Axios reports: The American Federation of Teachers, the second-largest teachers' union in the U.S., released a 10-point plan to introduce AI and screen-time guardrails in classrooms. The plan would limit AI use and ban screens for students in prekindergarten through second grade "unless there is a compelling reason," such as supporting students with special needs.
The teacher union's president Randi Weingarten warned that young students "are drowning in tech," according to the New York Times, which reports the union president also "called on schools on Wednesday to stop giving digital devices like iPads to children in prekindergarten through second grade." In a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, Weingarten also urged elementary schools to avoid using artificial intelligence tools like OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini and Khan Academy's Khanmigo with children [and] called for new national privacy and safety standards for A.I. tools in all schools... "The work of teaching and learning in the earliest grades should be done without A.I."

The union's effort reflects a backlash among parents and educators against heavy use of school-issued laptops and apps. Some parents and nonprofit children's groups are also pushing back against campaigns by tech giants like Google and OpenAI to spread their A.I. products in schools... Weingarten said that the union was negotiating safety and privacy standards for A.I. use in schools with "our partners in the A.I. academy," and that Microsoft, OpenAI and Anthropic had agreed in principle to those standards.
Weingarten "laid out a plan for reorienting public schooling toward human abilities and student well-being," according to the article, calling it "a devices down, eyes up, hands-on strategy."

And meanwhile school cellphone bans are expanding into broader efforts to establish guardrails around AI in education and limit screen use, reports Axios. "At least 16 states — both red and blue — have introduced bills to limit classroom technology." Schools Beyond Screens formed with fewer than a dozen parents in Los Angeles Unified School District last year, but the nonprofit has grown to include thousands of parents and educators nationwide, SBS policy director Kate Brody tells Axios... McPherson Middle School principal Inge Esping told Axios that the suspension rate at her Kansas school fell 70% after cellphones were banned in 2022. Students also started speaking more with one another and with teachers.

Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader theodp for sharing the article.

The state of Ohio — one of America's hot regions for data center construction — "is suspending a tax break that has been critical to its competition with other states," reports the Associated Press.

The move "comes as tax breaks for energy-hungry AI data centers are increasingly playing a role in state budgets," the article points out. But they also note the expanding data center industry "is under pressure to pay the full costs" The size of Ohio's tax break skyrocketed, dwarfing previous projections, as opposition to data centers is sweeping through cities, suburbs and towns there and prompting lawmakers to form a committee to study the impact. In the meantime, residents are trying to bypass the GOP-controlled Legislature and get a referendum on November's midterm election ballot that's designed to permanently ban hyperscale data centers, likely the strictest such statewide ban under consideration in the U.S... The state, in 2024, had used previous history in projecting that the exemption would total $136 million in fiscal 2025 and $142 million in fiscal 2026. It was $554 million in 2024 and nearly $1.6 billion in 2025, the state reported...

State tax breaks for the massive data center industry are facing growing criticism by governors and lawmakers... Thirty-eight states have some form of a sales tax break for data centers, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures... [Though many were passed before 2022, when data centers were smaller.] Ohio's exemption is fairly broad, applying not only to construction materials, but to the expensive equipment — such as server racks and cooling systems — used in data centers. Operators might buy new server racks every couple of years as the technology improves.

The Zig programming language wants to be a modern alternative to C (including better memory safety features). It's maintained by as an open-source project by a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and a network of contributors.

But Business Insider notes that Zig bans the submission of AI-assisted code: On the JetBrains podcast, Zig President Andrew Kelley called AI-assisted contributions "invariably garbage."

"People are sending us contributions that have no value whatsoever," Kelley said. "They have negative value, because they take review time away from the team...." There are more pull requests than reviewers. At the time of the recording, Kelley said that Zig had 200 open pull requests. Those AI-generated "slop contributions" slow the whole team down even more, Kelley said. "We've wasted everybody's time...."

Big Tech companies have projected lofty goals for the percentage of code that should be — and already is — written with AI. Zig doesn't have a mandate to be maximally efficient like these public companies. Instead, "mentorship" is part of its core mission, Kelley said, making AI contributions counterproductive. "We're all trying to get better at programming," Kelley said. "People who are sending AI pull requests, those people are not helping this goal."

"A security researcher published a series of unpatched bugs in Microsoft products," reports TechCrunch, "along with code to exploit them."

Microsoft's response to the researcher? "Threatening to take legal action and call the cops on them." On Wednesday, Microsoft published a blog post criticizing the researcher, who goes by the handle "Nightmare Eclipse," for publicly disclosing a series of bugs, including BlueHammer, RedSun, UnDefend, and YellowKey. The flaws affected products such as the Windows built-in antivirus engine Defender and the disk-encryption tool BitLocker.

The core of Microsoft's complaints is that the researcher did not attempt to report the bugs so that the company could fix them. That would have been "responsible," as Microsoft's blog put it. The other side of the company's argument is that by publishing the details of the bugs and how to exploit them before they were patched, Nightmare Eclipse may have aided malicious hackers. Some of the vulnerabilities Nightmare Eclipse disclosed have since been used by hackers in real-world attacks, according to Microsoft, as well as the U.S. cybersecurity agency CISA. "Our Digital Crimes Unit will continue bringing cases against these actors and those that enable their criminal activity — coordinating as needed with law enforcement around the world," Microsoft wrote...

In a series of blog posts published in the last couple of weeks — without providing many specific details — Nightmare Eclipse claimed to have been in contact with Microsoft, but the company allegedly mistreated them, including revoking access to their Microsoft Security Response Center account, the portal where researchers can report vulnerabilities to the tech giant. Nightmare Eclipse's implication was that they had no choice but to release the vulnerabilities publicly... The researchers published the bugs on open source repositories GitHub (owned by Microsoft) and GitLab. The researchers' accounts on those platforms have been banned...

In response to this latest controversy with Nightmare Eclipse, countless researchers have shared their bad experiences reporting bugs to Microsoft.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader Elektroschock for sharing the news.

After Google announced AI-emphasizing changes to its search results, many web surfers began defecting to DuckDuckGo, reports TechCrunch. (They describe DuckDuckGo as "a privacy-focused alternative" that accounts for around 2% of the U.S. search market...) DuckDuckGo said U.S. app installs went up 18.1% week-over-week on average during the May 20 to May 25 period, compared to May 13 to May 18. The company said that growth was sustained for six consecutive days and peaked at 30.5% on May 25. On iOS, the rate of install is even higher, with week-over-week growth hitting a 33% average, peaking at 69.9%... DuckDuckGo said the trend is stronger in the U.S, and that DuckDuckGo continued to gain users over the Memorial Day weekend, when it usually sees a dip in traffic. Some of that data is backed up by third parties. App analytics company Apptopia found a 29% increase in average daily downloads in the U.S. and a 12% increase globally over the same period.
DuckDuckGo also said visits to its AI-free search page, noai.duckduckgo.com averaged 22.7% week-over-week growth, peaking at 27.7% on May 24, according to the article. ("DuckDuckGo also offers an AI Image Filter that filters out AI-created images from search results.")

TechCrunch delves into the reason why: I overheard a woman on the phone saying she was switching to DuckDuckGo because you can "opt out of using AI... Google just isn't Google anymore," she said. It seems that others had the same idea... Some have argued it will kill the open web, while others shared concerns that AI overviews surface inaccurate responses and take away control from users who might not want to use AI. It also overcomplicates simple things.
A Google spokesperson pointed out that AI Mode isn't the default in their search results. (And CNET notes Google include an AI-free "Web" choice in its results if you just want a page of ftraditional blue links.)

TechCrunch adds that DuckDuckGo also offers a separate free tool called Duck.ai offering access to models including Claude, Meta's Llama and OpenAI's GPT-5 mini. "All chats are private because DuckDuckGo strips the user's IP address before requests reach model providers, deletes conversations within 30 days, and prevents chats from being used for training."

Security company Okta shot up 30% Friday, reported CNBC, while data platform provider Snowflake jumped 50% this week.

They see it as part of a larger trend where software stocks "soared this week," signaling "some companies are navigating their way through AI disruption better than Wall Street expected" and that investors "may have been too quick to declare the end of software with the emergence of AI. Even as AI displaces certain tools and job functions, many software companies continue to show growth, assisted by their own AI products..." The "SaaSpocalypse" may not be over. But for now at least, fears of software's demise have cooled... The iShares Expanded Tech-Software exchange-traded fund rose 8% this week and closed May up 21%, the best monthly performance for the ETF since October 2001. Back then it was a brief rebound during the dot-com bust, while the current rally comes as concerns about the impact of AI ripple across the sector. Software names have been hit particularly hard over the past year due to the boom in so-called vibe coding, with users able to now build apps and websites in minutes thanks to offerings from Anthropic, OpenAI and others...

Elsewhere in the software space, Atlassian climbed 26% for the week and ServiceNow surged over 20%, while Shopify, Workday and Asana each gained at least 14%.

Wix is laying off roughly 20% of its workforce, about 1,000 employees, as CEO Avishai Abrahami cites both the rapid evolution of AI and currency pressure from a stronger Israeli shekel against the dollar. The web developer joins a growing list of tech companies making similar cuts, including Amazon, Block, Cisco, Cloudflare, Meta, Microsoft, Oracle and Intuit. Fast Company reports: "We have witnessed the most significant shift in how companies are built since the invention of modern programming languages in the 1970s," [wrote Abrahami]. "This is not just about adopting new tools -- it is about rewiring how companies are built, how they think, how they manage, and how they operate. Companies that embrace this change will not only build faster; they will build things the previous generation literally could not have imagined."

Abrahami also cited the poor exchange rate between the Israeli shekel and the U.S. dollar. The Israeli currency has significantly strengthened in the past few quarters against a weakening dollar, and the shekel is up nearly 30% against the greenback over the last year.

"As the majority of our teams are Israel-based, a very meaningful portion of our costs are shekel-denominated, while our revenue is largely dollar-denominated," Abrahami explained on X. "This creates a structural pressure on our ability to operate at our current scale. It is a reality that directly shapes what is sustainable for our company."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: In an era where Silicon Valley's conservatism is both expressed openly and becoming more intense by the day, it's strange to think that tech was once seen as a hive of liberalism. The right-wing nature of today's tech industry means that its products tend to also be seen as serving right-wing interests, either in their actual operation (like X's openly and unrepentantly right-wing chatbot Grok) or by the simple fact that their existence serves to enrich a small group of very powerful, very conservative people.

But does it have to be this way? Can LLMs and AI agents find a place in the toolkit of progressive activist groups? The conviction that they can is the idea behind a new app called Outcry, which provides a chatbot designed specifically as a "private, on-device AI mentor for activists, organizers and movement builders." (There's also a web version, although it obviously lacks the privacy benefits of being entirely offline.) It's the brainchild of Occupy Wall Street co-creator Micah White, who recently wrote a blog post about the thinking behind the project.

[...] Outcry's other distinguishing feature is that its dataset is entirely offline -- it's included with the download. According to the readme, the entire dataset is downloaded to your device at first launch, and stored in your library's Application Support directory. So, how effectively does Outcry serve as a guide for collective action? "I'd say that its information is pretty high-level and general, not least because its offline nature prevents it from accessing specific details not contained in its database," writes Gizmodo's Tom Hawking.

He continued: "This app has the potential to be a really valuable resource, especially for people who are just beginning to become involved with activism and genuinely don't know where to begin -- and getting over that first step can be hard."

Illinois lawmakers on Wednesday passed a landmark AI safety bill (SB 315) that would require major AI companies to publish safety plans, submit annual third-party testing reports, report serious incidents quickly, and protect whistleblowers who flag emerging risks. OpenAI and Anthropic supported the bill, which could make Illinois a testing ground for state-level AI governance as federal regulation remains stalled. Ars Technica reports: To force companies to be more transparent about rapid developments, Illinois would likely rely on "the Big Four accounting and auditing firms -- Deloitte, EY, KPMG, and PwC -- to audit their safety practices," [said Scott Wisor, a policy director at a nonprofit called Secure AI Project, which supported the bill]. The required independent audits will likely frustrate Trump, who has tried and failed to stop states from implementing AI safety laws as Congress stalls on passing any legislation.

For Trump, the priority has been to promote AI industry interests, but he began considering expanding federal government safety testing after Anthropic's Mythos was released and the AI firm limited access due to safety concerns. Whether or not governments at any level are prepared to protect society from the most catastrophic AI risks remains a major concern for critics who wonder how and when governments will intervene. After inside sources started leaking the details of Trump's AI safety testing plans, critics warned that even the federal government may lack the necessary expertise to audit frontier AI models. And it seems the same criticism extends to independent auditors that Illinois may rely on but industry insiders suggest some AI firms may not entirely trust.

Adam Kovacevich is CEO of Chamber of Progress, a trade group that opposed SB 315 and counts Google and Apple among its members. He told Wired that Illinois' requirements "would force companies to expose sensitive systems to untested auditors in a regulatory regime that's all liability and no standards." Governor J.B. Pritzker confirmed his intent to sign, proclaiming that "Illinois is leading the nation in holding Big Tech accountable."

"I look forward to signing SB 315 and working with the legislature so that AI, when used, is used responsibly," Pritzker said.

Steve Wimmer, a senior policy and technical advisor for the Transparency Coalition, said his group considers the law to be "one of the most important pieces of legislation in 2026."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Cybernews: The technology giant Microsoft has been accused of leaking the data of civil servants working for the Netherlands' regulatory agencies to the US House of Representatives. The civil servants affected by the leak work at the Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) and the Dutch Data Protection Authority (AP), according to the NL Times. They are involved in implementing the Digital Services Act (DSA), the European Union regulation on online services, aimed at combating illegal content and protecting user rights.

NL Times reports that Microsoft shared emails, minutes, and invitations sent by the civil servants without redacting their names in the documents. Willemijn Aerdts, Dutch State Secretary for Digital Economy and Sovereignty, said she discussed the allegations with US Ambassador to the Netherlands Joe Popolo. [...] The allegations against Microsoft further strengthen concerns over Europe's dependence on American technologies, which poses major risks to data privacy. Further reading: Netherlands Blocks US Takeover of Vital Digital Supplier

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang says the company plans to spend around $150 billion a year in Taiwan, calling it the "epicenter of the AI revolution." "Four years ago, five years ago, Nvidia was spending about $10, $15 billion dollars a year in Taiwan. Now we're spending $100, going to $150 billion dollars in Taiwan each year," Huang said. Reuters reports: Huang was speaking at a launch celebration in Taipei for the chip company's planned Taiwan headquarters, which he said will break ground this year and aims to become operational in 2030. He did not provide a timeframe for the number of years the company plans to invest $150 billion. The Taiwan headquarters will bring Nvidia closer to TSMC, the world's largest contract chipmaker which makes many of the advanced semiconductors powering the trend towards AI and is a major supplier to the U.S. tech company.

"Taiwan is booming," Huang said on stage at the celebration which was attended by his parents, wife, daughter and son in addition to around 1,000 employees. "Taiwan is the epicentre of the AI revolution. This is where the chips come, packaging comes, this is where the systems are made, this is where AI supercomputers were created. The number of partners we work with here in Taiwan, incredible."

Linux stable kernel maintainer Greg Kroah-Hartman says Rust can help Linux deal with a flood of AI-discovered security bugs (namely Dirty Frag, Copy Fail, and Fragnesia) by preventing common C mistakes around memory, locking, error handling, and untrusted data at build time rather than during human review. It's "not a silver bullet" and does not mean rewriting the whole kernel, but he said new drivers and subsystems will increasingly use Rust as Linux evolves forward. ZDNet reports: Kroah-Hartman illustrated those pitfalls with real C bugs in the kernel, including a 15-year-old Bluetooth bug that dereferenced a pointer without checking it and a Xen bug where "we forgot to unlock" in an error path. "The majority of the bugs in the kernel are this tiny, minor stuff," he explained. "Error conditions aren't checked, locks aren't forgotten, unreleased memories leak, and vulnerabilities add up over time. They crash the kernel. This is what we live with in C. This is why we don't like it." Kroah-Hartman argued that the "best beauty of Rust" is catching those mistakes at build time rather than in review. For example, when it comes to locking, he highlighted Rust's locking abstractions in the kernel: "The only way you can get access to inner pointers of structures is by grabbing that lock, and releasing the lock automatically. The compiler does it, it's guarded, the lock happens, everything's happy. You just can't write code to access these values...without grabbing the lock. The compiler will not let you."

Those properties, he argued, directly remove a huge fraction of the bugs he sees: "This is going to save us those two things. First, 60% of the bugs in the kernel right there, they're gone. Thank you." The payoff is earlier, more automated enforcement: "If this happens at build time, not review time, don't make me a maintainer who has to read your code [and] say, 'Oh, then you properly check that error value. Oh, did you properly grab the locks in the right spot?' Rust gives us that for free. This is the best thing ever." Even if Rust vanished tomorrow, Kroah-Hartman argued, it has already forced the kernel to clean up C code and interfaces. He credited Rust's influence outright: "We stole this from Rust. Thank you. It's a good idea, so if Rust disappeared tomorrow, we have cleaned up the C code in the kernel so much and taken in the ideas. We thank you, you've made Linux better with it just by existing."

[...] What ultimately sold a number of core maintainers, including him, on Rust was how it "makes reviewing code easier." With CI [Continuous Integration] bots enforcing builds and Rust's type system enforcing key invariants, maintainers can "focus on the logic" rather than resource bookkeeping: "I can care about that one function. I don't have to worry about the rest of this stuff, because I assume that it works properly, because it was built properly." Internally, he said, the top maintainers have already made their call on Rust's status: "The Linux kernel maintainers, we get together every year and talk about what the processes are doing. Last year, we said the Rust experiment is over. It's not an experiment. This is for real." The rationale: "The people behind it are real. We trust them. We know what they're doing. They've shown and put in the work to make Rust a viable language in the kernel, and we're going to make this stick. Let's go full speed ahead. And, as always," he said wryly, "world domination proceeds." "If you never remember anything else in my talk, just remember these four words. It came from Microsoft Security many, many years ago," Kroah-Hartman told attendees. "They realized all input is evil. You have to validate all input."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: How newsrooms should use AI -- or if they should at all -- has been a recurrent debate within the media industry over the last several years. Increasingly, these rules are being hammered out at the bargaining table between unions and publishers. Right now, employees at The New York Times are gearing up for a fight. Unionized staff with the Tech Guild say Times management has refused to provide the union with information related to how the company has used AI, its plans for AI use in the future, and how it will affect employees' jobs and workflow. (The union filed an unfair labor practice charge earlier this month.) The Tech Guild, a NewsGuild of New York unit of around 700 software engineers, designers, product and project managers, and data analysts, also filed grievances saying Times management violated their collective bargaining agreement when it started using two internal AI tools that track and evaluate employee performance and activity.

[...] Both the Tech Guild and the Times Guild (which represents 1,500 editorial, ad sales, and support staff at the Times) filed unfair labor practice charges against the Times, saying that company violated labor law by refusing to respond to their requests for information around AI use at the outlet. The Times did not respond to specific questions about how it uses DX and Glean, but spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha said in an email that the company disagrees with the characterizations made in grievances and that it would respond as part of its "normal contractual process." "Likewise, we will respond to this Request for Information (RFI) in due course as we've done with 80+ other RFIs from the Guild in recent years," Rhoades Ha said.

The Times Guild is currently bargaining a new contract, pushing for robust protections against AI, like requirements that a human is behind any AI tool being used, that any journalism utilizing AI is transparently labeled, and that staff are compensated for AI model training deals the company might make. The Times deploys artificial intelligence tools for some reporting, like using it to parse millions of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein or scan satellite images of Gaza to try to find where Israel had dropped a specific kind of bomb. [...] [Ben Harnett, a software engineer at the Times and chair of the unit's generative AI committee] emphasizes that the unit's position is not that AI shouldn't ever be used, but that workers should have a say in how it's deployed. Metrics like how many tokens an employee uses or how often they're using AI to do their jobs create pressure to do more and incentives that don't align with doing quality work. "It's going to distract [you] from actually doing a good job, which is what we think the company should want," he says. Two of the contentious AI tools mentioned in the report are DX and Glean. DX is an engineering productivity tool that tracks a developer's output, generative AI use, efficiency, and other related metrics. Meanwhile, Glean is an internal knowledge-search tool that indexes materials like wikis, GitHub documents, Google Docs, and emails so employees can query company information.

The concern, according to Times Tech Guild members, is that data meant to measure broader developer experience is now being applied to individuals and cited in performance or disciplinary contexts. There's also worry that it could be used to monitor individual contributions and produce false or misleading results.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: There is a certain wildness in the tech industry these days that both mimics previous eras of large changes, like cloud computing (runaway costs in the early days), and is like nothing we've ever seen before (record revenues accompanied by mass layoffs). One possible explanation: tech executives, especially CEOs, are collectively suffering from delusions of AI grandeur. And at least one tech CEO has said as much out loud: Box founder Aaron Levie.

"CEOs are uniquely prone to AI psychosis because they're sufficiently distant from the last mile of work that still has to happen to generate most value with AI," Levie wrote on X. CEOs "play with AI," develop a prototype, or generate a contract, to use Levie's examples, and then make the leap to believing agents can do the work. But these top-level executives aren't the people who have to review code, discover bugs, and identify calls to hallucinated libraries before software is deployed. They aren't responsible for training AI models on a company's idiosyncratic contract terms, nor do they have to spend days combing through contracts to find sneaky terms, as Levie indicates.

In other words, Levie's theory posits, CEOs don't really understand processes well enough to know what really can and can't be automated. But that lack of knowledge doesn't stop them from acting on their beliefs. [...] So what are CEOs to do instead? Levie advises CEOs to use AI "a ton" to really see what it can and can't do, "and come out the other side with an appreciation for both the upside and the real work."

Dropbox founder Drew Houston is stepping down as CEO after 19 years and will become executive chairman, with product chief Ashraf Alkarmi set to take over after a co-CEO transition period. CNBC reports: Drew Houston founded Dropbox nearly two decades ago at age 24, eventually becoming a household name in Silicon Valley and the first tech entrepreneur to take a company from the Y Combinator incubator program all the way to the public market. Now, at 43, Houston is ready to do something else. [...]

By almost any measure, Houston has had a great run at Dropbox, helping pioneer the cloud storage market, competing head-to-head with Google and Apple and building a net worth of more than $2 billion, thanks to substantial ownership in his company. But in the land of outsized expectations, Houston has overseen a company that peaked too soon and never became a generation-defining brand.

Dropbox's current market cap of just over $6 billion is down by half from the high price on its first day of trading in 2018, and is below the $10 billion valuation it was ascribed by private market investors in 2014. [...] In its latest quarterly earnings report, Dropbox said it has more than 18 million paying users, and the service remains popular with media professionals, graphic designers, architects, and others who share files and photos as part of their daily work. "Part of me has always thought, oh yeah, I'll be the CEO of Dropbox until my last gasp of my career," he said. "There's never a perfect time, there was no part of me where I was like, 'oh, this date is the date where it's going to happen.'"

Since Alkarmi joined Dropbox from Vimeo in late 2024, the company has "become a lot more responsive to our customers and is taking bigger swings on innovation," Houston said. "I trust the right leader," he said. "The company's in the right place."