CNN develops agent infrastructure for AI media trading

CNN is developing an internal agent infrastructure as part of a plan to begin AI-driven media trading by early 2027. The company aims to complete protocol scoping by the end of the second quarter before moving into testing phases later in the year.

Testing will focus on how properties are interpreted by large language models and how buyers allocate budgets to agent-based systems. Executives say the timeline may change as the technology and market conditions continue to evolve.

The initiative combines in-house development with external technology partners, while aligning with industry frameworks to ensure compatibility. CNN is also working with standards bodies to ensure agent communication produces accurate outcomes for buyers.

Agentic protocols enable systems to exchange information, negotiate pricing, and manage tasks autonomously between buyers and sellers. The company is prioritising consistent communication to support efficient and reliable transactions.

Early efforts are centred on learning and experimentation, even without immediate revenue generation. Initial use cases are expected to focus on performance-driven campaigns before expanding into broader advertising activities.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot 

OpenAI presents policy proposals addressing AI’s economic and labour impacts

Policy proposals advanced by OpenAI outline a vision of economic restructuring in response to the growing influence of AI.

Framed within an emerging ‘intelligence age‘, the approach reflects concerns that AI-driven productivity gains may concentrate wealth while undermining traditional labour-based economic models.

The proposals, therefore, attempt to reconcile market-led innovation with mechanisms aimed at broader distribution of economic benefits.

A central element involves shifting taxation away from labour towards capital, reflecting expectations that automation will reduce reliance on human work.

Instruments such as robot taxes and public wealth funds are presented as potential tools to redistribute gains generated by AI systems.

Such proposals by OpenAI indicate a policy direction where states may need to redefine fiscal structures to sustain social protection systems traditionally funded through employment-based taxation.

Labour market adaptation forms another key pillar, with suggestions including shorter working weeks, portable benefits, and increased corporate contributions to social welfare.

However, reliance on employer-linked mechanisms raises questions about coverage gaps, particularly for individuals displaced by automation. The proposals highlight ongoing tensions between corporate-led welfare models and the need for more comprehensive public safety nets.

Alongside economic measures, the framework addresses governance challenges linked to advanced AI systems, including systemic risks and misuse.

OpenAI’s proposals also recommend that oversight bodies, risk containment strategies, and infrastructure expansion reflect an effort to balance innovation with control.

Treating AI as a utility further signals a shift towards recognising digital infrastructure as a public good, though implementation will depend on political consensus and regulatory capacity.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacyIf so, ask our Diplo chatbot!  

South Korea-France partnership reshapes AI and technology cooperation strategy

The recent state visit between South Korea and France signals a deepening of bilateral cooperation that extends beyond diplomacy into long-term technological and cultural alignment.

Agreements endorsed by President Lee Jae-myung and President Emmanuel Macron reflect a coordinated effort to strengthen shared capabilities in emerging sectors, while reinforcing institutional ties across research, education, and industry.

A central policy dimension lies in the expansion of cooperation in AI, semiconductors, and quantum technologies, areas increasingly tied to economic security and global competitiveness.

Partnerships between institutions such as KAIST and CNRS highlight a shift towards structured research integration, enabling joint innovation and knowledge transfer.

Such collaboration between South Korea and France is positioned not as an isolated scientific exchange, but as part of broader strategies to secure technological sovereignty and resilient supply chains.

Cultural and educational initiatives complement these ambitions by supporting long-term people-to-people engagement and workforce development. Expanded exchanges in creative industries and language education aim to cultivate talent pipelines that can operate across both economies.

Rather than symbolic diplomacy, these measures serve as enabling mechanisms for sustained cooperation in high-value sectors where human capital remains critical.

From a policy perspective, the agreements illustrate how economies are increasingly forming strategic partnerships to navigate global technological competition.

Instead of relying solely on domestic capacity, coordinated international frameworks are being used to manage innovation risks, diversify supply dependencies, and strengthen regulatory alignment.

The outcome will depend on implementation, yet the direction suggests a model of cooperation that blends economic, technological, and societal priorities.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacyIf so, ask our Diplo chatbot!  

AI chatbots are reshaping classroom debates, raising concerns over homogenised discussion

Generative AI chatbots are becoming embedded in university learning at Yale, students and academics told CNN, not only for essays and homework but also for real-time seminar participation. Students described classmates uploading readings and PDFs into chatbots before class, and even typing a professor’s question into AI during discussion to produce an immediate response to repeat aloud.

While this can make contributions sound more polished and prepared, some students said seminar conversations increasingly stall or feel flatter, with fewer personal interpretations and less exploratory debate. One student, ‘Amanda’, said she has noticed many classmates arriving with slick talking points but then offering near-identical arguments and phrasing, making discussions feel less distinctive than in earlier years.

Students gave several reasons for leaning on AI. ‘Jessica’, a senior, said she uses it daily, particularly in an economics seminar where the professor cold-calls students, both to digest readings quickly and to help her translate ideas into cohesive sentences when she struggles to phrase her comments.

‘Sophia’, a junior, said some students appear to use AI to draft ‘scripts’ for what to say in class, driven by insecurity about gaps in their understanding. She believes this weakens creativity and the ability to make original connections, replacing genuine engagement with impressive-sounding language.

A Yale spokesperson said the university is aware students are experimenting with AI in the classroom and noted a wider faculty trend towards limiting or banning laptops, using print-based materials, and prioritising direct engagement and original thinking.

The article links these observations to a March paper in ‘Trends in Cognitive Sciences’, which argues that large language models can systematically homogenise human expression and thought across language, perspective and reasoning. The paper’s authors say LLMs predict statistically likely next words based on training data that overrepresents dominant languages and ideas, potentially narrowing the ‘conceptual space’ for how people write and argue.

They warn that models tend to reproduce ‘WEIRD’ viewpoints, Western, educated, industrialised, rich and democratic, even when prompted otherwise, which may make those styles seem more credible and socially correct while marginalising other perspectives.

Researchers also describe a compounding feedback loop. As AI-generated outputs circulate in human discourse and eventually re-enter training data, sameness can intensify over time. Co-author Morteza Dehghani said offloading reasoning to AI risks intellectual laziness and could have broader social consequences, from weakened innovation to greater susceptibility to persuasion.

Educators quoted described both benefits and risks, and outlined practical responses. Thomas Chatterton Williams, a visiting professor and Bard College fellow, said AI can ‘raise the floor’ of discussion for difficult material but may suppress eccentric or truly original ideas, leaving students without a voice of their own or a sense of authorship.

Former teacher Daniel Buck called AI a ‘supercharged SparkNotes’ that can answer virtually any question, making it harder to detect shortcuts and easier for students to bypass the ‘boring minutiae’ where learning takes hold.

He worries that this also undermines relationships with professors and sustained cognitive work. Yale philosophy professor Sun-Joo Shin said model improvements forced her to redesign the assessment. Problem sets now earn completion credit and feedback, while in-class exams, oral tests and presentations carry more weight.

Williams said he has moved from writing to spontaneous, in-class, handwritten work and uses oral exit exams. Students who avoid AI argued that they are still affected by classmates’ reliance on it because it reduces the value and variety of seminar time, while others urged a middle path in which AI is treated as a collaborator, used to critique ideas rather than as a substitute for generating them or doing the reasoning.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot

Microsoft markets Copilot as a productivity boost but warns it is ‘for entertainment purposes only’

Microsoft has spent the past year pushing Copilot as a mainstream productivity tool, baking it into Windows 11 and promoting new hardware such as Copilot+ PCs, yet its own legal language urges caution. In Microsoft’s Copilot Terms of Use, updated in October last year, the company states Copilot is ‘for entertainment purposes only’, may ‘make mistakes’, and ‘may not work as intended’.

The terms warn users not to rely on Copilot for important advice and to ‘use Copilot at your own risk’, a caveat that sits uneasily alongside the product’s business-focused marketing.

The Tom’s Hardware article argues Microsoft is not unique in issuing such warnings. Similar disclaimers are common across the generative AI industry. It points to xAI’s guidance that AI is ‘probabilistic in nature’ and may produce ‘hallucinations’, generate offensive or objectionable content, or fail to reflect real people, places or facts.

While these limitations are well known to those familiar with large language models, the piece notes that many users still treat AI output as authoritative, even in professional settings where scepticism should be standard.

To underline the risks of overreliance, the text cites reports of Amazon-related incidents allegedly linked to ‘Gen-AI assisted changes’. It says some AWS outages were reportedly caused after engineers let an AI coding bot address an issue without sufficient oversight, and that Amazon’s website experienced ‘high blast radius’ problems that required senior engineers to step in. These examples are used to illustrate how AI-generated errors can propagate quickly in complex systems when humans fail to verify the output.

Why does it matter?

Overall, the article acknowledges that generative AI can boost productivity, but stresses it remains a tool with no accountability for mistakes, making verification essential. It warns that automation bias, people trusting machine outputs over contradictory evidence, can be intensified by AI systems that produce plausible-sounding answers that pass casual inspection.

While such disclaimers help companies limit legal liability, the piece suggests aggressive marketing of AI as a productivity ‘hack’ may downplay real-world risks, particularly as firms seek returns on the billions invested in AI hardware and talent.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot

Will AI turn novel-writing into a collaborative process

The article argues that a novel’s value cannot be judged solely by the quality of its prose, because many readers respond to other elements such as premise, ideas and character. It points to Amazon reviews of ‘Shy Girl’, which holds a four-out-of-five-star rating based on hundreds of reviews, with many praising its hook despite awareness of ‘the controversy’ around it. One reviewer writes, ‘The premise sucked me in.’

The broader point is that plenty of novels are poorly written yet still succeed, because fiction, like music, is forgiving: a song may have an irresistible beat even with a predictable melody, and a book can move readers through suspense, beauty, realism, fantasy, or a protagonist they recognise in themselves.

From that premise, the piece asks whether fiction’s ‘layers’ (premise, plot, style and voice) must all come from a single person. It notes that collaborative creation is already normal in many fields, even if audiences rarely state their expectations explicitly: readers tend to assume a Booker Prize-winning novel is written entirely by the named author, while journalism is understood to be shaped by both writers and editors, and television and film are widely accepted as writers’ room and revision-heavy processes.

The article uses James Patterson as an example of industrial-scale collaboration in publishing, describing how he supplies collaborators with outlines and treatments and oversees many projects at once, an approach likened to a ‘novel factory’ that some argue distances him from ‘literary fiction’, yet may be the only practical way to sustain a decades-long series.

The author suggests AI will make such factories easier to create, citing a New York Times report on ‘Coral Hart’, a pseudonymous romance writer who uses AI to generate drafts in about 45 minutes, then revises them before self-publishing hundreds of books under dozens of names. Although not a bestseller, she reportedly earns ‘six figures’ and teaches others to do the same.

This points to a future in which authors act more like showrunners supervising AI-powered writers’ rooms, while raising a central risk: readers may not know who, or what, produced what they are reading, especially if AI use is not consistently disclosed despite platforms such as Amazon asking for it.

The piece ends by questioning whether AI necessarily implies high-volume, depersonalised production. Using a personal analogy from music-making, the author notes that technology can enable rapid output, but can also serve a more artistic purpose: helping a creator overcome technical limits and ‘realise a vision’.

Why does it matter?

The underlying argument is not that AI guarantees either shallow churn or genuine creativity, but that the most consequential issues may lie in intent, authorial expectations, and honest disclosure to readers.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot

US Supreme Court narrows ISP copyright liability, sharpening focus on intent with potential implications for generative AI

A unanimous 9–0 US Supreme Court ruling this week has narrowed the circumstances under which an internet service provider (ISP) can be held liable for users’ copyright infringement by focusing on a deceptively simple question: intent. Writing for the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas said an ISP is liable only if its service was designed for unlawful activity or if it actively induced infringement; merely providing a service to the public while knowing some users will infringe is not enough.

Applying that standard, the Court found Cox Communications did neither, shielding it from a potential $1bn exposure following a long-running dispute that included a jury verdict later vacated.

The decision is now being read for its possible implications beyond ISPs, particularly in the escalating copyright battle between publishers/authors and generative AI firms. The key distinction raised is that broadband networks function as neutral conduits, whereas large language models are built specifically to produce fluent, human-like writing, including prose, poetry and dialogue, that can resemble the work of human authors.

In the article’s framing, that resemblance is not incidental but central to the product’s purpose: if a subscriber uses broadband to pirate a novel, the ISP did not build its network to enable that outcome, but an AI model prompted to write in a specific author’s style is designed to fulfil that request.

That contrast could open a new line of argument in AI litigation. While major US cases, such as suits brought by the Authors Guild and individual authors against OpenAI, Meta and others, have largely centred on whether training on copyrighted books is itself infringing, the Cox ruling highlights a second front: whether the systems’ purpose and optimisation for author-like output could be characterised as being ‘tailored for’ infringement or as purposeful inducement under an intent-based standard.

Publishers, who are simultaneously watching the lawsuits and negotiating licensing deals with AI companies, have so far been more cautious than the music industry was in its costly fight against Cox, an effort that ultimately produced a Supreme Court ruling that narrowed, rather than expanded, leverage.

Why does it matter?

The broader takeaway is that copyright enforcement may increasingly turn not only on what was copied, but what the copying was for, an approach that could prove consequential for AI companies whose commercial proposition is generating human-quality creative work.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot

AI and 6G strategy drives South Korea’s digital transformation agenda

South Korea has outlined an ambitious national strategy to position itself among the world’s leading AI powers, linking technological advancement with broader economic and societal transformation.

Instead of isolated innovation efforts, the plan adopts a systemic approach, combining infrastructure development, data governance, and industrial policy to accelerate digital transition.

Central to South Korea’s strategy is the evolution of network infrastructure, with a shift from 5G to next-generation 6G technology targeted by 2030. The emphasis on connectivity and speed is complemented by efforts to strengthen cybersecurity frameworks and establish a national data integration platform.

Such measures aim to create a more resilient and competitive digital environment capable of supporting large-scale AI deployment.

The policy also prioritises the integration of AI across multiple sectors, including healthcare, manufacturing, agriculture, and disaster management.

By embedding intelligent systems into critical industries, South Korean authorities seek to enhance productivity, improve public service delivery, and strengthen national resilience.

Workforce development is positioned as a key pillar, with phased training initiatives designed to build expertise in advanced technologies such as semiconductors and quantum computing.

In parallel, the strategy incorporates digital inclusion measures to ensure broader societal participation. Expansion of AI learning centres and assistive technologies reflects an effort to reduce digital divides while supporting vulnerable groups.

Long-term success will depend on effective coordination across government bodies and to balancing rapid technological deployment with equitable access and robust governance frameworks, rather than purely growth-driven objectives.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacyIf so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

University of South Wales becomes the first in the UK to AI qualification as part of a degree

University of South Wales will become the first university in the UK to embed an AI qualification within a Business and Management degree. The programme was developed with the Institute of Enterprise and Entrepreneurs and will begin in September 2026.

Students will receive an IOEE award after their first year and may obtain a diploma upon graduation. The course is the first in the UK to combine both certifications within a single degree.

The qualification includes six units covering AI literacy, prompting, evaluation, application, ethics and reflective practice. These elements are assessed through existing coursework rather than separate examinations.

First-year students will take a module that includes weekly AI sessions linked to building a business. They will use AI for financial projections, marketing strategies, pitch materials and competitor analysis.

Final year students will create digital products using AI, including chatbots and business plans. Liam Newton, course leader for the BA Business and Management programme at the University of South Wales, said the programme aims to support employability and to develop informed use of AI tools.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot 

Kazakhstan positions AI at heart of industrial strategy

Addressing the Digital Qazaqstan 2026 forum on 27 March, Kazakhstan’s Prime Minister Olzhas Bektenov positioned AI as foundational infrastructure comparable to energy and transport networks, with three priorities centring on institutional foundations, digital infrastructure and human capital.

The government plans to develop sector-specific datasets and specialised AI language models for energy, mining, agriculture and logistics industries throughout 2026.

Kazakhstan is establishing a dedicated university focused on AI and rolling out the national AI-Sana programme to build an education ecosystem spanning schools, professional training and tech entrepreneurship.

Prime Minister Bektenov concluded by highlighting Kazakhstan’s competitive advantages, including affordable electricity and low latency for high-performance computing systems.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot