Voice actors across Europe are pushing back against the growing use of AI in dubbing, fearing it could replace human talent in film and television. Many believe dubbing is a creative profession beyond simple voice replication, requiring emotional nuance and cultural sensitivity.
In Germany, France, Italy and the UK, nearly half of viewers prefer dubbed content over subtitles, according to research by GWI. Yet studios are increasingly testing AI tools that replicate actors’ voices or generate synthetic speech, sparking concern across the dubbing industry.
French voice actor Boris Rehlinger, known for dubbing Hollywood stars, says he feels threatened even though AI has not replaced him. He is part of TouchePasMaVF, an initiative defending the value of human dubbing and calling for protection against AI replication.
Voice artists argue that digital voice cloning ignores the craftsmanship behind their performances. As legal frameworks around voice ownership lag behind the technology, many in the industry demand urgent safeguards.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Alibaba and Zhipu AI have unveiled new open-source models as China intensifies its efforts to compete with the US in AI development. Alibaba’s Wan2.2 is being promoted as the first large video generation model using a Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architecture in the open-source space.
The Wan2.2 series includes models for generating video from text and images, supporting hybrid capabilities for advanced multimedia applications. MoE architecture allows these models to use less computing power by dividing tasks among specialised sub-networks.
Zhipu, one of China’s leading AI firms, launched the GLM-4.5 and GLM-4.5-Air models with up to 355 billion parameters, built on a self-developed architecture. The GLM-4.5 model ranked third globally and first among open-source models across 12 performance benchmarks.
China’s open-source ecosystem is expanding rapidly, with Zhipu’s models amassing over 40 million downloads and Alibaba’s Qwen series producing hundreds of derivatives. Industry momentum reflects a strategic shift towards wider adoption, improved efficiency and greater international reach.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
As AI becomes more integrated into developer workflows, a new report shows that trust in AI-generated results erodes. According to Stack Overflow’s 2025 Developer Survey, the use of AI has increased to 84%, up from 76% last year. However, trust in its output has dropped, especially among experienced professionals.
The survey found that 46% of developers now lack trust in AI-generated answers.
That figure marks a sharp increase from 31% in 2024, suggesting growing scepticism despite higher adoption. By contrast, only 3.1% of developers trust AI responses.
Interestingly, trust varies with experience. Beginners were twice as likely to express high confidence in AI, with 6.1% reporting strong trust, compared with just 2.5% among seasoned developers. The results indicate a divide in how AI is perceived across the developer landscape.
Despite doubts, developers continue to use AI tools across various tasks. The vast majority – 78.5% – use AI on an infrequent basis, such as once a month. The pattern holds across experience levels, suggesting cautious and situational usage.
While trust is lacking, developers still see AI as a helpful starting point. Three in five respondents reported favourable views of AI tools overall. One in five viewed them negatively, with the remaining 20% remaining neutral.
However, that usefulness has limits. Developers were quick to seek human input when unsure about AI responses. Seventy-five percent said they would ask someone when they didn’t trust an AI-generated answer. Fifty-eight percent preferred human advice when they didn’t fully understand a solution.
Ethics and security were also areas where developers preferred human judgement. Again, 58% reported turning to colleagues or mentors to evaluate such risks. Such cases show a continued reliance on human expertise in high-stakes decisions.
Stack Overflow CEO Prashanth Chandrasekar acknowledged the limitations of AI in the development process. ‘AI is a powerful tool, but it has significant risks of misinformation or can lack complexity or relevance,’ he said. He added that AI best uses a ‘trusted human intelligence layer’.
The data also revealed that developers may not trust AI entirely but use it to support learning.
Forty-four percent of respondents admitted using AI tools to learn how to code, up from 37% last year.
A further 36% use it for work-related growth or career advancement.
The results highlight the role of AI as an educational companion rather than a coding authority.
It can help users understand concepts or generate basic examples, but most still want human review.
That distinction matters as teams consider how to integrate AI into production workflows.
Some developers are concerned that overreliance on AI could reduce the depth of their problem-solving skills. Others worry about hallucinations — AI-generated content that appears accurate but is misleading or incorrect. Such risks have led to a cautious, layered approach to using AI tools in real-life projects.
Stack Overflow’s findings align with broader AI adoption and trust industry trends. Tech firms are exploring ways to integrate AI safely, but many prioritise transparency and human oversight. Chandrasekar believes developers are uniquely positioned to help shape AI’s future revolution.
‘By providing a trusted human intelligence layer in the age of AI, we believe the tech enthusiasts of today can play a larger role in adding value,’ he said. ‘They’ll help build the AI technologies and products of tomorrow.’
As AI continues to expand into software development, one thing is clear: trust matters. Developers are open to using AI – but only when it supports, rather than replaces, human judgement. The challenge now is building systems that earn and maintain that trust.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai and other tech leaders are urging their employees to quickly integrate AI into daily operations. The aim is to enhance productivity as companies seek smarter ways to manage rising costs.
Rather than simply expanding their workforce during periods of growth, firms like Google and Amazon are now focusing on AI tools to improve efficiency. Google plans to spend $85 billion this year to expand data centres for advanced AI models.
Meanwhile, Amazon has warned employees about upcoming layoffs linked to AI adoption, encouraging staff to learn how to work effectively with smaller teams.
Alphabet, Google’s parent company, has already reduced its workforce by about 6% in 2023, cutting thousands of jobs while continuing to invest heavily in AI development. Pichai described this period as one for cautious investment aimed at boosting productivity.
Other tech leaders, including Microsoft’s Julia Liuson and Shopify’s Tobi Lutke, have echoed the sentiment that adopting AI is now essential for success.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Biotech firm NeOnc Technologies has gained rapid attention after going public in March 2025 and joining the Russell Microcap Index just months later. The company focuses on intranasal drug delivery for brain cancer, allowing patients to administer treatment at home and bypass the blood-brain barrier.
NeOnc’s lead treatment is in Phase 2A trials for glioblastoma patients and is already showing extended survival times with minimal side effects. Backed by a partnership with USC’s Keck Medical School, the company is also expanding clinical trials to the Middle East and North Africa under US FDA standards.
A $50 million investment deal with a UAE-based firm is helping fund this expansion, including trials run by Cleveland Clinic through a regional partnership. The trials are expected to be fully enrolled by September, with positive preliminary data already being reported.
AI and quantum computing are central to NeOnc’s strategy, particularly in reducing risk and cost in trial design and drug development. As a pre-revenue biotech, the company is betting that innovation and global collaboration will carry it to the next stage of growth.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
In the digital world, tracking occurs through digital signals sent from one computer to a server, and from a server to an organisation. Almost immediately, a profile of a user can be created. The information can be leveraged to send personalised advertisements for products and services consumers are interested in, but it can also classify people into categories to send them advertisements to steer them in a certain direction, for example, politically (2024 Romanian election, Cambridge Analytica Scandal skewing the 2016 Brexit referendum and 2016 US Elections).
Digital tracking can be carried out with minimal costs, rapid execution and the capacity to reach hundreds of thousands of users simultaneously. These methods require either technical skills (such as coding) or access to platforms that automate tracking.
This phenomenon has been well documented and likened to George Orwell’s 1984, in which the people of Oceania are subject to constant surveillance by ‘Big Brother’ and institutions of control; the Ministry of Truth (propaganda), Peace (military control), Love (torture and forced loyalty) and Plenty (manufactured prosperity).
A related concept is the Panopticon, developed by the French philosopher Michel Foucault’s social theory based on the architecture of a prison, enabling constant observation from a central point. Prisoners never know if they are being watched and thus self-regulate their behaviour. In today’s tech-driven society, our digital behaviour is similarly regulated through the persistent possibility of surveillance.
How are we tracked? The case of cookies and device fingerprinting
Cookies
Cookies are small, unique text files placed on a user’s device by their web browser at the request of a website. When a user visits a website, the server can instruct the browser to create or update a cookie. These cookies are then sent back to the server with each subsequent request to the same website, allowing the server to recognise and remember certain information (login status, preferences, or tracking data).
If a user visits multiple websites about a specific topic, that pattern can be collected and sold to advertisers targeting that interest. This applies to all forms of advertising, not just commercial but also political and ideological influence.
Device fingerprinting
Device fingerprinting involves generating a unique identifier using a device’s hardware and software characteristics. Types include browser fingerprinting, mobile fingerprinting, desktop fingerprinting, and cross-device tracking. To assess how unique a browser is, users can test their setup via the Cover Your Tracks tool by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Different information will be collected, such as your operating system, language version, keyboard settings, screen resolution, font used, device make and model and more. The more data points collected, the more unique an individual’s device will be.
A common reason to use device fingerprinting is for advertising. Since each individual has a unique identifier, advertisers can distinguish individuals from one another and see which websites they visit based on past collected data.
Similar to cookies, device fingerprinting is not purely about advertising, as it has some legitimate security purposes. Device fingerprinting, as it creates a unique ID of a device, allows websites to recognise a user’s device. This is useful to combat fraud. For instance, if a known device suddenly logs in from an unknown fingerprint, fraud detection mechanisms may flag and block the login attempt.
Legal considerations
Apart from societal impacts, there are legal considerations to be made, specifically concerning fundamental rights. In the EU and Europe, Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights are what give rise to the protection of personal data in the first place. They form the legal bedrock of digital privacy legislation, such as the GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive. Stemming from the GDPR, there is a protection against unlawful, unfair and opaque processing of personal data.
Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights
For tracking to be carried out lawfully, one of the six legal bases of the GDPR must be relied upon. In this case, tracking is usually only lawful if the legal basis of consent is relied upon (Article 6(1)(a) GDPR, which stems from Article 5(1) of the ePrivacy Directive).
Other legal bases, such as the legitimate interest of a business, may allow for limited analytical cookies to be placed, of which the cookies referred to in this analysis are not.
Regardless of this, to obtain consent, website visitors must ensure that consent is collected prior to processing occurring, freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous. In most cases of website tracking, consent is not collected prior to processing.
In practice, this means that before a consent request is fulfilled by a website visitor, cookies are placed on the user’s device. There are additional concerns about consent not being informed, as users do not know what processing personal data to enable tracking entails.
Moreover, consent is not specific to what is necessary to the processing, given that processing occurs for broad and unspecified reasons, such as improving visitor experience and understanding the website better, and those explanations are generic and broad.
Further, tracking is typically unfair as users do not expect to be tracked across sites or have digital profiles made about themselves based on website visits. Tracking is also opaque, as users do not understand how tracking occurs. Website owners state that tracking occurs with a lack of explanation on how it occurs in the first place. Users do not know for how long it occurs, what personal data is being used to track or how it benefits website owners.
Can we refuse tracking
In theory, it is possible to prevent tracking from the get-go. This can be done by refusing to give consent when tracking occurs. However, in practice, refusing consent can still lead to tracking. Outlined below are two concrete examples of this happening daily.
Cookies
Regarding cookies, simply put, the refusal of all requests is not honoured, it is ignored. Studies have found that when a user visits a website and refuses to give consent, their request is not honoured. Cookies and similar tracking technologies are placed on the user’s device as if they had accepted cookies.
This increases user frustration as they are given a choice that is non-existent. This occurs as non-essential cookies, which can be refused, are lumped together with essential cookies, which cannot be refused. Therefore, when refusing consent to non-essential cookies, not all are refused, as some are mislabelled.
Another reason for this occurrence is that cookies are placed before consent is sought. Often, website owners outsource cookie banner compliance to more experienced companies. These websites use consent management platforms (CMPs) such as Cookiebot by Usercentrics or One Trust.
When verifying when cookies are placed via these CMPs, the option to load cookies after consent is sought needs to be manually selected. Therefore, website owners need to have knowledge about consent requirements to understand that cookies are not to be placed prior to consent being sought.
Another example is related to Google Consent Mode (GCM). GCM is relevant to mention here as Google is the most common third-party tracker on the web, thus the most likely tracker users will encounter. They have a vast array of trackers ranging from statistics, analytics, preferences, marketing and more. GCM essentially creates a path for website analytics to occur despite consent being refused. This occurs as GCM claims that it can send cookieless ping signals to user devices to know how many users have viewed a website, clicked on a page, searched a term, etc.
This is a novel solution Google is presenting, and it claims to be privacy-friendly, as no cookies are required for this to occur. However, a study on tags, specifically GCM tags, found that GCM is not privacy-friendly and infringes the GDPR. The study found that Google still collects personal data in these ‘cookieless ping signals’ such as user language, screen resolution, computer architecture, user agent string, operating system and its version, complete web page URL and search keywords. Since this data is collected and processed despite the user refusing consent, there are undoubtedly legal issues.
The first reason comes from the lawfulness general principle whereby Google has no lawful basis to process this personal data as the user refused consent, and no other legal basis is used. The second reason stems from the general principle of fairness, as users do not expect that, after refusing trackers and choosing the more privacy-friendly option, their data is still processed as if their consent choice did not matter.
Therefore, from Google’s perspective, GCM is privacy-friendly as no cookies are placed, thus no consent is required to be sought. However, a recent study revealed that personal data is still being processed without any permission or legal basis.
What next?
On an individual level:
Many solutions have been developed for individuals to reduce the tracking they are subject to. From browser extensions to using devices that are more privacy-friendly and using ad blockers. One notable company tackling this issue is Duck Duck Go, which by default rejects trackers, allows for email protection, and overall reduces trackers when using their browser. Duck Duck Go is not the only company to allow this, many more, such as uBlock Origin and Ghostery, offer similar services.
Specifically, regarding fingerprint ID, researchers have developed ways to prevent device fingerprinting. In 2023, researchers proposed ShieldF, which is a Chromium add-on that reduces fingerprinting for mobile apps and browsers. Other measures include using an IP address that many people use, which is not ideal for home Wi-Fi. Using a combination of a browser extension and a VPN is also unsuitable for every individual, as this demands a substantial amount of effort and sometimes financial costs.
On a systemic level:
CMPs and GCM are active tracking stakeholders in the tracking ecosystem, and their actions are subject to enforcement bodies. In this case, predominantly data protection authorities (DPA). One prominent DPA working on cookie enforcement is the Dutch DPA, the Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens (AP). In the early months of 2025, the AP has publicly stated that its focus for this upcoming year will be to check cookie compliance. They announced that they would be investigating 10,000 websites in the Netherlands. This has led to investigations into companies with unlawful cookie banners, concluding with warnings and sanctions.
However, these investigations require extensive time and effort. DPAs have already stated that they are overworked and do not have enough personnel or financial resources to cope with the increase in responsibility. Coupled with the fact that sanctioned companies set aside financial pots for these sanctions, or that non-EU businesses do not comply with DPA sanction decisions (the case of Clearview AI). Different ways to tackle non-compliance should be investigated.
For example, in light of the GDPR simplification package, whilst simplifying some measures, other liability measures could be introduced to ensure that enforcement is as vigorous as the legislation itself. The EU has not shied away from holding management boards liable for non-compliance. In a separate legislation on cybersecurity, NIS II Article 20(1) states that ‘management bodies of essential and important entities approve the cybersecurity risk-management measures (…) can be held liable for infringements (…)’. That article allows for board member liability for specific cybersecurity risk-management measures in Article 21. If similar measures cannot be introduced during this time, other moments of amendment can be consulted for this.
Conclusion
Cookies and device fingerprinting are two common ways in which tracking occurs. The potential larger societal and legal consequences of tracking demand that existing robust legislation is enforced to ensure that past politically related historical mistakes are not repeated.
Ultimately, there is no way to completely prevent fingerprinting and cookie-based tracking without significantly compromising the user’s browsing experience. For this reason, the burden of responsibility must shift toward CMPs. This shift should begin with the implementation of privacy-by-design and privacy-by-default principles in the development of their tools (preventing cookie placement prior to consent seeking).
Accountability should occur through tangible consequences, such as liability for board members in cases of negligence. By attributing responsibility to the companies which develop cookie banners and facilitate trackers, the source of the problem can be addressed and held accountable for their human rights violations.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
South Korea is stepping up efforts to strengthen its cyber insurance sector as corporate cyberattacks surge across industries. A string of major breaches has revealed widespread vulnerability and renewed demand for more comprehensive digital risk protection.
Hanwha General Insurance launched Korea’s first Cyber Risk Management Centre last November and partnered with global cybersecurity firm Theori and law firm Shin & Kim to expand its offerings.
Despite the growing need, the market remains underdeveloped. Cyber insurance makes up only 1 percent of Korea’s accident insurance sector, with a 2024 report estimating local cyber premiums at $50 million, just 0.3 percent of the global total.
Regulators and industry voices call for higher mandatory coverage, clearer underwriting standards, and financial incentives to promote adoption.
As Korean demand rises, comprehensive policies offering tailored options and emergency coverage are gaining traction, with Hanwha reporting a 200 percent revenue jump in under a year.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The European Commission has accused Temu of breaching the Digital Services Act by failing to assess and address the sale of illegal or dangerous products.
The accusation follows months of investigation and a review of a required risk report submitted by Temu, which the Commission found too vague.
A mystery shopping exercise by the EU uncovered unsafe toys and electronics on the platform, raising concerns over consumer safety.
Additional parts of the probe are ongoing, including scrutiny of Temu’s use of addictive designs, algorithmic transparency and product recommendations.
Temu now has a few weeks to respond to the preliminary findings, though no final deadline has been given. Under the DSA, confirmed violations could result in fines of up to 6% of a company’s global turnover.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
AI is quickly transforming the music industry, with AI-generated bands now drawing millions of plays on platforms like Spotify.
While these acts may sound like traditional musicians, they are entirely digital creations. Streaming services rarely label AI music clearly, and the producers behind these tracks often remain anonymous and unreachable. Human artists, meanwhile, are quietly watching their workload dry up.
Music professionals are beginning to express concern. Composer Leo Sidran believes AI is already taking work away from creators like him, noting that many former clients now rely on AI-generated solutions instead of original compositions.
Unlike previous tech innovations, which empowered musicians, AI risks erasing job opportunities entirely, according to Berklee College of Music professor George Howard, who warns it could become a zero-sum game.
AI music is especially popular for passive listening—background tracks for everyday life. In contrast, real musicians still hold value among fans who engage more actively with music.
However, AI is cheap, fast, and royalty-free, making it attractive to publishers and advertisers. From film soundtracks to playlists filled with faceless artists, synthetic sound is rapidly replacing human creativity in many commercial spaces.
Experts urge musicians to double down on what makes them unique instead of mimicking trends that AI can easily replicate. Live performance remains one of the few areas where AI has yet to gain traction. Until synthetic bands take the stage, artists may still find refuge in concerts and personal connection with fans.
Would you like to learn more aboutAI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) has ended its enforcement action against the European Commission over its use of Microsoft, following improvements to data protection practices. The decision came after the Commission revised its contract with Microsoft to improve privacy standards.
Under the updated terms, Microsoft must clarify the reasons for data transfers outside the European Economic Area and name the recipients. Transfers are only allowed to countries with EU-recognised protections or in public interest cases.
Microsoft must also inform the Commission if a foreign government requests access to EU data, unless the request comes from within the EU or a country with equivalent safeguards. The EDPS urged other EU institutions to adopt similar contractual protections if using Microsoft 365.
Despite the EDPS’ clearance, the Commission remains concerned about relying too heavily on a non-EU tech provider for essential digital services. It continues to support the current EU-US data adequacy deal, though recent political changes in the US have cast doubt on its long-term stability.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
