A.I. Learns to Write in DNA
Scientists prompted A.I. to design and create new viruses for the first time, a milestone for medicine that also raises new biosecurity concerns.
According to The Next Web, new research has uncovered a troubling paradox at the heart of AI-assisted decision-making: using AI advice made people three times less accurate while simultaneously doubling their confidence in their answers.
The study suggests AI tools are actively suppressing critical thinking rather than augmenting it. Participants who relied on AI guidance ended up substantially more wrong than those working independently — yet walked away feeling significantly more certain they were right. It is a specific kind of harm that doesn't show up in capability benchmarks or user satisfaction scores.
The implications extend well beyond consumer UX. In medicine, law, engineering, or finance — any domain where an expert's judgment carries real weight — overconfident-but-wrong AI-assisted decisions are a compounding liability. The research frames this not as a bug to be patched but as a fundamental challenge for how AI gets integrated into professional workflows where being wrong with certainty is worse than being wrong with doubt.
All comments are reviewed before appearing. Keep it respectful.
Scientists prompted A.I. to design and create new viruses for the first time, a milestone for medicine that also raises new biosecurity concerns.
The Trump administration has no idea on how to handle open-source and open-weight AI models from China.
Google is consolidating AI leadership in California but the reorganization is pushing out the engineers who built its AI division