An expanded class-action lawsuit filed last Friday alleges that a member of Nvidia’s data strategy team directly contacted Anna’s Archive — the sprawling shadow library hosting millions of pirated books — to explore “including Anna’s Archive in pre-training data for our LLMs.”

Internal documents cited in the amended complaint show Nvidia sought information about “high-speed access” to the collection, which Anna’s Archive charged tens of thousands of dollars for. According to the lawsuit, Anna’s Archive warned Nvidia that its library was illegally acquired and maintained, then asked if the company had internal permission to proceed. The pirate library noted it had previously wasted time on other AI companies that couldn’t secure approval. Nvidia management allegedly gave “the green light” within a week.

Anna’s Archive promised access to roughly 500 terabytes of data, including millions of books normally only accessible through Internet Archive’s controlled digital lending system. The lawsuit also alleges Nvidia downloaded books from LibGen, Sci-Hub, and Z-Library.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The latest craze in the fitness world—from gym culture, to nutrition planning, to recovery protocols— is hyper-personalized optimization. But is there really a benefit to at-home microbiome tests that reveal the optimal diet for your gut bacteria? How about a device that tells you whether you’re burning carbs or fat with each breath?

Personalized fitness advice used to be largely limited to factors like height and weight, but now you might have a Whoop, Oura, or Apple Watch wearable tracking your track heart rate variability, skin temperature, blood oxygen, and so much more. Continuous glucose monitors, once reserved for diabetics, are now worn by biohackers and CrossFit enthusiasts trying to optimize their carb timing.

On the one hand, the appeal of having unprecedented insight into your body’s unique needs is understandable. On the other, there’s a looming shadow behind all this data: As the metrics multiply, so does the potential for anxiety. When every workout, meal, and bedtime becomes a referendum on dozens of competing data points, decision fatigue is likely to set in. And as your algorithms suggest targeted interventions for every perceived deficiency, someone else—likely a giant corporation getting fat off of user data—is profiting. The question looms larger with each new device metric: Does more data actually lead to better health outcomes?

More data isn’t always better

Your wearable spits out a sleep (or stress) report every morning. How is this data serving you? “Metabolic testing, biomechanics, and body composition are all forms of objective data that can be pretty powerful when collected in validated settings and interpreted by professionals who understand physiology and adaptation,” says Lekshmi Kumar, a performance physiologist at Boston-based Human Powered Health. But consumer devices, while improving, exist in a different category: “Consistent research has bolstered consumer-facing tools and significant improvements have been made over the past several years. But they’re still not considered substitutes for professional-grade assessments,” Kumar says. In other words, for a lot of bio-hacking endeavors, there’s a major gap between the numbers you see and their potential real-life applications. 

Kumar sees three critical prerequisites for data to actually improve outcomes: data quality, proper context, and accurate interpretation. “Absent these, we often see expensive and excessive supplementation, conflicting recommendations, and decision fatigue,” she says. The real danger, she says, isn’t the data itself—it’s the illusion of expertise it creates.

Hyper-personalized data might add unnecessary confusion

Many direct-to-consumer tests lack the clinical validation of their medical-grade counterparts. Interpretation of the data is frequently automated, missing nuance that a trained professional might catch. And the recommendations often trend toward more—more supplements, more tracking, more intervention—rather than identifying changes that might actually move the needle. It’s a hard truth that no wellness product actually cares more about your health than its company’s profits. 

Perhaps the most insidious cost of hyper-personalization is less financial, and more psychological: When every metric matters, decision-making becomes paralyzing. Should you work out today even though your HRV is down? Is that meal worth the glucose spike? Did last night’s 6.5 hours of sleep doom today’s training session?

The constant feedback loop can transform exercise from a joyful practice into an optimization problem to be solved. This isn’t the first time I’ve pointed out the trappings of wellness culture. The internal compass—how do I actually feel?—gets drowned out by all the external data streams. Ironically, the tools meant to “empower” can instead create dependency, where you can’t trust their own bodily sensations without technological confirmation.

Does hyper-personalization actually work? 

When implemented thoughtfully (with quality data, proper interpretation, and professional guidance), personalized approaches can obviously aid you in optimizing training, recovery, and nutrition in ways generic programs cannot. Elite athletes have long used sophisticated testing—VO2 max assessments, lactate threshold testing, motion capture analysis—to gain advantages, however marginal. As these tools become more accessible, it makes sense their benefits can extend beyond the professional realm.

But accessibility without expertise? That’s a different matter. Consider two hypothetical people concerned about their fitness: Person A tracks sleep quality, HRV, resting heart rate, blood oxygen, skin temperature, glucose levels, and workout strain—but lacks a framework to understand how these metrics interact, or what to do when they conflict. Person B follows a simple evidence-based program: strength training three times per week, 30 minutes of cardio on alternate days, eight hours of sleep, and a balanced diet with adequate protein. Even absent all that data, Person B will likely see better results and experience far less angst about their health.

Again, there are the economic incentives to consider too. Companies profit from selling more tests, more devices, more subscriptions, and more supplements. The business model depends on convincing consumers they need increasingly granular data to achieve their goals. This creates an environment where the answer to “what should I track?” is almost always “more than you’re tracking now,” regardless of whether the additional data actually serves you.

When personal health tracking actually makes sense

“The biggest gains won’t come from chasing every single flashy metric,” says Kumar. “They’ll come from identifying the variables that matter most to the specific individual, and working with a credentialed professional who can assist in translating the information into meaningful takeaways and actions.”

What does smart, targeted tracking look like in practice? Here are scenarios where specific metrics can genuinely help:

• For a runner struggling with fatigue: Tracking HRV and resting heart rate can reveal when you’re not recovering adequately between training blocks. If these metrics trend downward over weeks, it’s a signal to dial back intensity or add rest days—something that matters far more than monitoring glucose fluctuations after breakfast.

• For someone with persistent digestive issues: A food diary paired with symptom tracking (not necessarily a microbiome test kit) can help identify genuine patterns. Working with a registered dietitian to systematically eliminate or reintroduce foods provides actionable insights, unlike a $200 test suggesting you eat more fermented foods.

• For someone desperate to improve sleep: Use your gadgets to track total sleep time and sleep consistency. That matters more than obsessing over REM percentages. Focus on establishing a regular pre-sleep routine and measuring whether you feel rested, rather than achieving some algorithm’s “optimal” sleep score.

• For the lifter hitting a plateau: Remember that linear gains are for beginners. Instead of stressing over daily scale readings, focus on your training log tracking progressive overload and consider following these tips.

You’ll notice a patter here: Each tracking approach is targeted, time-bound, and directly connected to a specific goal or problem—not a fruitless pursuit to optimize every single thing all the time.

The bottom line

In a culture obsessed with optimization, it’s getting harder and harder to cut through the noise. But maybe your goal shouldn’t be to track everything. As hyper-personalization continues its ascent, think about how you’re engaging with every new tool. The wisest approach may be a picky one: choosing one or two key metrics that align with specific goals. Because more information isn’t automatically better, and consumer tools have real limitations, and that the human body is beautifully, frustratingly complex—not exactly reducible to a dashboard of numbers.

The totals are in for 2025, and it’s been a great year for measles. According to the CDC, the number of cases of the disease identified in the US has risen from 285 in 2024 to 2,144 in 2025, the highest number of measles cases since 1990. We’ve already seen at least 171 measles cases in the first two weeks of 2026.

As you’d probably guess, experts pin the rise in measles to lower vaccination rates. I covered a number of vaccination and measles myths in this column months ago, but there is a new spin on measles that seems to be gaining some traction: A lot of people think contracting measles is good for your heath.

“There’s a lot of studies out there that show that if you actually do get the wild infection, you’re protected later. It boosts your immune system later in life against cancers, atopic diseases, cardiac disease, etc.,” Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Department of Health and Human Services secretary said in a recent Fox interview. Online, there are posts like this one from a chiropractor’s Instagram page, using a clip from The Brady Bunch to argue that contracting measles and other diseases “prepares a child’s immune system for a long-term resiliency to chronic problems like cancers and heart disease.” Others point to news stories like this from CNN to bolster claims that measles fights cancer.

Can measles fight cancer?

There is no evidence that measles infection can protect against cancer. Full stop. But whether measles can treat cancer is a little more complex. There is a small grain of truth here, but it’s wrapped in a lot of misconceptions.

The most basic is the meaning of the word “measles.” Oncolytic virus therapy uses genetically altered viruses, including the measles virus, to target cancer cells. A modified version of the measles virus was used successfully to treat a specific kind of cancer and boost immune response to the cancer. Mayo Clinic researchers report that one patient’s incurable cancer went into remission, thanks to the virus. “But that’s totally a therapeutic application of viruses, completely different than what happens with natural infections,” said John Bell, a senior scientist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute in an interview, so it’s not “measles cures cancer,” it’s “scientists weaponize a virus under controlled conditions.”

The bottom line: The wild measles virus is a dangerous pathogen, not a cancer cure. Not only that, but part of the reason the virus therapy worked so well on the patient CNN covered was because she had been vaccinated for measles, so if genetically modified measles ever end up being used as cancer treatment, it’s better to have been vaccinated than not.

Does contracting measles prevent heart disease?

One study in Japan found an association between measles and mumps infections and a lower risk of death from atherosclerotic heart disease. But critics have pointed out that this research relies on self-reporting within a pre-vaccine population. Given the virulence of measles, all of the people in the survey would likely have been exposed to measles as children even if they didn’t remember it, so it’s hard to draw any conclusions from this study.

Does contracting measles boost your immune system?

While being infected with the disease will likely result in being immune to measles afterwards, it harms your immune system as a whole. A 2019 study from Harvard Medical School published by Science, found that the measles virus can cause “immune amnesia,” the wiping out of up to three-quarters of antibodies protecting against other infections like the flu or the bacteria that cause pneumonia. “The measles virus is like a car accident for your immune system,” Harvard University geneticist Stephen Elledge, the senior author of the Science study, told The Los Angeles Times.

“If your child gets the measles and then gets pneumonia two years later, you wouldn’t necessarily tie the two together. The symptoms of measles itself may be only the tip of the iceberg,” said the study’s first author, Dr. Michael Mina.

Meanwhile, we have extremely strong evidence that the measles vaccine doesn’t cause a general weakening of the immune system—note, for example, the dramatic reductions in childhood deaths from other diseases in places where measles immunization programs are introduced. After measles vaccinations began in the United States in the 1960s, deaths from diseases like pneumonia and diarrhea were cut by half, and in populations where infectious diseases are more common, the reduction in mortality has been up to 80 percent.

Playing devil’s advocate on measles

Let’s assume critics are right, for the sake of argument. Even if contracting measles in childhood makes you less likely to get heart disease later in life and gives you a stronger immune system, it would still make sense to get immunized instead of infected.

Measles is a serious disease. Regardless of any future benefit, contracting measles is deadly in up to three of every 1,000 cases. About one child out of every 1,000 who get measles will develop encephalitis (swelling of the brain) that can lead to convulsions, hearing loss, and intellectual disability.

Vaccination for measles, on the other hand, is very safe. The most serious side effects come from severe allergic reactions, and that happens about in a one in a million doses. The measles vaccine generates immunity without the risk of encephalitis, without immune amnesia, and without gambling a child’s life on a hypothetical future payoff. If measles exposure truly primes the immune system in some beneficial way, vaccination captures the immune response while stripping out the damage. No matter how generous you are to the “infection is good” argument, infection is a dangerous and inefficient way to get there.

As Meta heads to trial in the state of New Mexico for allegedly failing to protect minors from sexual exploitation, the company is making an aggressive push to have certain information excluded from the court proceedings.

The company has petitioned the judge to exclude certain research studies and articles around social media and youth mental health; any mention of a recent high-profile case involving teen suicide and social media content; and any references to Meta’s financial resources, the personal activities of employees, and Mark Zuckerberg’s time as a student at Harvard University.

Meta’s requests to exclude information, known as motions in limine, are a standard part of pretrial proceedings, in which a party can ask a judge to determine in advance which evidence or arguments are permissible in court. This is to ensure the jury is presented with facts and not irrelevant or prejudicial information and that the defendant is granted a fair trial.

Read full article

Comments

Last month, Spotify announced “Prompted Playlist,” a new feature the company claimed let users “steer the algorithm.” This was a bold—if not vague—claim, to be sure, but it was backed by everyone’s favorite tech trend of the last three years: AI. The pitch was that Spotify would let subscribers use the company’s AI models to better control their listening experience, so long as they lived in the country of New Zealand. That’s a very small slice of Spotify’s very large user base.

Luckily for those of us in the United States and Canada, Prompted Playlist is expanding to our side of North America. Spotify announced the move today, Jan. 21: Now, Premium subscribers in any of these three countries can access the feature, if they want to hand over the playlist reigns to Spotify’s machine learning models.

What is Prompted Playlist?

Prompted Playlist is Spotify’s AI-powered tool that lets you use natural language to create custom playlists. The idea is, rather than look for songs to add to a playlist, you tell Spotify’s AI what you’re in the mood to listen to, and it adds songs automatically for you. That can include genres and existing songs, but also ideas, deeper descriptions, and, for lack of a better word, vibes.

To understand what I mean, here are some of the suggested prompts Spotify suggests you try:

• “Make me a playlist of songs I’ve saved to my Library (playlists or Liked Songs) that I either haven’t played yet or have only listened to once. The goal is to round up those songs I found, saved, and then totally forgot to revisit. Give me a chance to finally hear what I’ve been missing.”

• “What are the first tracks I ever listened to on Spotify? Order them by the very first track I ever streamed – with date and time – and keep going.”

• “Knowing what I listen to today, make me a playlist of songs from 2016 that match my current taste, mixing the biggest tracks from that year with songs that feel timeless now.”

• “Make me a playlist to help me learn Spanish, with clear vocals and easy-to-follow lyrics. Mix popular Spanish-language songs with slower tracks that make it easier to catch the words, and include music that reflects different Spanish-speaking cultures to keep it engaging.”

Spotify says that Prompted Playlist takes your existing listening history into account as well. While you and a friend might give Spotify’s AI the same prompt, in theory, you should each receive different playlists, since the AI will make adjustments based on the music you like and don’t like. You also don’t have to wonder why the AI put a specific song in the playlist: Each track starts with a “quick one-liner” that explains why Spotify chose it in the first place. I could see that being either insightful, or extremely annoying.

The thing is, Spotify has rolled out a feature like this before, appropriately dubbed “AI Playlist.” Lifehacker’s David Nield covered it in September of 2024, and catching up on that feature, it sounds pretty similar to Prompted Playlist. AI Playlist isn’t actually going away now that Prompted Playlist is here: Spotify tells me that these are two separate features, and that the major differences are that Prompted Playlist factors in your entire Spotify listening history, going back to your first song, as well as real-time information about “trends, charts, culture, and history” in the industry today. You can also schedule playlists if you like, so the mix refreshes every day or week, something you can’t do with AI Playlist.

From my seat, it also seems like Prompted Playlist is designed to handle more complex prompts, as well. While the company advertised AI Playlist as a way to build playlists from prompts like “upbeat pop music for my road trip,” the company’s suggested Prompted Playlist prompts are much more intricate, and include multiple levels of instruction for the AI. Perhaps part of that is the result of improvements in the technology over the past year and half.

How to try Spotify’s Prompted Playlist

Prompted Playlist is launching as a Premium-only feature, so if you don’t pay for Spotify, you unfortunately can’t access it. If you do have a Premium account, you’ll need to head to Spotify, tap “Create,” then choose “Prompted Playlist.”

As explained above, from here, you can describe what kind of playlist you want the tool to make. From here, you’ll be able to set how often it refreshes (if it refreshes at all). If you’re not happy with the results, you can choose “Edit Prompt” to adjust it. You can share the playlist with friends, but know that Spotify will adjust the playlist to match their listening histories instead.

1Password has a new tool designed to counteract the advantages AI has given to phishing scammers. A new feature for the company’s browser extension gives you a “second pair of eyes” to help you catch a bogus website before entering your login info.

Before AI, phishing attempts often included telltale signs like obvious typos or rudimentary graphic design. Now that AI makes it much easier to design and code convincingly, scams are on the rise. According to Fortune, 60 percent of companies reported an increase in fraud-related losses from 2024 to 2025. And the advent of AI browsers could make things even worse.

“Our new phishing feature adds an extra layer of protection,” 1Password says. Once the feature is activated, the extension actively watches for suspicious sign-ins. To be clear, even before this feature’s arrival, 1Password wouldn’t autofill saved credentials for a bogus website impersonating it. But that still left room for people to manually paste their login info, handing it over to those with the worst intentions.

That moment when you try to paste your login manually is where the new feature comes in. “The website you’re on isn’t linked to a login in 1Password,” the feature’s warning pop-up reads. “Make sure you trust this site before continuing.”

1Password says that’s the “breakthrough” moment that can help you avoid a major hassle. “That single moment of pause, that tiny bit of friction, is often all it takes to disrupt the attackers’ entire plan.”

The new feature is available today. You can enable it in the 1Password browser extension’s settings. Under the Notifications section, activate the setting for “Warn about pasted logins on non-linked websites.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/cybersecurity/1password-adds-an-extra-layer-of-phishing-protection-140000293.html?src=rss

Scarlett Johannsson, R.E.M., Vince Gilligan and over 700 other artists are demanding that tech companies stop “stealing” their work in order to train AI models. A new campaign called “Stealing isn’t Innovation” demands that AI companies take “the responsible, ethical route” through licensing and partnerships, according to the website.

“America’s creative community is the envy of the world and creates jobs, economic growth and exports,” a statement on the website reads. “But rather than respect and protect this valuable asset, some of the biggest tech companies, many backed by private equity and other funders, are using American creators’ work to build AI platforms without authorization for copyright law.”

The group adds that the “illegal intellectual property grab” has resulted in an information ecosystem dominated by “misinformation, deepfakes and a vapid artificial avalanche of low-quality materials [‘AI slop’]… threatening America’s AI superiority and international competitiveness.”

OpenAI once argued that it’s “impossible” to train AI without copyrighted materials, since “copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression.” However, actors, musicians and authors take issue with that idea, particularly when they see their likenesses or work repurposed as slop or worse by large language models (LLMs).

Johansson, for one, previously threatened OpenAI with legal action in 2024 over a ChatGPT voice assistant that effectively cloned her voice. More recently, Elon Musk’s Grok has been accused of creating millions of sexualized images of real people in just days, according to a report today from The New York Times.

“Big Tech is trying to change the law so they can keep stealing American artistry to build their AI businesses — without authorization and without paying the people who did the work. That is wrong; it’s un-American, and it’s theft on a grand scale,” the group proclaimed.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/a-list-creatives-sign-up-to-fight-ai-say-it-enables-theft-at-a-grand-scale-140000475.html?src=rss

The new year was supposed to bring opportunities for beaten-down software stocks. Instead, the group is off to its worst start in years. From a report: The release of a new artificial intelligence tool from startup Anthropic on Jan. 12 rekindled fears about disruption that weighed on software makers in 2025.

TurboTax owner Intuit tumbled 16% last week, its worst since 2022, while Adobe and Salesforce, which makes customer relationship management software, both sank more than 11%. All told, a group of software-as-a-service stocks tracked by Morgan Stanley is down 15% so far this year, following a drop of 11% in 2025. It’s the worst start to a year since 2022, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

While unproven, the tool represents just the type of capabilities that investors have been fearing, and reinforces bearish positions that are looking increasingly entrenched, according to Jordan Klein, a tech-sector specialist at Mizuho Securities. “Many buysiders see no reasons to own software no matter how cheap or beaten down the stocks get,” Klein wrote in a Jan. 14 note to clients. “They assume zero catalysts for a re-rate exist right now,” he said, referring to the potential for higher valuation multiples.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Ahead of its upcoming price hike, Spotify is rolling out a more advanced AI playlist feature in the US and Canada. Prompted Playlist, which the company trialed in New Zealand late last year, lets subscribers “control the Spotify algorithm,” as the company describes it. “You’re not just asking for music, you’re shaping how Spotify goes about discovering it for you.”

For example, you can guide it to make a playlist of songs you’ve saved to your Library but haven’t listened to yet. (It can tap into your entire Spotify history.) Or, you can tell it to round up songs from a specific television show or movie. (It uses real-time information about pop culture, charts, and history.)

The feature includes options to refresh the playlist over time (daily or weekly). You can edit each playlist’s prompt at any time. Each track will include a short note to explain why it was chosen.

Spotify

Spotify says beta testers have used Prompted Playlist to revisit songs tied to specific moments and filter out tracks they’ve overplayed lately. “Others are asking for long, lyric-free electronic playlists to power through a workday, or mixing in artists connected to current pop culture moments and viral trends,” the company wrote.

There’s room for some confusion here because Spotify already has an “AI Playlist” feature. That simpler type will stick around alongside the new “Prompted” variety, which allows for finer tuning and can sift through more data.

Prompted Playlist will be available to Spotify Premium subscribers in the US and Canada “by the end of the month.” Once you have access, you can try it by tapping Create, then selecting Prompted Playlist.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/audio/spotifys-prompted-playlist-lets-you-describe-exactly-what-you-want-to-hear-140000153.html?src=rss

We may earn a commission from links on this page. Deal pricing and availability subject to change after time of publication.

The Bose Ultra Open Earbuds don’t block out the world—they sit just outside your ears and let everything in. Traffic noise, conversations, the doorbell—all of it stays audible while your music plays alongside it. That makes these earbuds a better match for people who move around outdoors or just don’t like feeling sealed off. Right now, a certified refurbished pair in White Smoke is $125.99 on Woot. That’s a noticeable drop from the roughly $179 (refurbished) price on Amazon, where a brand-new pair still lists for $299. Bose handles the refurbishment directly, includes all original accessories, and backs the earbuds with a one-year manufacturer’s warranty. Shipping is free for Prime members, with a $6 fee for everyone else, and the deal runs for nine days or until it sells out.

Bose Ultra Open Earbuds

$125.99
at Woot

$299.00
Save $173.01

$125.99
at Woot

$299.00
Save $173.01

Each earbud clips onto your ear using a flexible silicone band instead of resting inside your ear canal. Once you find the right fit (which may take a few tries), you should find them surprisingly stable. Runners and walkers will appreciate that they stay put without squeezing or irritating the ears, and with IPX4 water resistance, they can handle sweat and light rain, which is enough for most daily use. The earbuds support Bluetooth 5.3 with AptX Adaptive, so Android users get a small audio edge over iPhone users, but connection quality is solid across the board. Battery life averages about 7.5 hours per charge and stretches to roughly 27 hours with the case.

Sound quality is better than most open-style earbuds manage. Vocals come through cleanly, highs stay sharp, and the midrange has enough body to keep music from sounding hollow. Deep bass is where you feel the compromise. It’s there, but it doesn’t hit hard, which is most noticeable with bass-heavy genres. For podcasts, calls, and casual listening, though, the tuning feels balanced and easygoing. According to this PCMag review, the earbuds sound best around 70 percent volume, where detail stays intact without distortion. If you want high-quality, open-ear audio and don’t mind a little trial-and-error with the fit, this is one of the better ways to try Bose’s latest without paying full price.