Security researchers at Wiz have uncovered a sophisticated crypto-jacking attack targeting publically accessible API servers for several popular DevOps tools. Similarly, researchers at Sysdig have uncovered an attack on the popular AI tool Open WebUI using many of the same techniques and crypto-miners.

Nature, Published online: 23 June 2025; doi:10.1038/d41586-025-01946-8

When testing an AI model, it’s hard to tell if it is reasoning or just regurgitating answers from its training data. Xbench, a new benchmark developed by the Chinese venture capital firm HSG, or HongShan Capital Group, might help to sidestep that issue. That’s thanks to the way it evaluates models not only on the ability to pass arbitrary tests, like most other benchmarks, but also on the ability to execute real-world tasks, which is more unusual. It will be updated on a regular basis to try to keep it evergreen. 

This week the company is making part of its question set open-source and letting anyone use for free. The team has also released a leaderboard comparing how mainstream AI models stack up when tested on Xbench. (ChatGPT o3 ranked first across all categories, though ByteDance’s Doubao, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and Grok all still did pretty well, as did Claude Sonnet.) 

Development of the benchmark at HongShan began in 2022, following ChatGPT’s breakout success, as an internal tool for assessing which models are worth investing in. Since then, led by partner Gong Yuan, the team has steadily expanded the system, bringing in outside researchers and professionals to help refine it. As the project grew more sophisticated, they decided to release it to the public.

Xbench approached the problem with two different systems. One is similar to traditional benchmarking: an academic test that gauges a model’s aptitude on various subjects. The other is more like a technical interview round for a job, assessing how much real-world economic value a model might deliver.

Xbench’s methods for assessing raw intelligence currently include two components: Xbench-ScienceQA and Xbench-DeepResearch. ScienceQA isn’t a radical departure from existing postgraduate-level STEM benchmarks like GPQA and SuperGPQA. It includes questions spanning fields from biochemistry to orbital mechanics, drafted by graduate students and double-checked by professors. Scoring rewards not only the right answer but also the reasoning chain that leads to it.

DeepResearch, by contrast, focuses on a model’s ability to navigate the Chinese-language web. Ten subject-matter experts created 100 questions in music, history, finance, and literature—questions that can’t just be googled but require significant research to answer. Scoring favors breadth of sources, factual consistency, and a model’s willingness to admit when there isn’t enough data. A question in the publicized collection is “How many Chinese cities in the three northwestern provinces border a foreign country?” (It’s 12, and only 33% of models tested got it right, if you are wondering.)

On the company’s website, the researchers said they want to add more dimensions to the test—for example, aspects like how creative a model is in its problem solving, how collaborative it is when working with other models, and how reliable it is.

The team has committed to updating the test questions once a quarter and to maintain a half-public, half-private data set.

To assess models’ real-world readiness, the team worked with experts to develop tasks modeled on actual workflows, initially in recruitment and marketing. For example, one task asks a model to source five qualified battery engineer candidates and justify each pick. Another asks it to match advertisers with appropriate short-video creators from a pool of over 800 influencers.

The website also teases upcoming categories, including finance, legal, accounting, and design. The question sets for these categories have not yet been open-sourced.

ChatGPT-o3 again ranks first in both of the current professional categories. For recruiting, Perplexity Search and Claude 3.5 Sonnet take second and third place, respectively. For marketing, Claude, Grok, and Gemini all perform well.

“It is really difficult for benchmarks to include things that are so hard to quantify,” says Zihan Zheng, the lead researcher on a new benchmark called LiveCodeBench Pro and a student at NYU. “But Xbench represents a promising start.”

Privacy only matters to those with something to hide. So goes one of the more inane and disingenuous justifications for mass government and corporate surveillance. There are others, of course, but the “nothing to hide” argument remains a popular way to rationalize or excuse what’s become standard practice in our digital age: the widespread and invasive collection of vast amounts of personal data.

One common response to this line of reasoning is that everyone, in fact, has something to hide, whether they realize it or not. If you’re unsure of whether this holds true for you, I encourage you to read Means of Control by Byron Tau. 

CROWN, 2024

Midway through his book, Tau, an investigative journalist, recalls meeting with a disgruntled former employee of a data broker—a shady company that collects, bundles, and sells your personal data to other (often shadier) third parties, including the government. This ex-employee had managed to make off with several gigabytes of location data representing the precise movements of tens of thousands of people over the course of a few weeks. “What could I learn with this [data]—­theoretically?” Tau asks the former employee. The answer includes a laundry list of possibilities that I suspect would make even the most enthusiastic oversharer uncomfortable.

“If information is power, and America is a society that’s still interested in the guarantee of liberty, personal dignity, and the individual freedom of its citizens, a serious conversation is needed.”

Bryon Tau, author of Means of Control

Did someone in this group recently visit an abortion clinic? That would be easy to figure out, says the ex-employee. Anyone attend an AA meeting or check into inpatient drug rehab? Again, pretty simple to discern. Is someone being treated for erectile dysfunction at a sexual health clinic? If so, that would probably be gleanable from the data too. Tau never opts to go down that road, but as Means of Control makes very clear, others certainly have done so and will.

While most of us are at least vaguely aware that our phones and apps are a vector for data collection and tracking, both the way in which this is accomplished and the extent to which it happens often remain murky. Purposely so, argues Tau. In fact, one of the great myths Means of Control takes aim at is the very idea that what we do with our devices can ever truly be anonymized. Each of us has habits and routines that are completely unique, he says, and if an advertiser knows you only as an alphanumeric string provided by your phone as you move about the world, and not by your real name, that still offers you virtually no real privacy protection. (You’ll perhaps not be surprised to learn that such “anonymized ad IDs” are relatively easy to crack.)

“I’m here to tell you if you’ve ever been on a dating app that wanted your location, or if you ever granted a weather app permission to know where you are 24/7, there’s a good chance a detailed log of your precise movement patterns has been vacuumed up and saved in some data bank somewhere that tens of thousands of total strangers have access to,” writes Tau.

Unraveling the story of how these strangers—everyone from government intelligence agents and local law enforcement officers to private investigators and employees of ad tech companies—gained access to our personal information is the ambitious task Tau sets for himself, and he begins where you might expect: the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

At no other point in US history was the government’s appetite for data more voracious than in the days after the attacks, says Tau. It was a hunger that just so happened to coincide with the advent of new technologies, devices, and platforms that excelled at harvesting and serving up personal information that had zero legal privacy protections. 

Over the course of 22 chapters, Tau gives readers a rare glimpse inside the shadowy industry, “built by corporate America and blessed by government lawyers,” that emerged in the years and decades following the 9/11 attacks. In the hands of a less skilled reporter, this labyrinthine world of shell companies, data vendors, and intelligence agencies could easily become overwhelming or incomprehensible. But Tau goes to great lengths to connect dots and plots, explaining how a perfect storm of business motivations, technological breakthroughs, government paranoia, and lax or nonexistent privacy laws combined to produce the “digital panopticon” we are all now living in.

Means of Control doesn’t offer much comfort or reassurance for privacy­-minded readers, but that’s arguably the point. As Tau notes repeatedly throughout his book, this now massive system of persistent and ubiquitous surveillance works only because the public is largely unaware of it. “If information is power, and America is a society that’s still interested in the guarantee of liberty, personal dignity, and the individual freedom of its citizens, a serious conversation is needed,” he writes. 

As another new book makes clear, this conversation also needs to include student data. Lindsay Weinberg’s Smart University: Student Surveillance in the Digital Age reveals how the motivations and interests of Big Tech are transforming higher education in ways that are increasingly detrimental to student privacy and, arguably, education as a whole.

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2024

By “smart university,” Weinberg means the growing number of public universities across the country that are being restructured around “the production and capture of digital data.” Similar in vision and application to so-called “smart cities,” these big-data-pilled institutions are increasingly turning to technologies that can track students’ movements around campus, monitor how much time they spend on learning management systems, flag those who seem to need special “advising,” and “nudge” others toward specific courses and majors. “What makes these digital technologies so seductive to higher education administrators, in addition to promises of cost cutting, individualized student services, and improved school rankings, is the notion that the integration of digital technology on their campuses will position universities to keep pace with technological innovation,” Weinberg writes. 

Readers of Smart University will likely recognize a familiar logic at play here. Driving many of these academic tracking and data-gathering initiatives is a growing obsession with efficiency, productivity, and convenience. The result is a kind of Silicon Valley optimization mindset, but applied to higher education at scale. Get students in and out of university as fast as possible, minimize attrition, relentlessly track performance, and do it all under the guise of campus modernization and increased personalization. 

Under this emerging system, students are viewed less as self-empowered individuals and more as “consumers to be courted, future workers to be made employable for increasingly smart workplaces, sources of user-generated content for marketing and outreach, and resources to be mined for making campuses even smarter,” writes Weinberg. 

At the heart of Smart University seems to be a relatively straightforward question: What is an education for? Although Weinberg doesn’t provide a direct answer, she shows that how a university (or society) decides to answer that question can have profound impacts on how it treats its students and teachers. Indeed, as the goal of education becomes less to produce well-rounded humans capable of thinking critically and more to produce “data subjects capable of being managed and who can fill roles in the digital economy,” it’s no wonder we’re increasingly turning to the dumb idea of smart universities to get the job done.  

If books like Means of Control and Smart University do an excellent job exposing the extent to which our privacy has been compromised, commodified, and weaponized (which they undoubtedly do), they can also start to feel a bit predictable in their final chapters. Familiar codas include calls for collective action, buttressed by a hopeful anecdote or two detailing previously successful pro-privacy wins; nods toward a bipartisan privacy bill in the works or other pieces of legislation that could potentially close some glaring surveillance loophole; and, most often, technical guides that explain how each of us, individually, might better secure or otherwise take control and “ownership” of our personal data.

The motivations behind these exhortations and privacy-centric how-to guides are understandable. After all, it’s natural for readers to want answers, advice, or at least some suggestion that things could be different—especially after reading about the growing list of degradations suffered under surveillance capitalism. But it doesn’t take a skeptic to start to wonder if they’re actually advancing the fight for privacy in the way that its advocates truly want.

For one thing, technology tends to move much faster than any one smartphone privacy guide or individual law could ever hope to keep up with. Similarly, framing rampant privacy abuses as a problem we each have to be responsible for addressing individually seems a lot like framing the plastic pollution crisis as something Americans could have somehow solved by recycling. It’s both a misdirection and a misunderstanding of the problem.     

It’s to his credit, then, that Lowry Pressly doesn’t include a “What is to be done” section at the end of The Right to Oblivion: Privacy and the Good Life. In lieu of offering up any concrete technical or political solutions, he simply reiterates an argument he has carefully and convincingly built over the course of his book: that privacy is important “not because it empowers us to exercise control over our information, but because it protects against the creation of such information in the first place.” 

HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2024

For Pressly, a Stanford instructor, the way we currently understand and value privacy has been tainted by what he calls “the ideology of information.” “This is the idea that information has a natural existence in human affairs,” he writes, “and that there are no aspects of human life which cannot be translated somehow into data.” This way of thinking not only leads to an impoverished sense of our own humanity—it also forces us into the conceptual trap of debating privacy’s value using a framework (control, consent, access) established by the companies whose business model is to exploit it.

The way out of this trap is to embrace what Pressly calls “oblivion,” a kind of state of unknowing, ambiguity, and potential—or, as he puts it, a realm “where there is no information or knowledge one way or the other.” While he understands that it’s impossible to fully escape a modern world intent on turning us into data subjects, Pressly’s book suggests we can and should support the idea that certain aspects of our (and others’) subjective interior lives can never be captured by information. Privacy is important because it helps to both protect and produce these ineffable parts of our lives, which in turn gives them a sense of dignity, depth, and the possibility for change and surprise. 

Reserving or cultivating a space for oblivion in our own lives means resisting the logic that drives much of the modern world. Our inclination to “join the conversation,” share our thoughts, and do whatever it is we do when we create and curate a personal brand has become so normalized that it’s practically invisible to us. According to Pressly, all that effort has only made our lives and relationships shallower, less meaningful, and less trusting.

Calls for putting our screens down and stepping away from the internet are certainly nothing new. And while The Right to Oblivion isn’t necessarily prescriptive about such things, Pressly does offer a beautiful and compelling vision of what can be gained when we retreat not just from the digital world but from the idea that we are somehow knowable to that world in any authentic or meaningful way. 

If all this sounds a bit philosophical, well, it is. But it would be a mistake to think of The Right to Oblivion as a mere thought exercise on privacy. Part of what makes the book so engaging and persuasive is the way in which Pressly combines a philosopher’s knack for uncovering hidden assumptions with a historian’s interest in and sensitivity to older (often abandoned) ways of thinking, and how they can often enlighten and inform modern problems.

Pressly isn’t against efforts to pass more robust privacy legislation, or even to learn how to better protect our devices against surveillance. His argument is that in order to guide such efforts, you have to both ask the right questions and frame the problem in a way that gives you and others the moral clarity and urgency to act. Your phone’s privacy settings are important, but so is understanding what you’re protecting when you change them. 

Bryan Gardiner is a writer based in Oakland, California. 

AlphaWrite is a new framework designed to enhance creative writing with structure and measurable improvements. Developed by Toby Simonds, it employs an evolutionary process to iteratively boost storytelling quality during inference.

Cell Death Discovery, Published online: 20 June 2025; doi:10.1038/s41420-025-02550-5

Nature, Published online: 19 June 2025; doi:10.1038/d41586-025-01942-y

Nature, Published online: 18 June 2025; doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09180-y

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.

Why it’s so hard to stop tech-facilitated abuse

After Gioia had her first child with her then husband, he installed baby monitors throughout their home—to “watch what we were doing,” she says, while he went to work. She’d turn them off; he’d get angry. By the time their third child turned seven, Gioia and her husband had divorced, but he still found ways to monitor her behavior. One Christmas, he gave their youngest a smartwatch. Gioia showed it to a tech-savvy friend, who found that the watch had a tracking feature turned on. It could be turned off only by the watch’s owner—her ex.

And Gioia is far from alone. In fact, tech-facilitated abuse now occurs in most cases of intimate partner violence—and we’re doing shockingly little to prevent it. Read the full story. 

—Jessica Klein 

This story is from the next print edition of MIT Technology Review, which explores power—who has it, and who wants it. It’s set to go live on Wednesday June 25, so subscribe & save 25% to read it and get a copy of the issue when it lands!

Why AI hardware needs to be open

—by Ayah Bdeir, a leader in the maker movement, champion of open source AI, and founder of littleBits, the hardware platform that teaches STEAM to kids through hands-on invention. 

Once again, the future of technology is being engineered in secret by a handful of people and delivered to the rest of us as a sealed, seamless, perfect device. When technology is designed like this, we are reduced to consumers. We don’t shape the tools; they shape us. 

However, this moment creates a chance to do things differently. Because away from the self-centeredness of Silicon Valley, a quiet, grounded sense of resistance is reactivating.  Read the full story.

MIT Technology Review Narrated: Deepfakes of your dead loved ones are a booming Chinese business

In China, people are seeking help from AI-generated avatars to process their grief after a family member passes away. Our story about this trend is the latest to be turned into a MIT Technology Review Narrated podcast, which we’re publishing each week on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. Just navigate to MIT Technology Review Narrated on either platform, and follow us to get all our new content as it’s released.

The must-reads

I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.

1 Iran is going offline to avoid Israeli cyberattacks
A government spokesperson said it plans to disconnect completely from the global internet this evening. (The Verge)
+ How attacks on Iran’s oil exports could hurt China. (WSJ $)

2 Trump is giving TikTok another reprieve from a US ban
It’s been a full five years since he signed the original executive order telling Bytedance to sell it. (CNN)
+ Why Chinese manufacturers are going viral on TikTok. (MIT Technology Review)

3 Conspiracy theories about the Minnesota shooting are all over social media
Whenever there’s an information vacuum, people are all too keen to fill it with noise and nonsense. (NBC) 
+ The shooting suspect allegedly used data broker sites to find targets’ addresses. (Wired $)

4 Tensions between OpenAI and Microsoft are starting to boil over 
OpenAI has even threatened to report its formerly close partner to antitrust regulators. (WSJ $)
+ Here are the concessions OpenAI is seeking. (The Information $)
+ Inside the story that enraged OpenAI. (MIT Technology Review) 

5 California cops are using AI cameras to investigate ICE protests
And sharing license plate data with other agencies, a practice some experts say is illegal. (404 Media)
+ How a new type of AI is helping police skirt facial recognition bans. (MIT Technology Review)

6 Social media is now Americans’ primary news source
It’s overtaken TV for the first time. (Reuters)
+ They watched more TV via streaming than cable last month, too. (NYT $)

7 Weight loss drugs may not work quite as well as hoped
Researchers analysed data from 51,085 patients and found bariatric surgery delivered better, more sustainable results. (The Guardian)

8 What is AI doing to reading? 
Here’s what we stand to gain—and lose—when we outsource reading to machines. (New Yorker $) 

9 India is relying on China to build up its EV market
It’s taking a drastically different course to the US. (Rest of World)
+ Why EVs are (mostly) set for solid growth in 2025. (MIT Technology Review)

10 People are building AI tools to decipher cats’ meows 
Bet at least half of them are “feed me.” (Scientific American $)

Quote of the day

“Have we fallen so low? Have we no shame?”

—Remarks made by federal judge Williams G. Young this week as he voided some of the Trump administration’s cuts to National Institutes of Health grants, saying they were discriminatory, the New York Times reports. 

One more thing

STEPHANIE ARNETT/MIT TECHNOLOGY REVIEW | GETTY

Why AI could eat quantum computing’s lunch

Tech companies have been funneling billions of dollars into quantum computers for years. The hope is that they’ll be a game changer for fields as diverse as finance, drug discovery, and logistics.

But while the field struggles with the realities of tricky quantum hardware, another challenger is making headway in some of these most promising use cases. AI is now being applied to fundamental physics, chemistry, and materials science in a way that suggests quantum computing’s purported home turf might not be so safe after all. Read the full story.

—Edd Gent

We can still have nice things

A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line or skeet ’em at me.)

+ Wait a minute, Will Smith was offered a role in Inception? Much to think about.
+ No pain, no gain? Not necessarily.
+ John Waters, you really are one of a kind.
+ Say it ain’t so—I refuse to believe that young love is dead!

When OpenAI acquired Io to create “the coolest piece of tech that the world will have ever seen,” it confirmed what industry experts have long been saying: Hardware is the new frontier for AI. AI will no longer just be an abstract thing in the cloud far away. It’s coming for our homes, our rooms, our beds, our bodies. 

That should worry us.

Once again, the future of technology is being engineered in secret by a handful of people and delivered to the rest of us as a sealed, seamless, perfect device. When technology is designed in secrecy and sold to us as a black box, we are reduced to consumers. We wait for updates. We adapt to features. We don’t shape the tools; they shape us. 

This is a problem. And not just for tinkerers and technologists, but for all of us.

We are living through a crisis of disempowerment. Children are more anxious than ever; the former US surgeon general described a loneliness epidemic; people are increasingly worried about AI eroding education. The beautiful devices we use have been correlated with many of these trends. Now AI—arguably the most powerful technology of our era—is moving off the screen and into physical space. 

The timing is not a coincidence. Hardware is having a renaissance. Every major tech company is investing in physical interfaces for AI. Startups are raising capital to build robots, glasses, wearables that are going to track our every move. The form factor of AI is the next battlefield. Do we really want our future mediated entirely through interfaces we can’t open, code we can’t see, and decisions we can’t influence? 

This moment creates an existential opening, a chance to do things differently. Because away from the self-centeredness of Silicon Valley, a quiet, grounded sense of resistance is reactivating. I’m calling it the revenge of the makers. 

In 2007, as the iPhone emerged, the maker movement was taking shape. This subculture advocates for learning-through-making in social environments like hackerspaces and libraries. DIY and open hardware enthusiasts gathered in person at Maker Faires—large events where people of all ages tinkered and shared their inventions in 3D printing, robotics, electronics, and more. Motivated by fun, self-fulfillment, and shared learning, the movement birthed companies like MakerBot, Raspberry Pi, Arduino, and (my own education startup) littleBits from garages and kitchen tables. I myself wanted to challenge the notion that technology had to be intimidating or inaccessible, creating modular electronic building blocks designed to put the power of invention in the hands of everyone.

By definition, the maker movement is humble and it is consistent. Makers do not believe in the cult of individual genius; we believe in collective genius. We believe that creativity is universally distributed (not exclusively bestowed), that inventing is better together, and that we should make open products so people can observe, learn, and create—basically, the polar opposite of what Jony Ive and Sam Altman are building.

But over time, the momentum faded. The movement was dismissed by the tech and investment industry as niche and hobbyist, and starting in 2018, pressures on the hardware venture market (followed by covid) made people retreat from social spaces to spend more time behind screens. 

Now it’s mounting a powerful second act, joined by a wave of AI open-source enthusiasts. This time around the stakes are higher, and we need to give it the support it never had.

In 2024 the AI leader Hugging Face developed an open-source platform for AI robots, which already has 3,500+ robot data sets and draws thousands of participants from every continent to join giant hackathons. Raspberry Pi went public on the London Stock Exchange for $700 million. After a hiatus, Maker Faire came back; the most recent one had nearly 30,000 attendees, with kinetic sculptures, flaming octopuses, and DIY robot bands, and this year there will be over 100 Maker Faires around the world. Just last week, DIY.org relaunched its app. In March, my friend Roya Mahboob, founder of the Afghan Girls Robotics Team, released a movie about the team to incredible reviews. People love the idea that making is the ultimate form of human empowerment and expression. All the while, a core set of people have continued influencing millions through maker organizations like FabLabs and Adafruit.

Studies show that hands-on creativity reduces anxiety, combats loneliness, and boosts cognitive function. The act of making grounds us, connects us to others, and reminds us that we are capable of shaping the world with our own hands. 

I’m not proposing to reject AI hardware but to reject the idea that innovation must be proprietary, elite, and closed. I’m proposing to fund and build the open alternative. That means putting our investment, time, and purchases towards robot built in community labs, AI models trained in the open, tools made transparent and hackable. That world isn’t just more inclusive—it’s more innovative. It’s also more fun. 

This is not nostalgia. This is about fighting for the kind of future we want: A future of openness and joy, not of conformity and consumption. One where technology invites participation, not passivity. Where children grow up not just knowing how to swipe, but how to build. Where creativity is a shared endeavor, not the mythical province of lone geniuses in glass towers.

In his Io announcement video, Altman said, “We are literally on the brink of a new generation of technology that can make us our better selves.” It reminded me of the movie Mountainhead, where four tech moguls tell themselves they are saving the world while the world is burning. I don’t think the iPhone made us our better selves. In fact, you’ve never seen me run faster than when I’m trying to snatch an iPhone out of my three-year-old’s hands.

So yes, I’m watching what Sam Altman and Jony Ive will unveil. But I’m far more excited by what’s happening in basements, in classrooms, on workbenches. Because the real iPhone moment isn’t a new product we wait for. It’s the moment you realize you can build it yourself. And best of all? You  can’t doomscroll when you’re holding a soldering iron.

Ayah Bdeir is a leader in the maker movement, a champion of open source AI, and founder of littleBits, the hardware platform that teaches STEAM to kids through hands-on invention. A graduate of the MIT Media Lab, she was selected as one of the BBC’s 100 Most Influential Women, and her inventions have been acquired by the Museum of Modern Art.

Nature, Published online: 18 June 2025; doi:10.1038/d41586-025-01891-6