Apple accuses OpenAI of using stolen trade secrets to create its upcoming AI gadgets in new lawsuit; CNN, July 10, 2026

Lisa Eadicicco, Hadas Gold, CNN ; Apple accuses OpenAI of using stolen trade secrets to create its upcoming AI gadgets in new lawsuit

"Apple sued OpenAI on Friday, alleging the AI company has stolen the iPhone maker’s trade secrets to develop its own yet-to-be-unveiled AI gadgets.

In the suit, filed in the District Court of Northern California, Apple accuses OpenAI of trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract.

OpenAI last year announced it has been working with Apple’s former design chief on a hush-hush project to build devices meant to bring smartphone users into the age of AI.

The device is expected to be unveiled later this year – but the lawsuit could throw a wrench into those plans. The suit could also complicate OpenAI’s plans to go public soon in a massive, hotly anticipated IPO."

North Dakota Power Trio Opens Up About Trump, the Filibuster and Teddy Roosevelt; Politico, July 8, 2026

JONATHAN MARTIN , Politico; North Dakota Power Trio Opens Up About Trump, the Filibuster and Teddy Roosevelt

"Roosevelt’s birthplace in Manhattan’s Flatiron and his sprawling Oyster Bay summer estate on Long Island are both run by the National Park Service. Yet because he served before the National Archives took over the presidential library system, Roosevelt was the most famous American president post-Lincoln without his own dedicated library.

Enter Burgum, Gov. Kelly Armstrong, Sen. Kevin Cramer and the other North Dakotans who saw opportunity — and dollar signs — at the foot of the Theodore Roosevelt National Park here.

Raising over $350 million, overwhelmingly from private donors, the North Dakotans met their goal of opening the library for America’s 250th birthday. And it is a gem. Sitting atop a butte, with a beige color matching the sandstone land, Teddy’s temple offers resplendent views outside and a vivid, high-tech retelling of his life therein. As the remarkably lifelike AI Roosevelt inside might say, he’d be “deeee-lighted.”"

Beyond the Mirage: Beware of Generative AI and Hallucinations; New York State Bar Association (NYSBA), June 26, 2026

 Cynthia Feathers , New York State Bar Association (NYSBA); Beyond the Mirage: Beware of Generative AI and Hallucinations

"The work of attorneys can be arduous. With demanding caseloads comes an openness to tools that can help us do our jobs more efficiently. The advent of online legal research was a game changer for attorneys decades ago. In recent years, generative artificial intelligence – AI that can create original content such as text, images, video, audio or software code in response to a user’s prompt or request – has begun to revolutionize legal practice.[1] This development has included the integration of AI into legal research and writing.

The focus here is on the risks inherent in popular generative AI models used to complete such tasks: They are prone to producing false legal information, so-called hallucinations, including false case citations and false reasoning, quotes and holdings. A nationwide epidemic of cases involving such fabrications has made the risks of unverified AI use well known. Hundreds of decisions have touched on this issue.[2] Thus, the legal profession has been alerted that blind faith in generative AI results is misplaced.

This article makes no attempt to be exhaustive as to the rapidly unfolding case law but does seek to highlight some emblematic decisions issued by state, federal, trial and appellate courts throughout the country over the last two years and to bring attention to the dangers of failing to check AI results...

Evolving technology is seductive in creating the illusion that it can save us from the hard work. But our ethical duties to our clients and the courts still require that we rigorously verify every case cited. When generative AI output becomes more reliable, new questions will arise about how far we can go in abdicating our lawyerly judgment to new technology.[20]

For now, New York attorneys should be aware of a new rule on AI adopted by the New York State Unified Court System. Effective June 1, Part 161 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts permits the use of AI tools in preparing submissions to a court and does not require the disclosure of such use. However, Part 161 sets forth a model rule that does require attorneys using such tools to “carefully review” each submission and “independently ensure” that they do not contain “fabricated or fictitious cases, statutes, or other material.”[21]  Individual judges retain discretion to implement their own AI-related rules, adopt the model rule or impose no additional requirements through their part rules.

Perhaps soon we will see more standing orders on AI use and updated ethics rules nationwide targeting AI issues.[22]  In the meantime, in the use of AI, we can be guided by the new court rule and longstanding mandates regarding competence, diligence, accuracy and candor and the supervision of lawyers and nonlawyers."

Ford rehires human engineers after AI fails to match quality checks; BBC, June 29, 2026

Liv McMahon , BBC; Ford rehires human engineers after AI fails to match quality checks

"Ford says it has hired back some human engineers after AI failed to match their skills and experience.

In a bid to reap the benefits of the tech, which developers claim can cut costs and boost productivity, the US carmaker adopted it across some parts of its operations including for quality checks.

But, according to Bloomberg, its executives said the firm has rehired more than 300 "veteran" quality inspectors in recent years to make up for the pitfalls of automated systems.

"Artificial intelligence is a fantastic tool, but it's only as good as the information you use to train it," Charles Poon, vice president of vehicle hardware engineering, told reporters.

"Over prior years, we didn't pay as much attention as we should have to the experience of our most knowledgeable engineers that have been with us through many product cycles," he said.

The US automaker is among many to have seized on the buzz around AI, particularly amid Wall Street fervour about the tech's potential to increase margins."

‘Five years in AI is an eternity’: Inside Pittsburgh’s work to govern a technology moving too fast to predict; Pittsburgh's Public Source, June 30, 2026

Alice Crow , Pittsburgh's Public Source; ‘Five years in AI is an eternity’: Inside Pittsburgh’s work to govern a technology moving too fast to predict

"The city decided to work with it, creating standards for generative AI usage. The early policy, which became public in 2024 through a series of Public Source articles, was largely restrictive, designed to curb risky behavior like putting private resident data into commercial AI tools. 

Pittsburgh updated its policy in 2025, designating Microsoft 365 Copilot Chat as its recommended tool for city employees, meaning data entered into Copilot stays within the city’s Microsoft system and isn’t used to train AI models, according to the policy. 

City employees are also being told which AI tools to use, what information to keep out of them and when to disclose that they’ve used the tech.

Today, as officials set those guardrails, they’re also leaving room for experimentation, asking how AI could improve city work."

‘There’s this deep mystery of what, actually, is this thing?’: the philosopher inside Google DeepMind AI; The Guardian, June 30, 2026

Robert P Baird, The Guardian ; ‘There’s this deep mystery of what, actually, is this thing?’: the philosopher inside Google DeepMind AI

"After starting at DeepMind in 2017, Gabriel was, for a time, the only active philosopher working at a frontier AI lab. He quickly discovered that his background in moral philosophy and political theory gave him an unusual perspective in an industry dominated by engineers. Over the past decade, he has assembled a body of work that tracked, and in many cases predicted, the ethical challenges created by the surprising success of large language models (LLMs)...

More generally, Gabriel has been a leading advocate for the idea that the current wave of AI development demands not just new technical vocabularies but also new ways of thinking about our relationship to technology, and even to ourselves. As he put it to me recently, in one of several long conversations we’ve had over the past few months, “I can take any technological artefact and ask: is it wise? Is it just? Is it caring? And the answer is no. But the depth of the question when it comes to AI – including what kind of ethics is appropriate to it – is hard to overstate. I sometimes feel like it’s very hard to look at AI directly. There’s this deep mystery there, which is: but what actually is this thing? We have a very literal answer, but the literal answer doesn’t seem to necessarily provide a moral answer.”

AI helps read papyrus scroll burnt to crisp during Vesuvius eruption; The Guardian, June 24, 2026

Ian Sample, The Guardian; AI helps read papyrus scroll burnt to crisp during Vesuvius eruption

[Kip Currier: How exciting to learn from this 6/24/26 Guardian article that AI has uncovered more text from an ancient scroll that was charred by Mount Vesuvius's eruption in 79 AD.

I included in my Ethics, Information, and Technology book a "benefits of AI" example from a couple of years ago of just a few words that had been gleaned by AI from one of these blackened scrolls. Now the world has access to "20 columns of previously hidden text covering more than a metre of charred papyrus without physically unrolling the scroll."

This example offers another persuasive argument, too, for the importance of preserving archival artifacts, even if the technologies of the time present roadblocks to discovery and new knowledge. Thankfully, these charred, seemingly impenetrable scrolls were preserved until emerging technologies like AI are now making new discoveries a reality.] 

"The surviving part of an ancient scroll that was burnt to a crisp when Mount Vesuvius erupted nearly 2,000 years ago has been virtually unwrapped and read with help from artificial intelligence.

Researchers uncovered 20 columns of previously hidden text covering more than a metre of charred papyrus without physically unrolling the scroll. The work discusses stoic philosophy on ethics, art and human behaviour and dates to the second or late-third century BC."

How to burst the AI bubble: Strike at its roots; Ars Technica, June 23, 2026

JENNIFER OUELLETTE , Ars Technica; How to burst the AI bubble: Strike at its roots

Sci-fi author/tech journalist Cory Doctorow on his new book, The Reverse Centaur’s Guide to Life After AI.

"Doctorow is not virulently anti-AI; he uses AI tools regularly and sees potential in many of those tools as useful plugins or cool new apps. But he is nonetheless alarmed at all the hype surrounding AI, the enormous capital expenditures, the unrealistic expectations and self-serving messaging, and the potentially catastrophic economic consequences when the AI bubble inevitably pops...

Ars Technica: Why do you think AI is so appealing to political and business leaders in particular? 

Cory Doctorow: It’s not just that it makes for a good demo. AI really appeals to a fantasy that I think all of us have to some extent but that powerful people really have, of a world without people in it—because hell really is other people. You can’t get stuff done without other people helping you. You can’t have romance without a romantic partner. You can’t have social media without people to socialize with. You can’t play a board game, or do a startup, or build a bridge, or build a house, or do politics without other people. And other people stubbornly refuse to organize everything they do to make you happy.

Particularly if you’re rich and powerful, it’s very galling. So AI is very attractive. One of the reasons DOGE fired so many government workers was because it played into the fantasy that you can have a government without government employees. In the corporate sphere, it’s the fantasy of a business without workers, because every corporate leader is haunted by the secret fear that if they don’t show up for work, everything goes on just fine. But if the workers don’t show up, everything shuts down. Maybe they’re not really driving the car, maybe they’re strapped in the backseat with a toy steering wheel."

‘Peppa Pig’ Causes AI Stink: Concern As Beloved Hasbro Series Asks Child Actors To Sign Over Their Voices To Artificial Intelligence; Deadline, June 25, 2026

Jake Kanter, Deadline; ‘Peppa Pig’ Causes AI Stink: Concern As Beloved Hasbro Series Asks Child Actors To Sign Over Their Voices To Artificial Intelligence

"Nearly 1,000 people have signed an open letter (copied in full below), organized by the Agents of Young Performers Association (AYPA), condemning AI terms on an “international children’s franchise.”

The open letter does not name Peppa Pig, and the AYPA declined to identify the series, but industry sources told Deadline that it refers to the beloved show.

The letter was also not specific about the clause in question, but theoretically, it could give Hasbro the power to clone a child’s voice and then use the AI-generated audio in Peppa Pig commercial assets.

Hasbro told Deadline that it was committed to protecting child performers, adding that it wished to approach discussions about artificial intelligence responsibly and transparently.

“Consent Must Be Treated With Care”

AYPA members are increasingly concerned about children being asked to effectively surrender their voice and image rights. Agents frequently ask the body for advice on AI clauses without naming specific projects.

The AYPA’s open letter said these clauses are often presented as a “take it or leave it” ultimatum, meaning children can lose out on work if their parents or guardians refuse to agree to the terms."

Congress wants artists to own their aesthetic; Politico, June 17, 2026

 AARON MAK, Politico; Congress wants artists to own their aesthetic

"Artificial intelligence has made it incredibly easy to replicate the work of artists, with users generating images reminiscent of Dungeons & Dragons or Studio Ghibli characters.

Congress is now looking to protect people from having their artwork aped by AI. A bipartisan group of lawmakers recently introduced the CREATOR Act, which would grant visual artists control over how AI mimics their creative styles.

Existing intellectual property law generally doesn’t provide people with a right to their artistic styles. The CREATOR Act would significantly expand the scope of IP, and raises a number of unsettled questions about what exactly makes an artists’ work distinctive in a legal sense.

“There’s a lot of ambiguity about what we mean when we say ‘style,’” Cornell tech law professor James Grimmelmann told DFD. “Some elements of artistic style are things that are common in a genre … on the other hand, sometimes when we talk about artistic style, we really are referring to characteristics of somebody’s creations that are recognizably by them.”

The CREATOR Act would allow visual artists to sue those who purposefully use AI to profit from their creative styles without permission, as well as AI platforms that knowingly allow such conduct to occur."

What does AI reveal about creation and vocation?; The Christian Century, June 10, 2026

Uriah Kim , The Christian Century; What does AI reveal about creation and vocation?

"How are new technologies shaping human identity, responsibility, and the common good? Increasingly, such questions are being raised by religious leaders and theologians, most notably by Pope Leo in Magnifica humanitas, his recent encyclical on artificial intelligence and human dignity. Secular critics as well have rightly described this moment as shaped by a form of digital empire.

In this context, artificial intelligence has emerged as a new arena in which long-standing patterns of power and extraction are reasserting themselves. AI systems are developed by powerful institutions, trained on uneven datasets, and deployed in ways that often reinforce existing inequalities. What is being drawn into these systems today is not only labor or natural resources but knowledge itself—including its patterns as to whose stories are preserved, whose perspectives are made to appear objective, and whose ways of knowing are quietly marginalized. This dynamic is not unprecedented. It reflects a familiar imperial pattern now appearing in digital form.

Yet critique alone, however necessary, is no longer sufficient. If religious communities and educational institutions stop at denunciation or rejection of AI, they risk leaving formation to the very systems they distrust. Artificial intelligence will continue to shape how people think, decide, and understand themselves—whether or not we engage it constructively. In reality, AI is already embedded in our everyday infrastructure: search engines, recommendation systems, navigation tools, and even familiar digital platforms such as Microsoft 365 and Zoom, which have quietly integrated AI assistants and other automated features into tools millions of people use every day. Avoiding a particular chatbot does not place us outside this ecosystem; it simply obscures the extent to which intelligent systems are already influencing how we gather information, weigh evidence, and form judgments.

The question, then, is not whether AI should be resisted or embraced, but whether communities of faith will assume responsibility for how human judgment, spirituality, moral imagination, and meaning-making are formed in its presence."

Why AI Is Incorrigibly Didactic; The Atlantic, June 15, 2026

 Adam Kirsch, The Atlantic; Why AI Is Incorrigibly Didactic

"AI writing never challenges the way we think or see. It can’t do so, even if you explicitly ask it to. And this limitation reveals something important about the source of human creativity. All writing, all speech, has to follow conventions; to know how to use a language is to know how other people already use it. But it’s also possible to find new ways of using it, to say things in a way no one has ever heard before. This possibility exists because we can appeal to something more fundamental than language—our experiences of reality, which are so varied and surprising that language can never exhaust them...

An LLM “is simply generating the next token according to learned patterns. Yet from the outside, readers often perceive a distinctive voice.”

And that is why the rise of AI writing represents a great opportunity for literature, even as it makes life harder for professional writers. When photography was developed in the 19th century, it replaced painting for most utilitarian purposes; a camera could document what things looked like more accurately and cheaply than a painter could. But the art of painting didn’t die out. On the contrary, it entered a golden age: Freed from the obligation of realism, painters developed radical new ways of seeing, such as Impressionism, Cubism, and abstract expressionism. Now AI has the potential to liberate literature in the same way. In a world full of emptily competent prose, we need writers daring, challenging, and obstinate enough to tell us what it’s like to be human, “from the inside.”"

AI In the Public Interest: Authorship & Copyright in the Age of AI; JD Supra, June 11, 2026

J. Jekkie Kim, Ariel Soiffer , JD Supra; AI In the Public Interest: Authorship & Copyright in the Age of AI

"In the Public Interest is excited to present the new miniseries, “AI In the Public Interest.” These episodes will examine AI’s impact on the legal landscape and its broader implications for the day-to-day operations of organizations across industries. With the wider prevalence of companies utilizing AI to assist in decision making and determine future frameworks, these conversations will not only take stock of the current state of AI, but will also offer practical insights into what the future may hold. 

The first episode kicks off with a conversation between co-host Jekkie Kim and Partner and Chair of WilmerHale’s AI Technology Transactions Practice Ariel Soiffer. Together they discuss AI through the lens of ownership and copyright, examining guidance from the Copyright Office as to who and what can be a content author. Soiffer also identifies what current protections are in place for those attempting to copyright content that has been created with the involvement of AI. He stresses how important it is for creators and companies alike to document their creative outputs and offers a look into the increasingly complex questions surrounding authorship."

Copyright law ‘struggling’ to parse AI’s ascendancy; Harvard Law Today, June 10, 2026

 Rebecca Beyer, Harvard Law Today; Copyright law ‘struggling’ to parse AI’s ascendancy

"Deferring hard decisions about which kinds of machine-assisted creative works can be copyrighted over nearly 250 years has made it harder to ascertain whether works produced with the help of artificial intelligence can receive legal protection, according to Harvard Law School Professor Rebecca Tushnet...

Tushnet, the Frank Stanton Professor of the First Amendment, spoke as part of a panel discussion, “Copyright in AI Outputs: Who Owns AI-Created Works?,” that was presented by HLS Beyond in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s March decision to deny certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter, a case in which lower courts upheld the Copyright Office’s decision not to issue a copyright to an AI-generated image because “copyright law … requires human authorship.” Matt Kristoffersen ’27 moderated the discussion, which included Boston University School of Law Professor Jessica Silbey, Harvard Law Professor Christopher T. Bavitz, and an extensive Q&A session with audience members."

BGOV Bill Analysis: H.R. 6028, Library, Copyright Appointments; Bloomberg Government, June 8, 2026

 Greg Trial, Bloomberg Government; BGOV Bill Analysis: H.R. 6028, Library, Copyright Appointments

"The librarian of Congress would be appointed by House and Senate leadership rather than the president under H.R. 6028, which also would make the head of the US Copyright Office a presidential appointee. 

The measure would move the US Copyright Office out from under the supervision of the Library of Congress to clarify its executive branch functions. It also would make the director of the Government Publishing Office a congressionally appointed position. 

While the Library of Congress is a part of the legislative branch, the librarian has been a presidential appointee since the position was established in 1802."

House Passes Bill to Move Copyright Office to Executive Branch; Bloomberg Law, June 8, 2026

 Kyle Jahner, Bloomberg Law; House Passes Bill to Move Copyright Office to Executive Branch

"The House passed a bill Monday that would largely divorce the Copyright Office from the Library of Congress, one step closer to granting the president the ability to appoint and fire the register of copyrights.

House lawmakers passed the Legislative Branch Agencies Clarification Act (H.R. 6028; BGOV Bill Analysis) by voice vote, sending the bill to the Senate. It would allow the president rather than the librarian of Congress to choose the register of copyrights and change how appointments are made for multiple legislative agencies."

It’s No Wonder Grads Are Booing Their Commencement Speakers; The New York Times, June 5, 2026

Molly Jong-Fast , The New York Times; It’s No Wonder Grads Are Booing Their Commencement Speakers

"According to a recent working paper from researchers at Harvard, hiring for entry-level roles at companies that have adopted generative A.I. has dropped each quarter since 2023. What is not clear is whether A.I. is taking people’s jobs or if companies are using A.I. as an excuse for not hiring. Either way, A.I. is not exactly popular with people entering the work force for the first time...

If I were to tell these graduates the truth about artificial intelligence, it would be this: You are right to be worried. But none of this is as inevitable as it seems. Remember putting everything on the blockchain? Remember NFTs? Hell, some of us are old enough to remember that the world was supposed to end in the year 2000.

Right now, A.I. is in its dark hype period — great for Anthropic’s I.P.O. — but who knows how useful any of this actually will be in the end in creating efficiencies (as in, replacing the young with bots). It’s within young people’s power to stop. Demand regulation of tech companies. Elect people who will legislate that regulation. Organize against data centers in your hometowns.

Don’t just boo — do something."

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."

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."

I avoid AI tools because thinking is supposed to be hard. It’s what makes us human; The Guardian, May 24, 2026

Wendy Liu, The Guardian; I avoid AI tools because thinking is supposed to be hard. It’s what makes us human

"I am wary of cognitive offloading, as tempting as it can be to turn over certain tasks to a machine so I don’t have to think so much. Thinking is the point. I don’t want to get into the habit of avoiding it purely for the sake of convenience."