Technology

IT’LL NEVER FLY, NOAM…:


For the First Time, AI Analyzes Language as Well as a Human Expert (Steve Nadfis, 12/14/25, Wired)

For some in the linguistic community, language models not only don’t have reasoning abilities, they can’t. This view was summed up by Noam Chomsky, a prominent linguist, and two coauthors in 2023, when they wrote in The New York Times that “the correct explanations of language are complicated and cannot be learned just by marinating in big data.” AI models may be adept at using language, these researchers argued, but they’re not capable of analyzing language in a sophisticated way.

Image may contain Book Indoors Library Publication Adult Person Furniture Bookcase Face and Head
Gašper Beguš, a linguist at the University of California, Berkeley. Photograph: Jami Smith
That view was challenged in a recent paper by Gašper Beguš, a linguist at the University of California, Berkeley; Maksymilian Dąbkowski, who recently received his doctorate in linguistics at Berkeley; and Ryan Rhodes of Rutgers University. The researchers put a number of large language models, or LLMs, through a gamut of linguistic tests—including, in one case, having the LLM generalize the rules of a made-up language. While most of the LLMs failed to parse linguistic rules in the way that humans are able to, one had impressive abilities that greatly exceeded expectations. It was able to analyze language in much the same way a graduate student in linguistics would—diagramming sentences, resolving multiple ambiguous meanings, and making use of complicated linguistic features such as recursion. This finding, Beguš said, “challenges our understanding of what AI can do.”

Chomsky is a synonym for “wrong” in every language.

…AND CHEAPER…:

Nuclear Fusion Took Big Leaps in 2025. Here’s What Mattered Most (Gayoung Lee, December 10, 2025, Gizmodo)

2025 witnessed a surge in fusion research from both established and newcomer stakeholders. Scientists reported increased fusion energy outputs compared to previous years, improved reactor hardware, and a wide range of experimental and theoretical developments supporting different parts of fusion energy. Here are the most notable advancements in fusion from the past 12 months.

SCROLLING IS READING:

If You Quit Social Media, Will You Read More Books?: The internet is training us to expect optimized experiences (Jay Caspian Kang, Dec 10, 2025, The New Yorker)

I have felt the panic myself, and so, this past July, with a book deadline looming, I got off of social media. The break started with X, which was my biggest problem, but, by the end of August or so, Instagram, TikTok, and pretty much anything that allowed me to argue with strangers had been deleted from my phone. Before this, I was spending roughly ten hours a day looking at my phone or sitting at my desktop computer. I didn’t need that number to come down, but, when I checked my weekly status report, I wanted all the brightly colored little bars that track the number of hours I’d spent on time-wasting apps to be relocated to the word-processing app that I use to write my books.

The plan worked, more or less. I finished a draft of the book on time. But the other imagined effects of a social-media detox never quite materialized, at least not in a noticeable way. I was especially hoping that I would start reading more books, because I have found that enviable prose prompts me to try to write my own, not necessarily out of a sense of inspiration but rather out of fear that if I don’t hurry up and start typing, I’ll fall behind. And yet, the chief effect, I found, was that I simply didn’t know what was happening in the world. That was nice enough, but all those books I had hoped to read never found their way into my hands.

NO BODY’S PERFECT:

Why Some Doctors Say There Are Cancers That Shouldn’t Be Treated (Gina Kolata, Dec. 8, 2025, NY Times)

The idea that finding a cancer early is not always a good thing is not easy for many patients and their families to accept. And it is true that lives can be saved by treating cancer early.

Autopsy studies repeatedly find that many people die with small cancers they were unaware of. A review of these studies in prostate cancer reported that the cancer can appear in men as young as their 20s. The older the men were, the more likely they were to have undetected prostate cancer. By their 70s, about a third of white men and half of Black men had undetected prostate cancer.


A study of thyroid cancer in Finland found that at least a third of adults had undetected tumors. Less than one percent of people die from thyroid cancer

The problem is that it is impossible to know if someone’s cancer will be deadly or not. And if the cancer is gone after treatment, there is no way to know if it needed to be treated.

But there’s a way to know on a population level if an increase in diagnoses is a false alarm or a danger signal, said Dr. H. Gilbert Welch of Brigham and Women’s Hospital of Harvard Medical School. Look at the number of deaths from that cancer. If more lethal cancers are being found, there should be more deaths. But if the death rate remains steady as the incidence of that cancer spikes, many of those patients did not need to receive diagnoses.

That happened, for example, with thyroid cancer in South Korea. The incidence of thyroid cancer soared with the introduction of widespread ultrasound screening. But deaths did not increase. It was estimated that 90 percent of the cancers that were discovered and treated in women did not need to be found.

Well aware of such incidents, Dr. Vishal R. Patel of Harvard, Dr. Welch and Dr. Adewole S. Adamson of Dell Medical School in Austin, Texas, asked whether the current spike in diagnoses in younger people of those eight cancers is tied to more deaths.

It is not, they reported in a recent paper examining trends over the past three decades.

For all but two of the eight cancers whose incidence has soared in younger people, death rates are flat or declining.

YEAH, BUT IT TOOK A COUPLE YEARS…:

World’s largest polymer 3D printer helps speed construction of nuclear reactors parts (Georgina Jedikovska, Dec 05, 2025, Interesting Engineering)


US scientists have introduced a groundbreaking approach to building nuclear reactor components faster than ever before, using one of the world’s largest 3D printers.

The researchers at the University of Maine’s (UMaine) Advanced Structures and Composites Center (ASCC) utilized the super-sized polymer 3D printer to design enormous, precision-shaped concrete form liners.

IT’LL NEVER FLY, ORVILLE:

As the 2025 Atlantic hurricane season ends, the future of forecasting is AI (Greg Allen, 11/29/25, NPR: Weekend Edition)

A week before the hurricane made landfall, however, forecast models disagreed on where it would go. One model that got it right — accurately predicting Melissa’s path and its category 5 intensity — was a new one: Google’s DeepMind AI-based hurricane model.

James Franklin, a former branch chief at the National Hurricane Center, analyzed how the forecast models performed this year, and says Google’s DeepMind outshone them all. “The model performed very, very well, which was very impressive,” he says. “It was the best guidance we saw this year.”

THE FUTURE ALWAYS HAPPENS FASTER THAN YOU EXPECT:

How to Print a Human: We desperately need new organs, and we’re running out of ways to get them (Mary Roach November 28, 2025, Nautilus)

I ask Feinberg when he thinks medical science will arrive at the point of implanting entire functional bioprinted organs in patients. If we use the analogy of airplane flight, he puts things somewhere around the Wright brothers stage. “Of course, we don’t want a plane that goes 30 feet down the field. We want a plane that can fly around all day.”

And how far off is that? A decade plus, Feinberg says.

For medical science, that’s actually a brisk turnaround. (In an earlier phone conversation, Feinberg equated “a decade or two” with “pretty quickly.”) He adds that he thought it could easily happen far sooner. “Because we keep coming up with new things.” Just 20 years ago, he points out, there was no gene editing, no CRISPR. “Plus AI is going to accelerate, and that’s going to change what’s possible.”

I pose the same question now to Jaci Bliley, a senior post-doctoral fellow in the lab. Bliley has just joined us in the microscope room. Two to three decades is her estimate. Like Feinberg, she says she’s surprised at how fast things are moving. She offers the example of some stand-alone beating heart ventricles, little tubular constructs that she printed as part of her Ph.D. research. “That was 2019,” she says. “Now we’re putting them into mice and they’re surviving. After six months they’re still alive and beating.”

THERE’LL BE TIME ENOUGH FOR COUNTING:

What’s next for AlphaFold: A conversation with a Google DeepMind Nobel laureate: “I’ll be shocked if we don’t see more and more LLM impact on science,” says John Jumper (Will Douglas Heaven, November 24, 2025, MIT Technology Review)

Proteins are made from strings of amino acids that chemical forces twist up into complex knots. An untwisted string gives few clues about the structure it will form. In theory, most proteins could take on an astronomical number of possible shapes. The task is to predict the correct one.

Jumper and his team built AlphaFold 2 using a type of neural network called a transformer, the same technology that underpins large language models. Transformers are very good at paying attention to specific parts of a larger puzzle.

But Jumper puts a lot of the success down to making a prototype model that they could test quickly. “We got a system that would give wrong answers at incredible speed,” he says. “That made it easy to start becoming very adventurous with the ideas you try.”


They stuffed the neural network with as much information about protein structures as they could, such as how proteins across certain species have evolved similar shapes. And it worked even better than they expected. “We were sure we had made a breakthrough,” says Jumper. “We were sure that this was an incredible advance in ideas.”

What he hadn’t foreseen was that researchers would download his software and start using it straight away for so many different things. Normally, it’s the thing a few iterations down the line that has the real impact, once the kinks have been ironed out, he says: “I’ve been shocked at how responsibly scientists have used it, in terms of interpreting it, and using it in practice about as much as it should be trusted in my view, neither too much nor too little.” […]

AlphaFold was designed to be used for a range of purposes. Now multiple startups and university labs are building on its success to develop a new wave of tools more tailored to drug discovery. This year, a collaboration between MIT researchers and the AI drug company Recursion produced a model called Boltz-2, which predicts not only the structure of proteins but also how well potential drug molecules will bind to their target.

Last month, the startup Genesis Molecular AI released another structure prediction model called Pearl, which the firm claims is more accurate than AlphaFold 3 for certain queries that are important for drug development. Pearl is interactive, so that drug developers can feed any additional data they may have to the model to guide its predictions.

AlphaFold was a major leap, but there’s more to do, says Evan Feinberg, Genesis Molecular AI’s CEO: “We’re still fundamentally innovating, just with a better starting point than before.”