I recently vacationed in Italy. As one does these days, I ran my itinerary past GPT-5 for sightseeing suggestions and restaurant recommendations. The bot reported that the top choice for dinner near our hotel in Rome was a short walk down Via Margutta. It turned out to be one of the best meals I can remember. When I got home, I asked the model how it chose that restaurant, which I hesitate to reveal here in case I want a table sometime in the future (Hell, who knows if I’ll even return: It is called Babette. Call ahead for reservations.) The answer was complex and impressive. Among the factors were rave reviews from locals, notices in food blogs and the Italian press, and the restaurant’s celebrated combination of Roman and contemporary cooking. Oh, and the short walk.

Something was required from my end as well: trust. I had to buy into the idea that GPT-5 was an honest broker, picking my restaurant without bias; that the restaurant wasn’t shown to me as sponsored content and wasn’t getting a cut of my check. I could have done deep research on my own to double-check the recommendation (I did look up the website), but the point of using AI is to bypass that friction.

The experience bolstered my confidence in AI results but also made me wonder: As companies like OpenAI get more powerful, and as they try to pay back their investors, will AI be prone to the erosion of value that seems endemic to the tech apps we use today?

Word Play

Writer and tech critic Cory Doctorow calls that erosion “enshittification.” His premise is that platforms like Google, Amazon, Facebook, and TikTok start out aiming to please users, but once the companies vanquish competitors, they intentionally become less useful to reap bigger profits. After WIRED republished Doctorow’s pioneering 2022 essay about the phenomenon, the term entered the vernacular, mainly because people recognized that it was totally on the mark. Enshittification was chosen as the American Dialect Society’s 2023 Word of the Year. The concept has been cited so often that it transcends its profanity, appearing in venues that normally would hold their noses at such a word. Doctorow just published an eponymous book on the subject; the cover image is the emoji for … guess what.

If chatbots and AI agents become enshittified, it could be worse than Google Search becoming less useful, Amazon results getting plagued with ads, and even Facebook showing less social content in favor of anger-generating clickbait.

AI is on a trajectory to be a constant companion, giving one-shot answers to many of our requests. People already rely on it to help interpret current events and get advice on all sorts of buying choices—and even life choices. Because of the massive costs of creating a full-blown AI model, it’s fair to assume that only a few companies will dominate the field. All of them plan to spend hundreds of billions of dollars over the next few years to improve their models and get them into the hands of as many people as possible. Right now, I’d say AI is in what Doctorow calls the “good to the users” stage. But the pressure to make back the massive capital investments will be tremendous—especially for companies whose user base is locked in. Those conditions, as Doctorow writes, allow companies to abuse their users and business customers “to claw back all the value for themselves.”

When one imagines the enshittification of AI, the first thing that comes to mind is advertising. The nightmare is that AI models will make recommendations based on which companies have paid for placement. That’s not happening now, but AI firms are actively exploring the ad space. In a recent interview, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said, “I believe there probably is some cool ad product we can do that is a net win to the user and a sort of positive to our relationship with the user.” Meanwhile, OpenAI just announced a deal with Walmart so the retailer’s customers can shop inside the ChatGPT app. Can’t imagine a conflict there! The AI search platform Perplexity has a program where sponsored results appear in clearly labeled follow-ups. But, it promises, “these ads will not change our commitment to maintaining a trusted service that provides you with direct, unbiased answers to your questions.”

Scientists in South Korea have unveiled a transparent, wearable sensor that monitors a user’s exposure to ultraviolet A (UVA) radiation in real-time. The technology could help prevent sunburn and long-term skin damage that can cause cancer.

Ultraviolet radiation is released naturally by the sun and artificially by tanning beds. The problem with overexposure is that the rays can penetrate deep into the skin and damage DNA, potentially causing cells to grow out of control and leading to cancer. In many countries, the majority of skin cancer cases are linked to this type of overexposure.

While wearing long clothes and hats and applying sunscreen provides valuable protection, the researchers wanted a simple device to alert wearers when exposure reached a certain level. Current sensors often lack the ability to track UVA and are opaque, which makes them uncomfortable and difficult to use in wearable tech like smart glasses.

In their study, published in the journal Science Advances, the researchers describe how they built their sensor layer by layer, starting with a piece of glass. On top of this transparent base, they stacked layers of oxide semiconductors that were also see-through and only reacted to UVA light. For the electrical connections, the team used a transparent indium tin oxide film, ensuring the finished device was nearly invisible and could be easily incorporated into wearables.

To make the sensor a functional monitor, the researchers hooked it up to a small circuit board. This had an amplifier to boost faint UVA signals and a Bluetooth chip to send exposure data straight to a user’s phone.

Successful prototype

The research team tested their prototype extensively in natural sunlight on sunny and cloudy days, and the readings reliably matched professional UV monitoring equipment. Data was wirelessly sent to a user’s phone, where it calculated their accumulated UVA dose and sent a real-time warning when exposure reached 80% of the required amount to cause sunburn.

“This health care device, integrated with a smartphone, demonstrates its potential as a practical approach to prevent risks associated with prolonged UV exposure,” wrote the researchers in their paper.

The device is not yet consumer-ready. Although it has successfully passed laboratory and initial outdoor tests, the team notes that further work is needed before it becomes publicly available. This includes long-term field testing and user studies to confirm the device can survive daily use. The researchers also want to make the entire system smaller so it can be comfortably integrated into wearables such as glasses, smartwatches, and skin patches.

© 2025 Science X Network

Australians love rooftop solar power. About 4 million homes have solar panels on their roofs, and we generate more solar energy per person than any other country.

But affordability pressures on homeowners are holding them back from installing rooftop solar on millions of homes. Without this, Australia could struggle to meet its goal of generating more than 80% of electricity from renewables by 2030.

We propose a bold new “use it or lend it” solar program, under which the owners of detached and semi-detached homes would have the option of allowing the government to install and operate solar panels on their rooftops.

This could be an effective alternative to traditional energy rebates to accelerate the energy transition. And the electricity generated from these systems could be allocated to low-income households and renters, who are currently unable to access solar power.

Boosting solar

Slightly more than half of owner-occupied houses in Australia have solar panels.

Our new research looked at the factors that influenced household solar panel uptake in the Sydney metropolitan area from 2013 to 2024.

We found that as the cost of panels and batteries dropped over time and electricity prices soared, more homeowners decided to install solar. In contrast, the feed-in tariffs—the payment from electricity retailers for surplus electricity you put back into the grid—seem to have little impact on solar adoption.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, we found that high house prices relative to household incomes resulted in reduced solar adoption, showing housing affordability is a barrier for solar uptake. Despite the long-term savings offered by solar, homeowners battling housing affordability simply didn’t have as much disposable income to spend on solar panels.

At present, a typical 6.6 kilowatt system costs about $8,500, but the owner only pays about $6,200 because of the Commonwealth Small-Scale Renewable Energy Scheme rebate. These rebates are being phased out by 2030.

Untapped potential

Australia has a legislated greenhouse emissions target of 43% below 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero by 2050. Last month, it announced a more ambitious interim target of 62%–70% below 2005 levels by 2035.

To meet this goal, we will need to generate more than 80% of Australia’s electricity from renewables by 2030. We are not yet on track.

To overcome the shortfall on solar adoption, bold policies are needed to make rooftop solar accessible to all households, not just those who can already afford it.

What has been proposed so far? The Climate Council advocates for the mandatory inclusion of solar on new and substantially renovated houses, as well as suitable new apartment buildings. The Grattan Institute says state and territory governments should provide certainty with a long-term date for the end of gas.

But these approaches take time. We propose a third and complementary “use it or lend it” option. Under this scheme, owners of detached and semi-detached houses that have not installed solar could “lend” their rooftop space to the government for publicly owned solar panels.

How ‘use it or lend it’ would work

Owners who chose this option would retain full ownership of their property while receiving compensation, such as annual lease payments, for allowing public use of their rooftop space.

This arrangement would give property owners the clear, risk-free benefit of financial compensation without the cost of installation or responsibility for maintenance of the panels themselves. We expect the program would appeal to low-income homeowners who cannot afford solar panels, as well as rental property owners who may be reluctant or unable to invest in solar.

For the government, the electricity from these systems could be allocated to low-income households and renters, two groups that face the greatest barriers to direct solar participation. This could be done through [virtual energy networks], a digital platform that allows solar households to sell excess electricity to non-solar households. The “use it or lend it” policy could be an effective tool to address equity concerns in solar uptake.

Property owners could choose to buy back the rooftop solar panel system installed by the government at any time. If existing owners initially opt out but later wish to opt back in, or if new property owners decide to participate, the purchase price would be determined based on the “cost neutrality” principle, meaning the government does not profit.

To ensure feasibility and fairness, the program would have to include safeguards covering roof integrity and owner indemnity against potential damage or injury. It would need fair access principles for the installation, service and removal of the solar panels and batteries.

Each property’s solar suitability would be assessed by accredited professionals, considering technical viability as well as the property owner’s priorities, for example, planned subdivisions or renovations.

With only five years until the current solar rebates are phased out, now is the time to consider how to boost solar installation without them.

With careful design and drafting, a landowner lending their roof space to the government does not disadvantage them. Owners, renters, the government and the climate would all benefit from solar panels on unused roofs.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.