International frog meat trade spreads a deadly fungus

By Dr. Tim Sandle
SCIENCE EDITOR

DIGITAL JOURNAL

January 19, 2026

There are lots of brown tree frogs, like this southern brown tree frog (Litoria ewingi) found in Melbourne, Australia. But wait till you see the chocolate tree frog! Image by Matt from Melbourne, Australia CC SA 2.0

A pathogenic fungus that has wiped out hundreds of amphibian species worldwide started its global journey in Brazil. Genetic evidence correlated with trade data demonstrates how the fungus hitchhiked across the world via international frog meat markets.

These findings, from Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo, raise urgent concerns about how wildlife trade can spread hidden biological threats.
Frog meat market

Millions of wild frogs are killed and exported each year. The majority of these are sent into the European Union where, in some places, frogs legs are considered a delicacy. However, there is little transparency as to how this trade operates.

The reason why the export market has grown was a consequence of Europe’s demand for frog legs. This has not only threatened the animals in Europe but this extended worldwide because the demand outstripped supply, leading to significant reductions in European populations.

Fungal spread

A consequence of this animal trade has been the spread of the chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis). This organism has been a major factor behind the worldwide decline of amphibians.

The fungal pathogen causes the disease chytridiomycosis. This damages the skin of frogs, toads, and other amphibians, disrupting their balance of water and salt and eventually causing heart failure.

Chytridiomycosis has been linked to dramatic population declines or extinctions of amphibian species in western North America, Central America, South America, eastern Australia, east Africa (Tanzania), and Dominica and Montserrat in the Caribbean.

Furthermore, scientists have identified multiple genetic variants of this disease causing fungus across different regions. Together, these strains have already contributed to population crashes in at least 500 species of frogs and toads.

Bullfrog population decline

New research has linked the international spread of the fungal pathogen to the commercial trade of bullfrogs (Aquarana catesbeiana), a species native to North America that is widely farmed for food.

Bullfrogs were first brought to Brazil in 1935, with another introduction occurring in the 1970s. These movements created new pathways for the fungus to travel across borders.

The study combined multiple lines of evidence. Researchers reviewed existing scientific literature, examined museum specimens from around the world, analysed fungal genetics from Brazilian bullfrog farms, and studied bullfrogs sold internationally.

To reconstruct the fungus’s historical distribution, international collaborators examined 2,280 amphibian specimens collected between 1815 and 2014 and stored in zoological museums worldwide. The researchers also analysed historical trade records, fungal genetics from Brazilian frog farms, and genetic data from bullfrogs sold in foreign markets.


The scientists examined 3,617 frog meat trade routes involving 48 countries. Of these, 12 countries acted solely as exporters, 21 as importers, and 15 served both roles. By combining trade data with genetic evidence and the timing of fungal related-Brazil detections, researchers identified the most likely paths by which the strain spread.

Together, these data point to Brazil as the source of the strain and identify the global frog meat trade as the main route of its spread.

Next steps

The researchers conclude that their results highlight the need for stronger preventive actions. These include stricter import regulations, routine pathogen screening, quarantine measures, and coordinated global monitoring to better protect native amphibian species from future outbreaks.

The research is part of the project “From Natural History to the Conservation of Brazilian Amphibians,” supported by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP). The study appears in the journal Biological Conservation, titled “Origin and global spread of an endemic chytrid fungus lineage linked to the bullfrog trade.”

 

Trump’s Christian Nationalist Pseudo-Historians Attack the Smithsonian

by Bill Berkowitz / January 17th, 2026

If you’re planning a visit to the Smithsonian, you may want to go sooner rather than later — before the nation’s most important public history institution becomes another casualty of Trump-era historical revisionism.

For example, on January 10, People magazine’s Charlotte Phillipp reported that Trump complained that his portrait in the Smithsonian Institution’s Portrait Gallery pointed out that he was “impeached twice, on charges of abuse of power and incitement of insurrection.” The White House provided an updated portrait, “along with a new caption that has omitted text that mentioned his impeachments and the Jan. 6 insurrection.”

According to January 8 report by the New York Times’ Graham Bowley and Robin Pogrebin, “After a months long lull in tensions, the Smithsonian is facing an ultimatum from the White House to comply next week with a comprehensive review of the institution’s content and plans — or risk potential cuts to its budget. … [Secretary Lonnie Bunch III ] noted that it would be impossible to turn over the full volume of records sought in the time frame, and he reiterated that the institution is autonomous.”

The Smithsonian is one of the largest and most respected cultural institutions in the U.S., and its exhibits influence public understanding of American history. Efforts to politically pressure or intervene in how it presents history raise serious questions about academic independence, historical accuracy, and the role of ideology in public education.

In a recent story titled “Father-Son Christian Nationalist Pseudo-Historians David And Tim Barton Are Shaping The Trump Administration’s War On The Smithsonian,” Right Wing Watch points out how the pseudo historian David Barton and his apple-not-falling-far-from-the-tree son Tim, are on assignment by the Trump administration “to control how American history is presented at the federal level.”

David Barton, and now his son, have built their careers “spread[ing] demonstrably false claims about the Founding Fathers, the Founding Era, and the founding of the United States to bolster their modern-day Christian nationalist political agenda,” Right Wing Watch’s Kyle Mantyla reported in mid-April of last year. Barton has even gone so far as to attempt to make a biblical case for Trump’s tariffs, Mantyla noted in an early April story.

David Barton, who has no formal academic credentials in history, has long been the go-to guy for the Religious Right and Christian nationalists’ maintaining that the Founding Fathers intended to establish America to be a Christian nation that operates according to the laws of God as set out in the Bible.

Tim Barton has taken over as president of the WallBuilders organization, serving as co-host of the daily “WallBuilders Live” radio program, and traveling the nation delivering presentations filled with Christian nationalist disinformation.

Right wing Watch reported that on their WallBuilders radio program “Tim and his father celebrated the news that the White House is now threatening to withhold funding from the Smithsonian if the institution does not submit additional documentation amid the administration’s review of its content and displays.”

The Christian nationalist Bartons, claim they were integral in bringing this about.

“This is one that is dear to our heart,” Tim Barton said. “The White House warned the Smithsonian that if the museum did not submit more documentation to the administration to enable a review of its contents, funds may be withheld from the institution.”

“What they said is, ‘We want to know [the] chain of command. Who approved all this?'” he continued. “What they’re asking is, who is accountable? Who’s going to be responsible? Who gets held accountable for all of the nonsense. This is not a crazy request. Museums are supposed to keep record of who approved what, what areas, what displays, what wall mounts.”

“The Smithsonian failed to tell them who put up some of the crazy stuff that is there,” Tim Barton said. “And dad, you and I have gone through and reviewed several of the Smithsonians and there’s some crazy stuff there.”

“Yeah, I was going to point out that earlier in the year, the White House asked us to look at some of that,” David Barton responded. “At that point, you were leading a tour of legislators in Washington, D.C. … By the way, we love the American History Museum, the Smithsonian because of the artifacts, but not because of the way they present them. The way they present them is terrible. And so as the legislators went through, Tim, they came back to you and said, ‘Oh man, this is terrible and this is bad.’ And so you turned that over to the White House on how bad the stuff was, how misleading it was.”

“You were right in the middle of that story,” David celebrated.

“This is so encouraging that we actually have an administration saying, ‘Let’s tell the truth, let’s stop this woke propaganda nonsense, let’s tell the truth,'” Tim responded. “This is such good news and I’m so excited for what this could mean for the 250th celebration because this is part of what they’re gearing it for; they want to make sure we’re telling good stories for the 250th.”

The Smithsonian exists so Americans can confront their past honestly, in all its achievement, cruelty, contradiction, and struggle. The Bartons are not defending history, they are prosecuting it. And in the Trump administration, they have found a willing partner. They would eagerly replace historical inquiry with ideological loyalty; reshaping the public memory with Christian nationalist myths.

The Smithsonian was never meant to serve any administration’s political narrative — let alone the theological agenda of Christian nationalist activists who reject mainstream scholarship. If Trump succeeds in bending the institution to his will, the loss will not belong to historians alone. It will belong to every American who believes history should be examined, not edited.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Bill Berkowitz is a longtime observer of the conservative movement. Read other articles by Bill.

 

Oppose Cuts and War in 2026 – Red Weekly Column

Featured image: Cut War Not Welfare placards during the People’s Assembly Against Austerity march on 7 June 2025. Photo credit: Sam Browse, Labour Outlook.

17th January 2026Leave a Commenton Oppose Cuts and War in 2026 – Red Weekly Column

“Whilst cuts continue in many areas, the never-ending ‘magic money tree’ for war and nukes continues.”

By Matt Willgress

The great German socialist and revolutionary martyr Rosa Luxemburg famously said that “the most revolutionary thing one can do is always to proclaim loudly what is happening.”

In Britain today, this is as true as ever. Deep crises on multiple fronts can be seen in every direction. The immense levels of human suffering resulting from these crises are obvious to anyone walking down any high street, yet more often than not they are blatantly ignored by the ruling class (or to put it another way, ignored by much of the media and political establishment, including Keir Starmer’s Government).

There are so many statistics that show the extent of this suffering that it is simply not possible for me to include them all in one column.

On poverty, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s “UK Poverty 2025” report last year vividly illustrated the inhumane levels of poverty here as the cost-of-living emergency deepens for millions.

More than 1 in 5 people (21%) were in poverty in 2022/23 – 14.3 million. This figure included 8.1 million working-age adults, 4.3 million children and 1.9 million pensioners.

Around 2 in every 10 adults are in poverty, with about 3 in every 10 children being in poverty.

In a damning indictment of the failures of austerity and neo-liberalism, both under Tories and Labour, it commented that “It is 20 years and counting since we last saw a prolonged period of falling poverty. Taking a longer view, we can see that overall poverty barely changed during the Conservative-led Governments from 2010 to the latest data covering 2022/23. The last period of falling poverty was during the first half of the previous Labour administration (between 1999/2000 and 2004/05), but it then rose in the second half of its time in power.”

On pay, wages today are lower than they were in 2007, and they are not forecast to reach 2007 levels again for years more.

In this context – and we have only scratched the surface when it comes to looking at the desperate situation here – it is striking how the ‘Labour’ Government and Tory opposition front benches offer no new policy solutions at all to these problems, but continue to cling relentlessly to the neo-liberal, austerity policies that have failed for decades.

Tied to this approach, the first year and a half of the Starmer-led Government has seen a policy agenda that continues to protect the interests of the billionaires and profiteers.

Privatisation and part-privatisations continue; a “rip-it-up” approach to planning and environmental regulations will inevitably lead to catastrophe, and redistributive taxation to better fund public services remains firmly off the agenda.

Yet whilst cuts continue in many areas, the never-ending ‘magic money tree’ for war and nukes continues, as the Government acts as a global cheerleader for Trump’s war agenda in Venezuela, the Middle East and beyond.

Like Trump, the Government is also waging war on migrants and refugees, joining the Tories, Reform and others in disgusting levels of scapegoating, including through Keir Starmer’s arch-reactionary “island of strangers” speech, stoking up racism, hate and division.

In the face of this situation, as well as proclaiming “loudly what is happening” – exposing the failures of this rotten Government and the rotten profit-led capitalist system it defends – 2026 must see us build massive resistance on every front against the continuing racism, war and cuts we face.

And additionally, the Left (across different parties and none) must come together to build movements for – and popularise the arguments for – the radical, transformative changes needed to tackle the grave economic, social and environmental crises we face. For this, a clear, alternative economic policy platform is urgently needed from the Left, putting forward an unashamedly socialist agenda that puts public need before corporate greed.

---

• The Red Weekly Column will appear each week on Labour Outlook from one of our regular socialist contributors.
• If you support Labour Outlook’s work amplifying the voices of left movements and struggles here and internationally, please consider becoming a supporter on Patreon

Type your email…

 

Wikipedia signs deals with Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, saying AI firms should pay 'fair share'

By Roselyne Min with AP   Published on 16/01/2026 - EURONEWS

The founder of the platform says large language models have been ‘hammering’ Wikipedia’s servers and AI companies should “chip in and pay fair share”.

The online encyclopaedia Wikipedia has announced new partnerships with (artificial intelligence) AI tech companies, including Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft.

The deal with Wikipedia is part of its commercial product, Wikipedia Enterprise, which allows the reuse and distribution of Wikipedia’s content to AI companies.

In recent years, the free platform’s infrastructure has faced new pressure as AI uses Wikipedia content to train its data models.

"They've been absolutely hammering our servers. And so we've been encouraging them to sign up for and use our enterprise products so we can give them a feed,” said Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia.

Related

• Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales says AI is a 'mess' now but could become superhuman in 50 years

The Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit organisation behind Wikipedia, has relied largely on donations from millions of individuals.

It says public donations are intended to support free access for readers, not to underwrite commercial AI development.

“They're not donating in order to subsidise these huge AI companies,” Wales said.

They're saying, "You know what, actually, you can’t just smash our website. You have to sort of come in the right way.”

Automated systems, such as large language models (LLMs), are now among the biggest users of Wikipedia’s content, placing sustained pressure on Wikipedia's servers.

Related

"I would say most data sources, including a tracker that we run, show that people are becoming more reliant on Wikipedia at a time when large language models and a lot of the AI tools are also using Wikipedia to help them be able to provide answers," said Maryana Iskander, CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation.

The volunteer-run platform already has an arrangement with Google, which was announced in 2022, and other agreements with smaller AI players such as Anthropic, Perplexity and France's Mistral AI, as well as search engine Ecosia.

Wikipedia’s founder says AI companies relying on the site’s content should contribute more to its upkeep.

“We're trying to work with these companies to basically say, you're using Wikipedia, like everybody needs Wikipedia because it's human-curated knowledge, you should probably chip in and pay for your fair share of the cost that you're putting on us," said Wales.

'Alright, alright, alright': Matthew McConaughey trademarks iconic catchphrase to stop AI misuse

Copyright Credit: AP Photo

By Theo Farrant

Published on 16/01/2026 - EURONEWS

According to Matthew McConaughey's lawyers and an expert, this is the first instance of an actor using trademark law to protect their likeness from AI misuse.

Matthew McConaughey says it's no longer "alright, alright, alright" for AI to use his likeness.

The Oscar-winning actor has officially trademarked his image and voice, including his iconic three word catchphrase from the 1993 film Dazed and Confused.

According to The Wall Street Journal, McConaughey has secured eight separate approvals from the US Patent and Trademark Office in recent weeks. These cover everything from film clips of him standing on a porch, sitting in front of a tree, to an audio snippet of his signature line: “Alright, alright, alright" from the classic Richard Linkater comedy.

"My team and I want to know that when my voice or likeness is ever used, it’s because I approved and signed off on it. We want to create a clear perimeter around ownership with consent and attribution the norm in an AI world," the 56-year-old actor said in a statement.

Relate

Celebrity deepfakes spark growing controversy

This action comes amid a wave of high‑profile celebrity controversies surrounding AI deepfakes and likeness exploitation, which threaten to disrupt the film, music and wider entertainment industries.

Taylor Swift has repeatedly been targeted. In 2024, sexually explicit AI-generated deepfake images of her were widely circulated online, some seen millions of times before removal.

One fake picture posted on the platform was viewed 47 million times before the account was suspended. The material was shared tens of thousands of times before X's security team responded: "We have a zero-tolerance policy towards such content. Our teams are actively removing all identified images and taking appropriate actions against the accounts responsible for posting them."

Taylor Swift arrives at the 67th annual Grammy Awards on Sunday, 2 February 2025, in Los Angeles. Credit: AP Photo

Last year, actor Scarlett Johansson also publicly condemned a deepfake video depicting her and other celebrities in political messaging they never endorsed.

The AI-generated video featured more than a dozen AI-generated versions of Jewish celebrities, including Steven Spielberg, Jerry Seinfeld, Drake, David Schwimmer and Adam Sandler, each wearing t-shirts showing the Star of David alongside a hand giving the middle finger, in response to Kanye West's anti-semitic tirade

“It has been brought to my attention by family members and friends, that an AI-generated video featuring my likeness, in response to an antisemitic view, has been circulating online and gaining traction,” Johansson said in a statement to People magazine.

“I am a Jewish woman who has no tolerance for antisemitism or hate speech of any kind. But I also firmly believe that the potential for hate speech multiplied by AI is a far greater threat than any one person who takes accountability for it. We must call out the misuse of AI, no matter its messaging, or we risk losing a hold on reality.”

Zelda Williams, the actress, filmmaker and daughter of late actor Robin Williams, has also spoken out, asking fans to stop sending her AI-generated videos of her father.

“Please, just stop sending me AI videos of Dad,” she wrote in a post last year. “Stop believing I wanna see it or that I’ll understand, I don’t and I won’t. If you’re just trying to troll me, I’ve seen way worse, I’ll restrict and move on. But please, if you’ve got any decency, just stop doing this to him and to me, to everyone even, full stop. It’s dumb, it’s a waste of time and energy, and believe me, it’s NOT what he’d want.”

Tesla and SpaceX's CEO Elon Musk attends the first plenary session on of the AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park, on Wednesday, 1 November 2023 in Bletchley, England. Credit: AP Photo

And most recently, amid mounting pressure in Europe and abroad, Elon Musk’s X, formally Twitter, has announced “technological measures" to prevent its AI tool, Grok, from allowing the editing of images of real people in revealing clothing such as bikinis, a restriction that applies to all users, including paid subscriber

The decision follows a global backlash over a mass wave of sexually explicit AI images and videos generated using Grok, including depictions of women and children.

Musk had previously said he was unaware of any “naked underage images” created by the AI tool.

Opinion: ChatGPT Health in Australia causes worries about AI advice and lack of regulation


By Paul Wallis
EDITOR AT LARGE

DIGITAL JOURNAL

January 16, 2026

A Bernstein Research analyst says Open AI CEO Sam Altman has the power to crash the global economy or take everyone 'to the promised land' as the startup behind ChatGPT races to build artificial intelligence infrastructure costing billions of dollars - Copyright GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA/AFP JUSTIN SULLIVAN

There are many points of access to ChatGPT Health with a single search. It’s a chat service that provides a range of services related to medical issues for consumers.

The recent launch of ChatGPT Health is “just” as a general information service, but the frames of reference are huge. It’s an interface for general information, which can be and has been construed as advice.

This Guardian article about ChatGPT Health spells out in clear and alarming terms what can go wrong and what has gone wrong, notably a case of someone taking sodium bromide instead of table salt.

To explain this problem a bit more succinctly:

AI draws on available data to process requests. The available data for sodium bromide is minimal and appalling. Even the manufacturers seem to have only so much information to work with.

This is what the AI would see:

General search data. It’s OK for a casual overview, but hardly at a diagnostic level. It does include safety and toxicity information.

Product information, such as it is. Note the many “No data available” entries on this info sheet.

So this guy takes sodium bromide, starts hallucinating, and winds up inthe hospital. Ironically, the toxicity information in the basic search includes hallucinations.

You can see how this works. How this guy got the idea that sodium bromide was a substitute for table salt is anyone’s guess. Maybe the fact that they both include sodium?

Now the major issue.

To coin an expression, this is “AI overreach”.

In the consumer’s case, he far overreached his own knowledge base. This kind of information simply doesn’t, can’t, and won’t translate into a quick fix for table salt or anything else.

In ChatGPT Health’s case, it’s a huge overreach. It’s one thing to simply recite factual information. To transpose that level of information into any sort of medical advice is out of the question.

One of the reasons online health has taken off is because it’s supposed to be basically the same service you’d get from a GP. It’s quick, it’s efficient, it saves time and money for both parties, and nobody has to risk their lives in traffic to treat a head cold.

AI health services like this are inevitably well out of their depth in these basic functions. They’re not subject to the same level of two-party scrutiny, either.

A GP and a patient could just both look at the same AI information and decide whether they believe it or trust it.

Sodium bromide certainly wouldn’t have passed this very basic level of scrutiny. A swimming pool disinfectant agent as table salt? Maybe not?

Regulation

Regulation could be easier than it looks, though. Under Australian law, a medical company cannot provide medical services. It’s also not a legal person. These are very important distinctions.

So how could an AI provide the same or similar services? AI isn’t a legal person, either. This could well extend to any form of medical advice.

As a therapeutic asset, AI could be regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. It could only operate under general therapeutic regulations, with any number of safeguards built in. Note that the reasonable interpretation of “therapy” can easily include advisory services.

Why regulate?

Because otherwise any dangerous pseudo-medical product can enter the food chain. Because there are serious risks of major damage. Look how much fun America has with its meds, regulated or otherwise. It’s too high a risk.

Never mind “buyer beware”. Why should the buyer of anything have to beware of anything at all? What’s wrong with an obligation to market safe products?

A warning sticker saying “this product could exterminate your entire family” may be noble and uplifting and tell you what nice guys the manufacturers are, but why do you need it? Does “may contain plutonium” tell you enough?

In the case of sodium bromide, it’s a fair assumption that nobody seriously considered that it was a substitute for table salt. You shouldn’t need to be told that, but here’s a documented case of exactly that.

AI is destined to be a critical part of medicine. It needs to be safe.

Opinion: AI in advertising, or the absolute last thing you need is scripted sales spiel


By Paul Wallis
EDITOR AT LARGE

DIGITAL JOURNAL

January 14, 2026

Huge investment announcements by ChatGPT-maker OpenAI this week boosted tech optimism but there are worries that the AI-fuelled rally may have run too far - Copyright AFP SEBASTIEN BOZON

It seems that life does go on, despite the news. Life now includes helpful AI agents to help you shop. Stop cheering.

Those of us blessed with AI in its role as yet another dogmatic, time-consuming, verbose commercial procedure aren’t cheering. Particularly those of us who’ve done mountains of advertising copy and sales materials.

Consider the process. You search for something you want to buy, and you get the usual formatted search, AI overview, and a sales pitch. Paid placements are quite bad enough. The whole search gets buried under the paid placements. Now add AI.

The current AI sector theory is that AI will be “persuasive”. Nice to know anyone’s that naïve, isn’t it?

No, it isn’t.

Say you want to buy a toaster. Legends say that back in the day your family used to own a toaster.

With the insanity of middle age, you and your ego decide that you will again aspire to such lofty social goals. You mad impetuous statistic, you.

So, despite the shudders from your family, total strangers, and a few squirrels, you search for a toaster.

Now, grudgingly consider the fact that there could be nothing easier than looking up info about your searches from data brokers to your search.

It’s a lot worse than that, and your consumer mudslide starts way up the market food chain.

You get all your past searches because it’s a search engine function to remember searches anyway. Yes, the AI can access that data. You hit Shopping and go to a site.

You also get AI business strategy, market planning, etc. It looks very like More Things You Can Do With Your Expensive New Toy For Businesses. This includes marketing, branding, and market positioning. You haven’t even clicked on a product yet.

All of this is based on one search.

The toasters arise from the products page. Some of them don’t even look like toasters. They look like someone’s trying to build a new alien civilization and couldn’t be bothered to tell you.

At this point you don’t need AI. You need a therapist up there in the tree with you.

But you get the AI. To quote from The Conversation link above:

A more recent meta-analysis of eight studies similarly concluded there was “no significant overall difference in persuasive performance between (large language models) and humans.”

This just means that the AI can process you to death or a sale, whichever comes first. You probably won’t get that invaluable condescension and implication that you’re unworthy of a toaster, though.

The usual “Behold! It casts its eyes upon our products, the wretch! Send a vassal to sneer it into submission!” is unlikely. You’d only get the impression that you should be a better person before daring to buy a toaster.

The AI will just obligingly tell you everything it wants you to know. Scripted spiel with a dialog box. Never mind what you want to know. It won’t understand your whimpers.

Nevertheless, you and your family will get an heirloom $19.99 toaster, eventually.

What does this have to do with advertising, you enquire wistfully from your burrow?

Nothing. Nothing at all. Do you see any real business value? The real sales pitch and trigger for everything is your search enquiry. You’ve already sold a toaster to yourself. The AI has simply reinforced your fears.

Successful salespeople don’t waste your time or theirs with superfluous garbage. In this case, they know that you want a toaster, but they also know that you may want to sing, dance, and frolic in the fields again. So, they keep the verbosity functional.

My suggestion from years of advertising work and statutory-level consumer protection work:

You need advertising in AI like you need a third armpit.

Opinion: Is open source AI the only trustworthy long-term way to develop AI?

By Paul Wallis
EDITOR AT LARGE

DIGITAL JOURNAL

January 5, 2026

While OpenAI does not expect to be profitable before 2029, the startup's valuation keeps climbing in funding rounds baffling some financial analysts

 - Copyright AFP Kirill KUDRYAVTSEV

Unlike just about every new class of technology in history, AI has a unique ability to be universally despised. The ridiculous investment racket, combined with the actual performance and delivery of the product, makes it easy.

In coding terms, AI often looks more like slapstick comedy. The AI Keystone Codes go well with the Keystone Cops.

Inept, unreliable, farcical, and hallucinating software is nobody’s idea of a credible standard of performance. Certainly not business performance. One lousy prompt or a few random otherwise unemployable idiots can produce a MechaHitler.

This is your idea of a few trillion dollars’ worth of good investment? Ownership of this extremely expensive bad case of poultry diarrhea could be legal suicide in one process.

It’s called AI slop simply because it is sloppy.

Imagine this dialogue with an AI agent:

“What’s our current electricity load on the grid?” you ask hopefully.

“Oh, I dunno. How about a meaningless rabid political rant instead?” it replies with a simpering and generally inexcusable New York accent.

Great stuff.

No, it damn well isn’t.

Criticisms of turgid AI videos, endless repetitions of the same information, and the content curation of a dunghill are all perfectly valid and correct.

There’s no actual value in any of this garbage.

Now, let’s get a little less superficial.

This generation of ultra-smug AI isn’t and can’t be the whole story, thank god. Even allowing for the Rectal Rhapsodies of AI spruikers, it’s an interim stage before high-functioning AI can evolve.

This is where the heavy-duty professional criticism necessarily kicks in. it’s interesting to note that in the IT sector, where the real high-tech guys reproduce by fission, none of the AI BS flies at all.

These are the guys who evangelized the internet and every single electronic component since the Commodore 64 like proud parents. They know how derivative current AI is, glued on to much older software like writing and music software that is often decades older.

For the first time ever, the Ultra-Geeks and consumers are on the same page, if for some similar and some different reasons.

They agree that:

Big Tech is all about money and not about performance.

Corporate agendas are driving development for purely financial reasons.

Added ornaments like rumoured new hardware requirements for Windows 12 and everything else, and similar bric-a-brac are more obstacles than assets.

All of this is being done at a great distance from consumer needs, and the consumers don’t like it.

Why not put this externally sorta-maybe required but not consumer-essential junk on the Cloud, where it belongs?

This unsightly mess brings us elegantly if verbosely to the issue of open source AI development.

Open source development is a comparatively complex idea, but it’s essentially free. Open source has generated some of the most useful software ever developed.

The big issue for AI is that open source is also transparent. It can’t really be a corporate toy. There are overlaps, sure, but that’s inevitable. The intellectual property game, however, is very different.

Real development happens in people’s heads.

Some poor soul, floundering through cumbersome protocols and obscure IT idiocies will notice that there are workarounds. Anyone who’s ever done coding will tell you that workarounds are the main reasons that anything works at all. That’s pretty right.

Now, a bit of logic:

If corporate agendas distort efficient development, or more likely sidetrack it, open source is the way around those agendas.

Pure research, the only real gold standard for real tech breakthroughs, is unrestricted in the open source environment.

Talent isn’t and can’t be confined to a stingy 5-minute input in some useless meeting.

Open source is peer-reviewed and highly visible by definition. Its trustworthiness is based on actual performance, not some damn PR exercise.

Open source will finally free AI development. It’s that simple.

________________________________________________________

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.

______________________________________________________________

Talk to me, Alexa: How conversational commerce is reshaping digital strategy

By Dr. Tim Sandle
SCIENCE EDITOR

DIGITAL JOURNAL
January 7, 2026

Voice assistant. Image by Tim Sandle.

Voice assistants are changing the way consumers search, discover, and buy products online. From asking questions aloud to completing purchases, conversational commerce is partly shifting its digital strategy beyond screens.

Consequently, some brands need to adapt to this new voice-driven landscape, optimising content, structuring product data, and integrating AI chat to stay visible and relevant in this emerging channel.

In 2024, the number of active voice assistants surpassed 8.4 billion globally, more than the number of people on Earth. It is estimated that voice commands drive over $3.3 billion in consumer spending, and the channel is expected to reach $45 billion by 2028.

Up to 43% of voice-enabled device owners use their device to shop, with 51% using it to research products, 22% making purchases directly, and 17% reordering items.

As voice assistants and AI chat tools become household staples, the way consumers search, discover, and buy products is evolving.

According toLouis Riat-Bonello from Optisearch, conversational commerce is transforming digital marketing, requiring brands to rethink how they appear in search, engage audiences, and drive conversions. Riat-Bonello explains more to Digital Journal.

Why Conversational Commerce Is Gaining Momentum

Voice assistants and conversational commerce refer to the use of spoken commands or chat-based interfaces to search for information, discover products, and complete purchases. Instead of typing queries or browsing traditional websites, consumers interact with AI-powered assistants, smart speakers, or on-site chat tools that guide them through the buying journey.

Monthly, Riat-Bonello says, 11.5% of smart speaker owners make purchases, equal to nearly 5.5 million US adults. 52% of owners are interested in deals and promotions, while 38% find voice ads less invasive and 39% find them more tempting than traditional ads. These behaviours show a clear opportunity for brands to reach audiences in ways traditional channels cannot.

From a marketing and commercial perspective, conversational commerce is gaining traction. Riat-Bonello says it is for the following reasons:Ease and convenience: Voice and chat remove friction by allowing users to search or shop hands-free, making it ideal for multitasking and on-the-go moments
Faster decision-making: Conversational interfaces often deliver direct answers or product recommendations, reducing the steps between intent and action
Growing consumer comfort with AI: As voice assistants and chatbots become more accurate, users increasingly trust them for everyday tasks, including shopping
Strong local and high-intent use cases: Voice searches are frequently local or transactional, creating opportunities for brands to capture customers ready to act
Seamless integration with daily life: Smart speakers, mobile assistants, and embedded chat tools make conversational commerce a natural extension of how people already use technology.

According to Riat-Bonello: “Voice search and conversational tools are changing how brands are found and how people shop online. When someone speaks to their assistant, they want a fast, accurate answer. That means businesses need to optimise content for natural, full-sentence queries, ensure product data is structured and reliable, and use AI-driven chat to guide customers to the right products.”

This is leading to adaptation. Riat-Bonello cites: “Smart brands are thinking beyond screens. Every voice query is a potential conversion, and every interaction shapes how consumers perceive your business. Voice shopping is not just a trend. It is becoming a core part of the customer journey, and businesses that adapt early will gain a real advantage.”

How Brands Can Optimise for Voice Commerce

Voice assistants like Siri, Alexa, and Google Assistant do not “browse” results. They aim to return one correct answer, not a list. For those seeking to market products using voice assistants, Riat-Bonello sees the best way to “appeal” to voice assistants is to:Ensure product and business data is fully structured using schema markup, including pricing, availability, reviews, and location details
Maintain consistent listings across Google Business Profile, Apple Maps, Amazon, and other trusted data sources used by voice assistants
Optimise content for natural, spoken queries by targeting full-sentence questions and intent-driven searches rather than short keywords
Build authoritative FAQ and support content that directly answers common “how,” “where,” and “best” queries users ask aloud
Strengthen local SEO signals, as many voice searches are location-based and action-oriented
Focus on reviews, ratings, and fulfilment reliability, which voice assistants use as confidence signals when selecting recommendations
Integrate AI-powered chat on websites to mirror conversational behaviour and guide users toward products or actions

Riat-Bonello adds that things should not simply stop here, since development is always necessary. He recommends regularly auditing product feeds, structured data, and listings to ensure accuracy as platforms and voice algorithms evolve.

 

Large parts of the tropics overlooked in environmental research

Umea University

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

Daniel Metcalfe, Professor at the Department of Ecology, Environment and Geoscience, Umeå University.

view more 

Credit: Photo: Mattias Pettersson

Environmental research in the tropics is heavily skewed, according to a comprehensive study led from Umeå University. Humid lowland forest ecosystems receive a disproportionate amount of attention, while colder and drier regions that are more affected by climate change are severely underrepresented.

“Current research patterns risk giving a misleading picture about how tropical ecosystems function. This can lead to policy recommendations that fail to take into account the environments that are most vulnerable, or that take lessons learned from one system and mistakenly apply them to other systems,” says Daniel Metcalfe, lead author of the study and professor at Umeå University.

The researchers analysed 2,738 published studies conducted in natural terrestrial tropical environments across all scientific disciplines. By mapping both field sampling locations and how often different studies are cited, they were able to reveal strong geographic and ecological patterns in the research. The results are published in the scientific journal Nature Communications.

Climate-vulnerable ecosystems

The study shows that just five ecoregions—all located in moist broadleaf forests—account for 22 percent of all citations, despite representing only 3 percent of the total tropical land area. In contrast, drier regions with low tree cover make up 57 percent of the tropical region but stand for only 20 percent of total citations.

Many of the regions that receive the least research attention—such as mountain regions, deserts and grasslands—are also among those facing the most severe climate change impacts. This means that policy decisions affecting them may be based on incomplete or misleading science.

Imbalance in research

By clearly showing where research effort and scientific attention are lacking, the study provides a basis for guiding future research investments more strategically.

“To ensure effective environmental policy worldwide, research needs to better reflect the full range of tropical ecosystems. This is both a scientific necessity and a matter of fairness,” says Daniel Metcalfe. “Similar imbalances are likely to exist beyond the tropics. Understanding where research is lacking in other regions, such as Europe’s temperate and boreal ecosystems, could help shape future research agendas.”

Colder and drier regions in the tropics receive less attention in research, but are often harder hit by climate change.

Some tropical regions are very understudied, such as the montane grasslands in the Peruvian Andes. This risks creating a misleading picture in research and leading to poor policy decisions.

 

Credit

Photo: Daniel Metcalfe

---

Journal

Nature Communications

DOI

10.1038/s41467-025-67617-4 

Method of Research

Data/statistical analysis

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

Gaps in tropical science from unrepresentative distribution of sampling and citation across natural terrestrial environments