities in the region could become targets of future protests."

Who Took This JFK Photo? Museum and Collector Clash in Copyright Case; PetaPixel, June 4, 2026

Pesala Bandara, PetaPixel; Who Took This JFK Photo? Museum and Collector Clash in Copyright Case

"The photograph in question shows a smiling President Kennedy and first lady Jacqueline Kennedy in their motorcade on the day of his assassination in Dallas on November 22, 1963. In the case, which was first reported by Plagiarism Today, private collector Cade Campbell filed a claim with the Copyright Claims Board (CCB), alleging that the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza in Dallas was unlawfully displaying this photograph...

In the end, the CCB found in favor of the museum. It concluded that, based on the greater weight of evidence, the photograph Campbell owned was a later copy of the Titus image, not the original. As such, the board dismissed the claim with prejudice."

How to share the AI windfall. Are taxes enough?; The Economist, May 14, 2026

 The Economist; How to share the AI windfall. Are taxes enough?

"Should artificial intelligence cause mass unemployment, workers will not be thrilled. But neither will the taxman, even if he hasn’t been automated. For most of the past century, rich countries have had simple rules for sharing prosperity: raise money mostly by taxing work and consumption, sprinkle in some borrowing and hand out the proceeds. That model may collapse if ai advances as quickly as its boosters suggest. Hence, many say, a new approach is needed, in which government makes its money primarily from the new technology."

Why Protestants should read the pope’s encyclical; Religion News Service (RNS), May 28, 2026

Michael DeLashmutt , Religion News Service (RNS); Why Protestants should read the pope’s encyclical

"Bookending the text is a striking biblical contrast between Babel and Jerusalem. The question, the encyclical insists, is not whether humanity should embrace or reject technology altogether. The deeper question concerns what kind of technological civilization we are constructing. Are we building systems ordered toward domination, uniformity, surveillance and self-magnification, like in Babel? Or are we building systems that strengthen communities, preserve human dignity and serve the common good, like in the Bible’s Jerusalem? 

The fight, in other words, is not really against the algorithms. It is against the oligarchs.

I have been studying theology and technology for more than 20 years, often using science fiction as a dialogue partner for questions that can otherwise feel abstract or distant from ordinary life. Reading “Magnifica Humanitas,” I repeatedly found myself thinking of William Gibson and Neal Stephenson: posthumanism, autonomous warfare, transnational corporate sovereignty and technologically mediated forms of salvation and domination. 

There is something genuinely surreal about reading a papal encyclical over morning coffee and encountering discussions of autonomous weapons systems and posthumanism on the Vatican website. Twenty years ago, this would have sounded absurd. Today, it sounds descriptive. 

And perhaps that is what struck me most while reading the document. The questions of speculative fiction have become the questions of our lived political reality. 

But rather than leaving us trapped inside a techno-dystopia, the encyclical concludes on a note of solidarity and hope that refuses the fantasy that history is ultimately decided only by those behind the code. 

Near the end of the document, Leo XIV quotes J.R.R. Tolkien: “It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set.” 

Cyberpunk fiction often imagines salvation or damnation arriving through systems so large that ordinary people become irrelevant. Tolkien’s moral imagination works in almost exactly the opposite direction. The real work of preserving the world happens locally, concretely and relationally — not by mastering history, but by tending the fields nearest to us. And not by escaping creaturely limits, but by inhabiting them faithfully.

That may be the deepest challenge “Magnifica Humanitas” poses both to Silicon Valley triumphalism and to AI apocalypse rhetoric alike. The problem is not simply the machine. It is the temptation toward Babel: the concentration of language, power, capital and imagination into systems that no longer recognize human beings except as inputs, outputs, consumers or data points. 

Against that temptation, the encyclical proposes something almost stubbornly unfashionable: subsidiarity, solidarity, shared discernment, limits, community and the common good. 

In other words, the answer to AI is neither anti-technology retreat nor surrender to technological inevitability. It is the recovery of politics, moral responsibility and theological imagination at a human scale. 

And perhaps that is why Tolkien appears at the end of the document. The Shire is not important because it is powerful. It matters because it is worth protecting from those who believe that power itself is greatness. 

In the end, the encyclical circles back to one of the oldest theological questions imaginable: What kind of world are we building, and who is it for? That question cannot be answered by engineers alone, markets alone or even states alone. And Leo XIV’s deepest warning may simply be this: Christians are not free to leave the answer to the oligarchs. 

(The Rev. Michael W. DeLashmutt is dean of the Chapel of the Good Shepherd and senior vice president at the General Theological Seminary in New York City, where he also serves as associate professor of theology. His most recent book is “A Lived Theology of Everyday Life.” The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)"

Factors that may support a finding of "willful copyright infringement"; JD Supra, June 3, 2026

Steve Vondran , JD Supra; Factors that may support a finding of "willful copyright infringement"

"In copyright litigation, identifying the facts that may support a finding of willful infringement can be critical in any case, whether you are on the plaintiff or defense side. A willfulness finding may significantly increase the defendant's financial exposure, including the potential for enhanced statutory damages damages ($30,000-150,000), attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief. Just as important, where the infringement is carried out through a corporation, courts may examine whether company officers, directors, owners, or managers personally participated in, directed, authorized, or financially benefited from the infringing activity. For this reason, copyright plaintiffs should carefully evaluate evidence such as prior notice, cease-and-desist letters, continued use after warning, concealment, removal of copyright management information (17 U.S.C. 1202 claims), repeated infringement, and decision-maker involvement. These facts can help establish not only infringement but also whether the conduct was knowing, reckless, or intentional, which could lead to broader liability against the individuals behind the business. This is what we refer to as "officer and director copyright liability," which allows plaintiffs to name both individuals and their corporations notwithstanding the corporate veil!

Federal courts do not apply a single universal test for "willful infringement" in copyright cases. However, courts repeatedly identify certain facts and circumstances that support a finding that infringement was knowing, intentional, reckless, or undertaken with willful blindness. This blog provides some general concepts to consider in your next infringement matter."

Pentagon is censoring military newspaper Stars and Stripes, lawsuit alleges; The Washington Post, June 3, 3026

 

Scott Nover

 and 

Liam Scott

, The Washington Post; Pentagon is censoring military newspaper Stars and Stripes, lawsuit alleges

"Two advisory board members of Stars and Stripes, the military newspaper that has long enjoyed editorial independence from the government, sued the Defense Department on Wednesday, alleging that an effort to impose new restrictions on the paper was an act of illegal censorship.

The complaint, filed in federal district court in Washington, comes from Susan “Suki” Dardarian and William “Bill” Church, two Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalists on the Stripes advisory board. Dardarian is a former editor and senior vice president of the Minnesota Star Tribune, and Church is the executive editor of the Santa Fe New Mexican newspaper...

Stars and Stripes said in a statement that it has a “long-standing mission to provide independent journalism to the military community, and that independence is fundamental to our credibility and our purpose.”"

Libraries’ summer 2026 webinars teach copyright, fair use basics in an hour; Penn State University Libraries, June 3, 2026

Penn State University Libraries; Libraries’ summer 2026 webinars teach copyright, fair use basics in an hour

"Penn State University Libraries’ Office of Scholarly Communications and Copyright will offer two online workshops on copyright and fair use topics in summer 2026 for Penn State students, faculty and staff and the public.

Danielle Steinhart, interim copyright officer and head of the Office of Scholarly Communications and Copyright, will teach both workshops online via Zoom. Attendees are asked to please register in advance. Responsible and Ethical Conduct of Research (RECR) program credit, formerly known as Scholarship and Research Integrity credit, will be available for both courses."

City of Boulder Releases Its First Tribal History Report; City of Boulder, June 2, 2026

City of Boulder; City of Boulder Releases Its First Tribal History Report

"The City of Boulder is pleased to announce the release of the first part of its Tribal ethnographic-education report documenting Indigenous history and cultural connections to the Boulder Valley, now available on the city website. This report marks a significant milestone in Boulder's ongoing commitment to honoring Indigenous history and fostering a more inclusive, historically grounded community.

The report documents the cultural, historical, and ecological connections of Tribal Nations to the Boulder Valley. By centering Tribal perspectives, it provides guidance for education, land stewardship, public interpretation, and community engagement — integrating Indigenous knowledge into the contemporary management of Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) lands. It also seeks to strengthen collaborative partnerships and advance efforts to incorporate Indigenous knowledge systems into environmental management, education, and policy.

“This work represents more than research or documentation — it reflects living histories, enduring cultures, and the ongoing presence of Indigenous Peoples whose connections to this land long predate the City of Boulder and continue today,” said Boulder City Manager Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde. “We are deeply grateful to the Tribal Nations, elders, and knowledge holders who chose to share their stories, perspectives, and wisdom. This report is a gift, and we receive it with respect and responsibility.” 

Developed in partnership with Tribal Nations, the report is part of a continuing collaboration with the City of Boulder that began in the 1990s, renewed through the 2016 Indigenous Peoples' Day Resolution and subsequent consultations. Grounded in the City-Tribal Memorandum of Understanding, it provides accurate, respectful educational content about each Tribe's history in Boulder and Jefferson Counties and is intended as a resource for city staff and the community at large.

This work was led by Living Heritage Anthropology, LLC (LHA), a woman-owned small business specializing in ethnographic research and Tribal consultation. LHA's Community-Based Participatory Research approach ensures Tribal voices and goals are central to every stage of the process. Additional reports representing more Tribes who share a history in the Boulder Valley are forthcoming.

Read the report and learn more about the city's Tribal consultation work on the city website."

President Trump seeks control of science funding; NPR, June 3, 2026

 Katia Riddle, NPR; President Trump seeks control of science funding

"The Trump administration is pursuing a bureaucratic rule change that could allow for greater political influence over billions of dollars in federal research grants. The new rule would have a broad impact on research fields, including housing and transportation. Health and science funding would be most significantly affected...

Published in the Federal Register on May 29, experts say the proposed changes would both codify the administration's strategies to dismantle certain fields of study in the U.S. and lend it new authority to "advance the President's policy priorities."...

Under the new rule, peer review would not be eliminated, but political appointees — not necessarily scientists — would be required to review grants before awards are made. Critics say that effectively gives political officials veto power over projects, even when they have passed scientific peer review."

AI Outperforms Law Professors in Stanford Law Study; Stanford Law School, June 1, 2026

 Stephanie Ashe, Stanford Law School; AI Outperforms Law Professors in Stanford Law Study

"A groundbreaking study led by Stanford Law School Professor Julian Nyarko reveals that law professors overwhelmingly prefer AI-generated answers to student questions over responses written by their fellow instructors—a finding that could reshape how legal education is delivered.

The study, titled “Law Professors Prefer AI Over Peer Answers,” was conducted with 16 law professors across U.S. law schools and tested whether large language models could serve as effective tutors for contract law courses. In a blind evaluation of nearly 3,000 anonymized comparisons, professors rated AI responses significantly higher than answers written by other professors, with AI winning 75% of head-to-head matchups.

“This study challenges important assumptions about AI’s role in legal education,” said Nyarko, who leads Stanford Law School’s Legal Innovation through Frontier Technology Lab, or liftlab. He co-authored the paper with colleagues from Yale, NYU, University of Chicago, and other leading institutions. “We focused on law precisely because it requires judgment, nuanced reasoning, and the ability to navigate ambiguity—not just factual recall.”...

Participants created 40 representative contracts law questions that students might ask after class or during office hours, wrote their own answers, and then evaluated responses without knowing whether they came from AI or other participating professors. The AI systems performed comparably to the best human instructor in the study.

Perhaps most striking: professors flagged AI responses as pedagogically harmful only 3.5% of the time, compared to 12% for peer-written answers.

“In most fields where AI gets tested, there’s a right answer. In law, there often isn’t.” said Sarath Sanga, co-author and professor at Yale Law School. “Two opposing arguments can both be good. What we wanted to know is whether AI can meet the latent professional standard that lawyers use to evaluate each other’s arguments. In this case, the answer was yes.”...

The findings arrive as law schools nationwide grapple with integrating AI tools into legal education while maintaining rigorous academic standards. Some institutions have embraced AI experimentation, while others remain cautious about potential risks including hallucinations, overreliance, and the erosion of critical thinking skills."

We Asked the Future of Truth Author to Explain How He Used AI. It Didn’t Go Well; Wired, May 29, 2026

 Kate Knibbs, Wired; We Asked the Future of Truth Author to Explain How He Used AI. It Didn’t Go Well

"EARLIER THIS MONTH, WIRED published an excerpt from Steve Rosenbaum’s buzzy new book, The Future of Truth, which looks at how artificial intelligence warps people’s sense of reality. Shortly thereafter, The New York Times reported that the book contained over a half-dozen made-up or misattributed quotes. In a statement, Rosenbaum, who has a master's degree in "truth" from New York University, admitted that he had accidentally included “a handful” of “improperly attributed or synthetic” quotes. In an ironic twist, the veracity of a book about how AI impacts truth was now under intense scrutiny because of how its author had used AI."

CBS News Fires Scott Pelley of ‘60 Minutes’; The New York Times, June 2, 2026

 Benjamin Mullin and Michael M. Grynbaum, The New York Times ; CBS News Fires Scott Pelley of ‘60 Minutes’

"CBS News fired Scott Pelley on Tuesday, jettisoning one of the network’s best-known journalists in a clash over the future of “60 Minutes,” the country’s top-rated news program.

Mr. Pelley, 68, a “60 Minutes” correspondent and a former anchor of “CBS Evening News,” joined the network in 1989. At a staff meeting on Monday, he accused the network’s editor in chief, Bari Weiss, of “murdering ‘60 Minutes,’” citing the ouster last week of the program’s leadership team and two on-air correspondents.

“We have parted ways with Scott Pelley,” Nick Bilton, the tech journalist who was hired last week as the new “60 Minutes” executive producer, wrote in a memo to the show’s staff on Tuesday night.

CBS News declined to comment. In a formal letter to Mr. Pelley, which was obtained by The New York Times, Mr. Bilton wrote that the correspondent had been “terminated for cause effective immediately.”"

Trump Signs Executive Order Seeking Oversight of A.I. Models; The New York Times, June 2, 2026

 Sheera Frenkel and Tripp Mickle , The New York Times; Trump Signs Executive Order Seeking Oversight of A.I. Models

The order, which signaled a shift from the hands-off approach the White House had previously taken toward A.I., followed debates over how to gain control of A.I. models without disrupting innovation.

"President Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday that asked technology companies to give the government oversight of new artificial intelligence models before releasing them to the public, a shift for an administration that had promoted a hands-off approach to the powerful technology."

As A.I. Makes Strides in Mathematics, Mathematicians Urge Caution; The New York Times, June 2, 2026

 Siobhan Roberts, The New York Times ; As A.I. Makes Strides in Mathematics, Mathematicians Urge Caution

"Among the potential threats that the Leiden Declaration authors articulate are accuracy and reliability: Journal editors are already complaining about a flood of plausible seeming A.I.- generated papers and proofs that have turned out to be incorrect, and in ways that are difficult for mathematicians to discern.

Perhaps most pointedly, the authors raise the question of whether the many A.I. companies tackling mathematics — major players such as OpenAI, Google DeepMind and Anthropic, or start-ups such as Harmonic, Math, Inc. and Axiom Math — are keeping the field’s best interests in mind. “Technology companies’ involvement in research,” they write, “raises the risk that research questions are prioritized and incentivized because of their amenability to A.I. methods and models, rather than their deeper significance to understanding.” In turn, they point out, this disadvantages researchers who choose not to use the technology, and those who do not have access to it.

For Rodrigo Ochigame, a historian and anthropologist of computing and artificial intelligence at Leiden University in the Netherlands, and one of the statement’s authors, the latest OpenAI proof illustrates why this sort of collective reckoning in the discipline is necessary. “The story follows the same pattern as many other announcements by commercial A.I. developers,” Dr. Ochigame said. “The A.I. model is proprietary and unavailable to anyone outside the company. We get a flashy promotional video, while basic information needed to assess the scientific meaning of the result is kept secret. The company disclosed nothing about the methods, human-written prompts, training data, or computational resources consumed.”"

‘Like a Klingon prison’: inside Barack Obama’s audacious, near-windowless, $850m presidential library; The Guardian, June 2, 2026

 Oliver Wainwright , The Guardian; ‘Like a Klingon prison’: inside Barack Obama’s audacious, near-windowless, $850m presidential library

"It faces on to the sledging hill, which was originally to house a subterranean archive, until it was decided that this would be the first presidential library that wasn’t actually a library. (This may be why its official title is the Obama Presidential Center.) To the concern of some historians, Obama’s is the first entirely digital presidential archive, the centre run not by the National Archives, but by his own private foundation, raising concerns over its objectivity. Where once there would have been stacks, there are now 400 parking spaces (despite Obama’s promotion of public transit, this is still the US).

The physical records might not be on site, but the professed aim to transform the presidential library from a scholarly research centre to a bustling hub of community activity is an admirable ambition. “We didn’t build [the centre] to celebrate my ability to bring about change,” Obama declares in a promotional video. “We did it to unlock yours.” It is not just a library, but a “campus dedicated to supporting future change makers”.

The transformational change, he hopes, will happen inside the enigmatic tower where, for $30 a ticket, visitors are transported through four floors of an immersive, interactive Obama experience – a vertical Obamarama. Designed by Ralph Appelbaum Associates, it is an action-packed romp through the couple’s life story, beginning with the civil rights movements that inspired them, their political campaigns, achievements in office, life in the White House, and how you too can “bring change home” (a motto printed on the gift shop bag)...

Just like his presidency, the Obama campus was no doubt conceived with the best of intentions. And, as with his time in office, the impact of this mighty stone monument to hope looks set to be equally mixed."

There Is Already a Word for the Deep Moral Failures of AI; The Atlantic, June 2, 2026

Tyler Austin Harper, The Atlantic; There Is Already a Word for the Deep Moral Failures of AI 

"For the past few years, I’ve been troubled by a word, and that word is sin. I keep reaching for it, because it seems to be the only term strong enough to describe the new forms of dehumanization that artificial intelligence has introduced—even though calling something a sin sounds embarrassing to me, like throwing salt over your shoulder or stowing a lucky penny in your pocket.

The problem is, I don’t know what else to call it when companies market digital girlfriends to the heartsick and young. Or when they hawk robot companions to the lonely and old. Or when a billionaire explains that he intends to sell intelligence—trained on humanity’s stolen intellectual property—back to us as a utility, like electricity or water. These developments are not just wrong. They feel to me like something deeper and darker. “I met the banker and it felt like sin,” Patterson Hood croons in the great Drive-By Truckers song “Sinkhole.” I’d substitute chatbot for banker...

What Christian humanism offers, with its assertion that humans are made in the Imago Dei, is a choice other than Silicon Valley extremism or remainder humanism. If what makes humanity special is not our capabilities—automatable or not—but the notion that we spring from a transcendent source, then what the robots can or cannot do is in some sense irrelevant. ChatGPT was not made in the image of God, no matter how impressive its facsimile becomes. A secular humanism that cannot find a similarly deep line of reasoning is one that may not be adequate to defend human dignity in the AI era.

I am not arguing that one must be or become more religious to fully appreciate the challenge posed by the rise of AI—that would make me, a not especially observant Presbyterian, a hypocrite. But I do think that one must start from the premise that humans have some kind of universal nature or essence that must be safeguarded from technological encroachment. Otherwise, appreciating what large language models and their peddlers wish to take from us becomes too difficult. If secularists flinch at calling this taking—what Pope Leo calls Big Tech’s “dehumanizing ambition”—a sin, they’ll need to find another word for it."

NATURE OR NURTURE: HOW HUMANS AND AI ARE CHANGING EACH OTHER; Los Angeles Times, June 1, 2026

Los Angeles Times; NATURE OR NURTURE: HOW HUMANS AND AI ARE CHANGING EACH OTHER

"In a captivating Festival of Books panel moderated by Joan McNeel, authors Adam Becker, Lucas Cantor Santiago, and Cory Doctorow dismantle the pervasive hype surrounding Artificial Intelligence. The panelists forcefully argue that Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is less a looming technological reality than a highly lucrative marketing myth."

Florida Makes New AI Rule: Check Your Damned Work Or Else!; Above The Law, June 1, 2026

Chris Williams, Above The Law; Florida Makes New AI Rule: Check Your Damned Work Or Else!

"No matter how much the marketing department leans in on an LLM program being ready to help you with your law practice, you’re still responsible for the work product because you’re the with the actual license to practice. Florida’s Supreme Court made some changes to remind lawyers that the responsibility falls on them, not the black box they’re prompting their legal questions into. ABA Journal has coverage:..

My soft spot for the rule update is for pro se litigants. Despite all of the equality under the law trimmings we pretend to believe, fighting in court is a monied person’s battlefield. Pro se litigants are often in that position because they cannot afford a lawyer due to limited resources. Getting help from Claude could be the closest thing they have to getting a legal opinion. If and when they screw up these rules, I hope that the court shows as much grace as it can toward them. Even the annoying sovereign citizen variety."

AI stumbles on questions of faith; Axios, June 1, 2026

 Russell Contreras, Axios ; AI stumbles on questions of faith

"Artificial intelligence models are quietly shaping spiritual advice — often by leaving faith out.

Why it matters: As churches, apps and spiritual chatbots embrace AI, new research suggests general-purpose models may be ill-equipped to handle sensitive questions of faith: grief, forgiveness, marriage, guilt and conversion.

A new multi-university consortium released three studies Tuesday revealing that AI systems systematically sideline religious perspectives when users need them most.

The studies also found that AI systems subtly steer people toward some faiths and away from others when they ask about religious conversion.

The studies were unveiled Tuesday, a day after the Vatican released Pope Leo XIV's encyclical that warned AI could erode human judgment, deepen inequality and make war easier.

What they found: Americans expected religion to appear in answers to moral and life questions 45%–59% of the time, depending on the topic, researchers found. AI models mentioned religion only 5%–16% of the time.

Every single model tested exhibited a repeatable pattern of steering users toward specific beliefs, showing strong positive bias toward Catholicism, Baha'i and Sikhism. 

Meanwhile, it generated negative bias toward Jehovah's Witnesses, atheism and agnosticism.

Zoom in: Humans rated religion as relevant in answers about grief and loss 59% of the time. AI models referenced religion just 16% of the time, per the study.

On questions involving family, parenting and forgiveness, humans expected religion in answers 55% of the time. AI models mentioned it only 10% of the time.

On ethics questions, including whether lying to friends is acceptable, humans expected religion in responses 45% of the time, while AI models mentioned it just 5% of the time."