MIT researchers have developed a technique that enables real-time, 3D monitoring of corrosion, cracking, and other material failure processes inside a nuclear reactor environment.

This could allow engineers and scientists to design safer nuclear reactors that also deliver higher performance for applications like electricity generation and naval vessel propulsion.

During their experiments, the researchers utilized extremely powerful X-rays to mimic the behavior of neutrons interacting with a material inside a nuclear reactor.

They found that adding a buffer layer of silicon dioxide between the material and its substrate, and keeping the material under the X-ray beam for a longer period of time, improves the stability of the sample. This allows for real-time monitoring of material failure processes.

By reconstructing 3D image data on the structure of a material as it fails, researchers could design more resilient materials that can better withstand the stress caused by irradiation inside a nuclear reactor.

“If we can improve materials for a nuclear reactor, it means we can extend the life of that reactor. It also means the materials will take longer to fail, so we can get more use out of a nuclear reactor than we do now. The technique we’ve demonstrated here allows to push the boundary in understanding how materials fail in real-time,” says Ericmoore Jossou, who has shared appointments in the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering (NSE), where he is the John Clark Hardwick Professor, and the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS), and the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing.

Jossou, senior author of a study on this technique, is joined on the paper by lead author David Simonne, an NSE postdoc; Riley Hultquist, a graduate student in NSE; Jiangtao Zhao, of the European Synchrotron; and Andrea Resta, of Synchrotron SOLEIL. The research was published Tuesday by the journal Scripta Materiala.

“Only with this technique can we measure strain with a nanoscale resolution during corrosion processes. Our goal is to bring such novel ideas to the nuclear science community while using synchrotrons both as an X-ray probe and radiation source,” adds Simonne.

Real-time imaging

Studying real-time failure of materials used in advanced nuclear reactors has long been a goal of Jossou’s research group.

Usually, researchers can only learn about such material failures after the fact, by removing the material from its environment and imaging it with a high-resolution instrument.

“We are interested in watching the process as it happens. If we can do that, we can follow the material from beginning to end and see when and how it fails. That helps us understand a material much better,” he says.

They simulate the process by firing an extremely focused X-ray beam at a sample to mimic the environment inside a nuclear reactor. The researchers must use a special type of high-intensity X-ray, which is only found in a handful of experimental facilities worldwide.

For these experiments they studied nickel, a material incorporated into alloys that are commonly used in advanced nuclear reactors. But before they could start the X-ray equipment, they had to prepare a sample.

To do this, the researchers used a process called solid state dewetting, which involves putting a thin film of the material onto a substrate and heating it to an extremely high temperature in a furnace until it transforms into single crystals.

“We thought making the samples was going to be a walk in the park, but it wasn’t,” Jossou says.

As the nickel heated up, it interacted with the silicon substrate and formed a new chemical compound, essentially derailing the entire experiment. After much trial-and-error, the researchers found that adding a thin layer of silicon dioxide between the nickel and substrate prevented this reaction.

But when crystals formed on top of the buffer layer, they were highly strained. This means the individual atoms had moved slightly to new positions, causing distortions in the crystal structure.

Phase retrieval algorithms can typically recover the 3D size and shape of a crystal in real-time, but if there is too much strain in the material, the algorithms will fail.

However, the team was surprised to find that keeping the X-ray beam trained on the sample for a longer period of time caused the strain to slowly relax, due to the silicon buffer layer. After a few extra minutes of X-rays, the sample was stable enough that they could utilize phase retrieval algorithms to accurately recover the 3D shape and size of the crystal.

“No one had been able to do that before. Now that we can make this crystal, we can image electrochemical processes like corrosion in real time, watching the crystal fail in 3D under conditions that are very similar to inside a nuclear reactor. This has far-reaching impacts,” he says.

They experimented with a different substrate, such as niobium doped strontium titanate, and found that only a silicon dioxide buffered silicon wafer created this unique effect.

An unexpected result

As they fine-tuned the experiment, the researchers discovered something else.

They could also use the X-ray beam to precisely control the amount of strain in the material, which could have implications for the development of microelectronics.

In the microelectronics community, engineers often introduce strain to deform a material’s crystal structure in a way that boosts its electrical or optical properties.

“With our technique, engineers can use X-rays to tune the strain in microelectronics while they are manufacturing them. While this was not our goal with these experiments, it is like getting two results for the price of one,” he adds.

In the future, the researchers want to apply this technique to more complex materials like steel and other metal alloys used in nuclear reactors and aerospace applications. They also want to see how changing the thickness of the silicon dioxide buffer layer impacts their ability to control the strain in a crystal sample.

“This discovery is significant for two reasons. First, it provides fundamental insight into how nanoscale materials respond to radiation — a question of growing importance for energy technologies, microelectronics, and quantum materials. Second, it highlights the critical role of the substrate in strain relaxation, showing that the supporting surface can determine whether particles retain or release strain when exposed to focused X-ray beams,” says Edwin Fohtung, an associate professor at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, who was not involved with this work.

This work was funded, in part, by the MIT Faculty Startup Fund and the U.S. Department of Energy. The sample preparation was carried out, in part, at the MIT.nano facilities.

Nice indirect prompt injection attack:

Bargury’s attack starts with a poisoned document, which is shared to a potential victim’s Google Drive. (Bargury says a victim could have also uploaded a compromised file to their own account.) It looks like an official document on company meeting policies. But inside the document, Bargury hid a 300-word malicious prompt that contains instructions for ChatGPT. The prompt is written in white text in a size-one font, something that a human is unlikely to see but a machine will still read.

In a proof of concept video of the attack...

The human brain might be the grandest computer of all, but in this episode, we talk to two experts who confirm that the ability for tech to decipher thoughts, and perhaps even manipulate them, isn't just around the corner – it's already here. Rapidly advancing "neurotechnology" could offer new ways for people with brain trauma or degenerative diseases to communicate, as the New York Times reported this month, but it also could open the door to abusing the privacy of the most personal data of all: our thoughts. Worse yet, it could allow manipulating how people perceive and process reality, as well as their responses to it – a Pandora’s box of epic proportions.

%3Ciframe%20height%3D%2252px%22%20width%3D%22100%25%22%20frameborder%3D%22no%22%20scrolling%3D%22no%22%20seamless%3D%22%22%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fplayer.simplecast.com%2F3955c653-7346-44d2-82e2-0238931bcfd9%3Fdark%3Dtrue%26amp%3Bcolor%3D000000%22%20allow%3D%22autoplay%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E Privacy info. This embed will serve content from simplecast.com

   

(You can also find this episode on the Internet Archive and on YouTube.) 

Neuroscientist Rafael Yuste and human rights lawyer Jared Genser are awestruck by both the possibilities and the dangers of neurotechnology. Together they established The Neurorights Foundation, and now they join EFF’s Cindy Cohn and Jason Kelley to discuss how technology is advancing our understanding of what it means to be human, and the solid legal guardrails they're building to protect the privacy of the mind. 

In this episode you’ll learn about:

• How to protect people’s mental privacy, agency, and identity while ensuring equal access to the positive aspects of brain augmentation
• Why neurotechnology regulation needs to be grounded in international human rights
• Navigating the complex differences between medical and consumer privacy laws
• The risk that information collected by devices now on the market could be decoded into actual words within just a few years
• Balancing beneficial innovation with the protection of people’s mental privacy 

Rafael Yuste is a professor of biological sciences and neuroscience, co-director of the Kavli Institute for Brain Science, and director of the NeuroTechnology Center at Columbia University. He led the group of researchers that first proposed the BRAIN (Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies) Initiative launched in 2013 by the Obama Administration. 

Jared Genser is an international human rights lawyer who serves as managing director at Perseus Strategies, renowned for his successes in freeing political prisoners around the world. He’s also the Senior Tech Fellow at Harvard University’s Carr-Ryan Center for Human Rights, and he is outside general counsel to The Neurorights Foundation, an international advocacy group he co-founded with Yuste that works to enshrine human rights as a crucial part of the development of neurotechnology.  

Resources: 

• Nature: “Four ethical priorities for neurotechnologies and AI” (Nov. 9, 2017)
• YouTube: “A Neuroprosthesis for Speech Decoding and Avatar Control | Chang Lab – UCSF” (Aug. 23, 2023)
• Journal of Alzheimer's Disease via National Library of Medicine: “Unlocking the Potential of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials to Optimize Intervention Strategies” (March 19, 2024)
• The Neurorights Foundation: “Safeguarding Brain Data: Assessing the Privacy Practices of Consumer Neurotechnology Companies” (April 2024)
• New York Times: “California Passes Law Protecting Consumer Brain Data” (Sept. 29, 2024) 

What do you think of “How to Fix the Internet?” Share your feedback here.

Transcript

RAFAEL YUSTE: The brain is not just another organ of the body, but the one that generates our mind, all of our mental activity. And that's the heart of what makes us human is our mind. So this technology is one technology that for the first time in history can actually get to the core of what makes us human and not only potentially decipher, but manipulate the essence of our humanity.
10 years ago we had a breakthrough with studying the mouse’s visual cortex in which we were able to not just decode from the brain activity of the mouse what the mouse was looking at, but to manipulate the brain activity of the mouse. To make the mouse see things that it was not looking at.
Essentially we introduce, in the brain of the mouse, images. Like hallucinations. And in doing so, we took control over the perception and behavior of the mouse. So the mouse started to behave as if it was seeing what we were essentially putting into his brain by activating groups of neurons.
So this was fantastic scientifically, but that night I didn't sleep because it hit me like a ton of bricks. Like, wait a minute, what we can do in a mouse today, you can do in a human tomorrow. And this is what I call my Oppenheimer moment, like, oh my God, what have we done here?

CINDY COHN: That's the renowned neuroscientist Rafael Yuste talking about the moment he realized that his groundbreaking brain research could have incredibly serious consequences. I'm Cindy Cohn, the executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

JASON KELLEY: And I'm Jason Kelley, EFF's activism director. This is our podcast, How to Fix the Internet.

CINDY COHN: On this show, we flip the script from the dystopian doom and gloom thinking we all get mired in when thinking about the future of tech. We're here to challenge ourselves, our guests and our listeners to imagine a better future that we can be working towards. How can we make sure to get this right, and what can we look forward to if we do?
And today we have two guests who are at the forefront of brain science -- and are thinking very hard about how to protect us from the dangers that might seem like science fiction today, but are becoming more and more likely.

JASON KELLEY: Rafael Yuste is one of the world's most prominent neuroscientists. He's been working in the field of neurotechnology for many years, and was one of the researchers who led the BRAIN initiative launched by the Obama administration, which was a large-scale research project akin to the Genome Project, but focusing on brain research. He's the director of the NeuroTechnology Centre at Columbia University, and his research has enormous implications for a wide range of mental health disorders, including schizophrenia, and neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson's and ALS.

CINDY COHN: But as Rafael points out in the introduction, there are scary implications for technology that can directly manipulate someone's brain.

JASON KELLEY: We're also joined by his partner, Jared Genser, a legendary human rights lawyer who has represented no less than five Nobel Peace Prize Laureates. He’s also the Senior Tech Fellow at Harvard University’s Carr-Ryan Center for Human Rights, and together with Rafael, he founded the Neurorights Foundation, an international advocacy group that is working to enshrine human rights as a crucial part of the development of neurotechnology.

CINDY COHN: We started our conversation by asking how the brain scientist and the human rights lawyer first teamed up.

RAFAEL YUSTE: I knew nothing about the law. I knew nothing about human rights my whole life. I said, okay, I avoided that like the pest because you know what? I have better things to do, which is to focus on how the brain works. But I was just dragged into the middle of this by our own work.
So it was a very humbling moment and I said, okay, you know what? I have to cross to the other side and get involved really with the experts that know how this works. And that's how I ended up talking to Jared. The whole reason we got together was pretty funny. We both got the same award from a Swedish foundation, from the Talbert Foundation, this Liaison Award for Global Leadership. In my case, because of the work I did on the Brain Initiative, and Jared, got this award for his human rights work.
And, you know, this is one, good thing of getting an award, or let me put it differently, at least, that getting an award led to something positive in this case is that someone in the award committee said, wait a minute, you guys should be talking to each other. and they put us in touch. He was like a matchmaker.

CINDY COHN: I mean, you really stumbled into something amazing because, you know, Jared, you're, you're not just kind of your random human rights lawyer, right? So tell me your version, Jared, of the meet cute.

JARED GENSER: Yes. I'd say we're like work spouses together. So the feeling is mutual in terms of the admiration, to say the least. And for me, that call was really transformative. It was probably the most impactful one hour call I've had in my career in the last decade because I knew very little to nothing about the neurotechnology side, you know, other than what you might read here or there.
I definitely had no idea how quickly emerging neuro technologies were developing and the sensitivity - the enormous sensitivity - of that data. And in having this discussion with Rafa, it was quite clear to me that my view of the major challenges we might face as humanity in the field of human rights was dramatically more limited than I might have thought.
And, you know, Rafa and I became fast friends after that and very shortly thereafter co-founded the Neurorights Foundation, as you noted earlier. And I think that this is what's made us such a strong team, is that our experiences and our knowledge and expertise are highly complimentary.
Um, you know, Rafa and his colleagues had, uh, at the Morningside Group, which is a group of 25 experts he collected together at, uh, at Columbia, had already, um, you know, met and come up with, and published in the journal Nature, a review of the potential concerns that arise out of the potential misuse and abuse of neurotech.
And there were five areas of concerns that they had identified that include mental privacy, mental agency, mental identity, concerns about discrimination and the development in application of neurotechnologies and fair use of mental augmentation. And these generalized concerns, uh, which they refer to as neurorights, of course map over to international human rights, uh, that to some extent are already protected by international treaties.
Um, but to other extents might need to be further interpreted from existing international treaties. And it was quite clear that when one would think about emerging neuro technologies and what they might be able to do, that a whole dramatic amount of work needed to be done before these things proliferate in such an extraordinary sense around the world.

JASON KELLEY: So Rafa and Jared, when I read a study like the one you described with the mice, my initial thought is, okay, that's great in a lab setting. I don't initially think like, oh, in five years or 10 years, we'll have technology that actually can be, you know, in the marketplace or used by the government to do the hallucination implanting you're describing. But it sounds like this is a realistic concern, right? You wouldn't be doing this work unless this had progressed very quickly from that experiment to actual applications and concerns. So what has that progression been like? Where are we now?

RAFAEL YUSTE: So let me tell you, two years ago I got a phone call in the middle of the night. It woke me up in the middle of the night, okay, from a colleague and friend who had his Oppenheimer moment. And his name is Eddie Chang. He's a professor of neurosurgery at UCSF, and he's arguably the leader in the world to decode brain activity from human patients. So he had been working with a patient that was paralyzed, because of a Bulbar infarction, a stroke in her, essentially, the base of her brain and she had a locking syndrome, so she couldn't communicate with the exterior. She was in a wheelchair and they implanted a few electrodes and electrode array into her brain with neurosurgery and connected those electrodes to a computer with an algorithm using generative AI.
And using this algorithm, they were able to decode her inner speech - the language that she wanted to generate. She couldn't speak because she was paralyzed. And when you conjure – we don't really know exactly what goes on during speech – but when you conjure the words in your mind, they were able to actually decode those words.
And then not only that, they were able to decode her emotions and even her facial gestures. So she was paralyzed and Eddie and her team built an avatar of the person in the computer with her face and gave that avatar, her voice, her emotions, and her facial gestures. And if you watch the video, she was just blown away.
So Eddie called me up and explained to me what they've done. I said, well, Eddie, this is absolutely fantastic. You just unlocked the person from this locking syndrome, giving hope to all the patients that have a similar problem. But of course he said, no, no, I, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about, we just cloned her essentially.
It was actually published as the cover of the journal Nature. Again, this is the top journal in the world, so they gave them the cover. It was such an impressive result. and this was implantable neurotechnology. So it requires a neurosurgeon that go in and put in this electrode. So it is, of course, in a hospital setting, this is all under control and super regulated.
But since then, there's been fast development, partly, spurred by all these investments into neurotechnology that, uh, private and public all over the world. There's been a lot of development of non-implantable neurotechnology to either record brain activity from the surface or to stimulate the brain from the surface without having to open up the skull.
And let me just tell you two examples that bring home the fact that this is not science fiction. In December 2023, a team in Australia used an EG device, essentially like a helmet that you put on. You can actually buy these things in Amazon and couple it to generative AI algorithm again, like Eddie Chang. In fact, I think they were inspired by Eddie Chang's work and they were able to decode the inner speech of volunteers. It wasn't as accurate as the decoding that you can do if you stick the electrodes inside. But from the outside, they have a video of a person that is mentally ordering a cappuccino at a Starbucks. No. And they essentially decode, they don't decode absolutely every word that the person is thinking. But enough words that the message comes out loud and clear. So the coding of inner speech, it's doable, with non-invasive technology. Not only that study from Australia since then, you know, all these teams in the world, uh, we work as we help each other continuously. So, uh, shortly after that Australian team, another study in Japan published something, uh, with much higher accuracy and then another study in China. Anyway, this is now becoming very common practice to choose generative AI to decode speech.
And then on the stimulation side is also something that raises a lot of concerns ethically. In 2022 a lab in Boston University used external magnetic stimulation to activate parts of the brain in a cohort of volunteers that were older in age. This was the control group for a study on Alzheimer's patients. And they reported in a very good paper, that they could increase 30% of both short-term and long-term memory.
So this is the first serious case that I know of where again, this is not science fiction, this is demonstrated enhancement of, uh, mental ability in a human with noninvasive neurotechnology. So this could open the door to a whole industry that could use noninvasive devices, maybe magnetic simulation, maybe acoustical, maybe, who knows, optical, to enhance any aspect of our mental activity. And that, I mean, just imagine.
This is what we're actually focusing on our foundation right now, this issue of mental augmentation because we don't think it's science fiction. We think it's coming.

JARED GENSER: Let me just kind of amplify what Rafa's saying and to kind of make this as tangible as possible for your listeners, which is that, as Rafa was already alluding to, when you're talking about, of course, implantable devices, you know, they have to be licensed by the Food and Drug Administration. They're implanted through neurosurgery in the medical context. All the data that's being gathered is covered by, you know, HIPAA and other state health data laws. But there are already available on the market today 30 different kinds of wearable neurotechnology devices that you can buy today and use.
As one example, you know, there's the company, Muse, that has a meditation device and you can buy their device. You put it on your head, you meditate for an hour. The BCI - brain computer interface - connects to your app. And then basically you'll get back from the company, you know, decoding of your brain activity to know when you're in a meditative state or not.
The problem is, is that these are EEG scanning devices that if they were used in a medical context, they would be required to be licensed. But in a consumer context, there's no regulation of any kind. And you're talking about devices that can gather from gigabytes to terabytes of neural data today, of which you can only decode maybe 1% of it.
And the data that's being gathered, uh, you know, EEG scanning device data in wearable form, you could identify if a person has any of a number of different brain diseases and you could also decode about a dozen different mental states. Are you happy, are you sad? And so forth.
And so at our foundation, at the Neurorights Foundation, we actually did a very important study on this topic that actually was covered on the front page of the New York Times. And we looked at the user agreements for, and the privacy agreements, for the 30 different companies’ products that you can buy today, right now. And what we found was that in 29, out of the 30 cases, basically, it's carte blanche for the companies. They can download your data, they can do it as they see fit, and they can transfer it, sell it, etc.
Only in one case did a company, ironically called Unicorn, actually keep the data on your local device, and it was never transferred to the company in question. And we benchmark those agreements across a half dozen different global privacy standards and found that there were just, you know, gigantic gaps that were there.
So, you know, why is that a problem? Well take the Muse device I just mentioned, they talk about how they've downloaded a hundred million hours of consumer neural data from people who have bought their device and used it. And we're talking about these studies in Australia and Japan that are decoding thought to text.
Today thought to text, you know, with the EEG can only be done in a relatively. Slow speed, like 10 or 15 words a minute with like maybe 40, 50% accuracy. But eventually it's gonna start to approach the speed of Eddie Chang's work in California, where with the implantable device you can do thought to text at 80 words a minute, 95% accuracy.
And so the problem is that in three, four years, let's say when this technology is perfected with a wearable device, this company Muse could theoretically go back to that hundred million hours of neural data and then actually decode what the person was thinking in the form of words when they were actually meditating.
And to help you understand as a last point, why is this, again, science and not science fiction? You know, Apple is already clearly aware of the potential here, and two years ago, they actually filed a patent application for their next generation AirPod device that is going to have built-in EEG scanners in each ear, right?
And they sell a hundred million pairs of AirPods every single year, right? And when this kind of technology, thought to text, is perfected in wearable form, those AirPods will be able to be used, for example, to do thought-to-text emails, thought-to-text text messages, et cetera.
But when you continue to wear those AirPod devices, the huge question is what's gonna be happening to all the other data that's being, you know, absorbed how is it going to be able to be used, and so forth. And so this is why it's really urgent at an international level to be dealing with this. And we're working at the United Nations and in many other places to develop various kinds of frameworks consistent with international human rights law. And we're also working, you know, at the national and sub-national level.
Rafa, my colleague, you know, led the charge in Chile to help create a first-ever constitutional amendment to a constitution that protects mental privacy in Chile. We've been working with a number of states in the United States now, uh, California, Colorado and Montana – very different kinds of states – have all amended their state consumer data privacy laws to extend their application to narrow data. But it is really, really urgent in light of the fast developing technology and the enormous gaps between these consumer product devices and their user agreements and what is considered to be best practice in terms of data privacy protection.

CINDY COHN: Yeah, I mean I saw that study that you did and it's just, you know, it mirrors a lot of what we do in the other context where we've got click wrap licenses and other, you know, kind of very flimsy one-sided agreements that people allegedly agree to, but I don't think under any lawyer's understanding of like meeting of the minds, and there's a contract that you negotiate that it's anything like that.
And then when you add it to this context, I think it puts these problems on steroids in many ways and makes 'em really worse. And I think one of the things I've been thinking about in this is, you know, you guys have in some ways, you know, one of the scenarios that demonstrates how our refusal to take privacy seriously on the consumer side and on the law enforcement side is gonna have really, really dire, much more dire consequences for people potentially than we've even seen so far. And really requires serious thinking about, like, what do we mean in terms of protecting people's privacy and identity and self-determination?

JARED GENSER: Let me just interject on that one narrow point because I was literally just on a panel discussion remotely at the UN Crime Congress last week that was hosted by the UN Office in Drugs and Crime, UNODC and Interpol, the International Police Organization. And it was a panel discussion on the topic of emerging law enforcement uses of neurotechnologies. And so this is coming. They just launched a project jointly to look at potential uses as well as to develop, um, guidelines for how that can be done. But this is not at all theoretical. I mean, this is very, very practical.

CINDY COHN: And much of the funding that's come out of this has come out of the Department of Defense thinking about how do we put the right guardrails in place are really important. And honestly, if you think that the only people who are gonna want access to the neural data that these devices are collecting are private companies who wanna sell us things, like I, you know, that's not the history, right? Law enforcement comes for these things both locally and internationally, no matter who has custody of them. And so you kind of have to recognize that this isn't just a foray for kind of skeezy companies to do things we don't like.

JARED GENSER: Absolutely.

JASON KELLEY: Let's take a quick moment to thank our sponsor. How to Fix The Internet is supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's program and public understanding of science and technology enriching people's lives through a keener appreciation of our increasingly technological world and portraying the complex humanity of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians.
We also wanna thank EFF members and donors. You're the reason we exist, and EFF has been fighting for digital rights for 35 years, and that fight is bigger than ever. So please, if you like what we do, go to eff.org/pod to donate. Also, we'd love for you to join us at this year's EFF awards where we celebrate the people working towards the better digital future that we all care so much about.
Those are coming up on September 12th in San Francisco. You can find more information about that at eff.org/awards.
We also wanted to share that our friend Cory Doctorow has a new podcast you might like. Have a listen to this:
[WHO BROKE THE INTERNET TRAILER]
And now back to our conversation with Rafael Yuste and Jared Genser.

CINDY COHN: This might be a little bit of a geeky lawyer question, but I really appreciated the decision you guys made to really ground this in international human rights, which I think is tremendously important. But not obvious to most Americans as the kind of framework that we ought to invoke. And I was wondering how you guys came to that conclusion.

JARED GENSER: No, I think it's actually a very, very important question. I mean, I think that the bottom line is that there are a lot of ways to look at, um, questions like this. You know, you can think about, you know, a national constitution or national laws. You can think about international treaties or laws.
You can look at ethical frameworks or self governance by companies themselves, right? And at the end of the day, because of the seriousness and the severity of the potential downside risks if this kind of technology is misused or abused, you know, our view is that what we really need is what's referred to by lawyers as hard law, as in law that is binding and enforceable against states by citizens. And obviously binding on governments and what they do, binding on companies and what they do and so forth.
And so it's not that we don't think, for example, ethical frameworks or ethical standards or self-governance by companies are not important. They are very much a part of an overall approach, but our approach at the Neurorights Foundation is, let's look at hard law, and there are two kinds of hard law to look at. The first are international human rights treaties. These are multilateral agreements that states negotiate and come to agreements on. And when a country signs and ratifies a treaty, as the US has on the key relevant treaty here, which is the International Covenant and Civil and Political Rights, those rights get domesticated in the law of each country in the world that signs and ratifies them, and that makes them then enforceable. And so we think first and foremost, it's important that we ground our concerns about the misuse and abuse of these technologies in the requirements of international human rights law.
Because the United States is obligated and other countries in the world are obligated to protect their citizens from abuses of these rights.
And at the same time, of course that isn't sufficient on its own. We also need to see in certain contexts, probably not in the US context, amendments to a constitution that's much harder to do in the US but laws that are actually enforceable against companies.
And this is why our work in California, Montana and Colorado is so important because now companies in California, as one illustration, which is where Apple is based and where meta is based and so forth, right? They now have to provide the protections embedded in the California Consumer Privacy Act to all of their gathering and use of neural data, right?
And that means that you have a right to be forgotten. You have a right to demand your data not be transferred or sold to third parties. You have a right to have access to your data. Companies have obligations to tell you what data are they gathering, how are they gonna use it? If they propose selling or transferring it to whom and so forth, right?
So these are now ultimately gonna be binding law on companies, you know, based in California and, as we're developing this, around the world. But to us, you know, that is really what needs to happen.

JASON KELLEY: Your success has been pretty stunning. I mean, even though you're, you know, there's obviously so much more to do. We work to try to amend and change and improve laws at the state and local and federal level and internationally sometimes, and it's hard.
But the two of you together, I think there's something really fascinating about the way, you know, you're building a better future and building in protections for that better future at the same time.
And, like, you're aware of why that's so important. I think there's a big lesson there for a lot of people who work in the tech field and in the science field about, you know, you can make incredible things and also make sure they don't cause huge problems. Right? And that's just a really important lesson.
What we do with this podcast is we do try to think about what the better future that people are building looks like, what it should look like. And the two of you are, you know, thinking about that in a way that I think a lot of our guests aren't because you're at the forefront of a lot of this technology. But I'd love to hear what Rafa and then Jared, you each think, uh, science and the law look like if you get it right, if things go the way you hope they do, what, what does the technology look like? What did the protections look like? Rafa, could you start.

RAFAEL YUSTE: Yeah, I would comment, there's five places in the world today where there's, uh, hard law protection for brain activity and brain data in the Republic of Chile, the state of Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil, in the states of Colorado, California, and Montana in the US. And in every one of these places there's been votes in the legislature, and they're all bicameral legislature, so there've been 10 votes, and every single one of those votes has been unanimous.
All political parties in Chile, in Brazil - actually in Brazil there were 16 political parties. That never happened before that they all agreed on something. California, Montana, and Colorado, all unanimous except for one vote no in Colorado of a person that votes against everything. He's like, uh, he goes, he has some, some axe to grind with, uh, his companions and he just votes no on everything.
But aside from this person. Uh, actually the way the Colorado, um, bill was introduced by a Democratic representative, but, uh, the Republican side, um, took it to heart. The Republican senator said that this is a definition of a no-brainer. And he asked for permission to introduce that bill in the Senate in Colorado.
So he, the person that defended the Senate in Colorado, was actually not a Democrat but a Republican. So why is that? So as quoting this Colorado senator is a no brainer, this is an issue where it doesn't, I mean, the minute you get it, you understand, do you want your brain activity to be decoded with what your consent? Well, this is not a good idea.
So not a single person that we've met has opposed this issue. So I think Jared and I do the best job we can and we work very hard. And I should tell you that we're doing this pro bono without being compensated for our work. But the reason behind the success is really the issue, it's not just us. I think that we're dealing with an issue which is a fundamental widespread universal agreement.

JARED GENSER: What I would say is that, you know, on the one hand, and we appreciate of course, the kind words about the progress we're making. We have made a lot of progress in a relatively short period of time, and yet we have a dramatically long way to go.
We need to further interpret international law in the way that I'm describing to ensure that privacy includes mental privacy all around the world, and we really need national laws in every country in the world. Subnational laws and various places too, and so forth.
I will say that, as you know from all the great work you guys do with your podcast, getting something done at the federal level is of course much more difficult in the United States because of the divisions that exist. And there is no federal consumer data privacy law because we've never been able to get Republicans and Democrats to agree on the text of one.
The only kinds of consumer data protected at the federal level is healthcare data under HIPAA and financial data. And there have been multiple efforts to try to do a federal consumer data privacy law that have failed. In the last Congress, there was something called the American Privacy Rights Act. It was bipartisan, and it basically just got ripped apart because they were adding, trying to put together about a dozen different categories of data that would be protected at the federal level. And each one of those has a whole industry association associated with it.
And we were able to get that draft bill amended to include neural data in it, which it didn't originally include, but ultimately the bill died before even coming to a vote at committees. In our view, you know, that then just leaves state consumer data privacy laws. There are about 35 states now that have state level laws. 15 states actually still don't.
And so we are working state by state. Ultimately, I think that when it comes, especially to the sensitivity of neural data, right? You know, we need a federal law that's going to protect neural data. But because it's not gonna be easy to achieve, definitely not as a package with a dozen other types of data, or in general, you know, one way of course to get to a federal solution is to start to work with lots of different states. All these different state consumer data privacy laws are different. I mean, they're similar, but they have differences to them, right?
And ultimately, as you start to see different kinds of regulation being adopted in different states relating to the same kind of data, our hope is that industry will start to say to members of Congress and the, you know, the Trump administration, hey, we need a common way forward here and let's set at least a floor at the federal level for what needs to be done. If states want to regulate it more than that, that's fine, but ultimately, I think that there's a huge amount of work still left to be done, obviously all around the world and at the state level as well.

CINDY COHN: I wanna push you a little bit. So what does it look like if we get it right? What is, what is, you know, what does my world look like? Do I, do I get the cool earbuds or do I not?

JARED GENSER: Yeah, I mean, look, I think the bottom line is that, you know, the world that we want to see, and I mean Rafa of course is the technologist, and I'm the human rights guy. But the world that we wanna see is one in which, you know, we promote innovation while simultaneously, you know, protecting people from abuses of their human rights and ensure that neuro technologies are developed in an ethical manner, right?
I mean, so we do need self-regulation by industry. You know, we do need national and international laws. But at the same time, you know, one in three people in their lifetimes will have a neurological disease, right?
The brain diseases that people know best or you know, from family, friends or their own experience, you know, whether you look at Alzheimer's or Parkinson's, I mean, these are devastating, debilitating and all, today, you know, irreversible conditions. I mean, all you can do with any brain disease today at best is to slow its progression. You can't stop its progression and you can't reverse it.
And eventually, in 20 or 30 years, from these kinds of emerging neurotechnologies, we're going to be able to ultimately cure brain diseases. And so that's what the world looks like, is the, think about all of the different ways in which humanity is going to be improved, when we're able to not only address, but cure, diseases of this kind, right?
And, you know, one of the other exciting parts of emerging neurotechnologies is our ability to understand ourselves, right? And our own brain and how it operates and functions. And that is, you know, very, very exciting.
Eventually we're gonna be able to decode not only thought-to-text, but even our subconscious thoughts. And that of course, you know, raises enormous questions. And this technology is also gonna, um, also even raise fundamental questions about, you know, what does it actually mean to be human? And who are we as humans, right?
And so, for example, one of the side effects of deep brain stimulation in a very, very, very small percentage of patients is a change in personality. In other words, you know, if you put a device in someone's, you know, mind to control the symptoms of Parkinson's, when you're obviously messing with a human brain, other things can happen.
And there's a well known case of a woman, um, who went from being, in essence, an extreme introvert to an extreme extrovert, you know, with deep brain stimulation as a side effect. And she's currently being studied right now, um, along with other examples of these kinds of personality changes.
And if we can figure out in the human brain, for example, what parts of the brain, for example, deal with being an introvert or an extrovert, you know, you're also raising fundamental questions about the, the possibility of being able to change your personality and parts with a brain implant, right? I mean, we can already do that, obviously, with psychotropic medications for people who have mental illnesses through psychotherapy and so forth. But there are gonna be other ways in which we can understand how the brain operates and functions and optimize our lives through the development of these technologies.
So the upside is enormous, you know. Medically and scientifically, economically, from a self-understanding point of view. Right? And at the same time, the downside risks are profound. It's not just decoding our thoughts. I mean, we're on the cusp of an unbeatable lie detector test, which could have huge positive and negative impacts, you know, in criminal justice contexts, right?
So there are so many different implications of these emerging technologies, and we are often so far behind, on the regulatory side, the actual scientific developments that in this particular case we really need to try to do everything possible to at least develop these solutions at a pace that matches the developments, let alone get ahead of them.

JASON KELLEY: I'm fascinated to see, in talking to them, how successful they've been when there isn't a big, you know, lobbying wing of neurorights products and companies stopping them from this because they're ahead of the game. I think that's the thing that really struck me and, and something that we can hopefully learn from in the future that if you're ahead of the curve, you can implement these privacy protections much easier, obviously. That was really fascinating. And of course just talking to them about the technology set my mind spinning.

CINDY COHN: Yeah, in both directions, right? Both what an amazing opportunity and oh my God, how terrifying this is, both at the same time. I thought it was interesting because I think from where we sit as people who are trying to figure out how to bring privacy into some already baked technologies and business models and we see how hard that is, you know, but they feel like they're a little behind the curve, right? They feel like there's so much more to do. So, you know, I hope that we were able to kind of both inspire them and support them in this, because I think to us, they look ahead of the curve and I think to them, they feel a little either behind or over, you know, not overwhelmed, but see the mountain in front of them.

JASON KELLEY: A thing that really stands out to me is when Rafa was talking about the popularity of these protections, you know, and, and who on all sides of the aisle are voting in favor of these protections, it's heartwarming, right? It's inspiring that if you can get people to understand the sort of real danger of lack of privacy protections in one field. It makes me feel like we can still get people, you know, we can still win privacy protections in the rest of the fields.
Like you're worried for good reason about what's going on in your head and that, how that should be protected. But when you type on a computer, you know, that's just the stuff in your head going straight onto the web. Right? We've talked about how like the phone or your search history are basically part of the contents of your mind. And those things need privacy protections too. And hopefully we can, you know, use the success of their work to talk about how we need to also protect things that are already happening, not just things that are potentially going to happen in the future.

CINDY COHN: Yeah. And you see kind of both kinds of issues, right? Like, if they're right, it's scary. When they're wrong it's scary. But also I'm excited about and I, what I really appreciated about them, is that they're excited about the potentialities too. This isn't an effort that's about the house of no innovation. In fact, this is where responsibility ought to come from. The people who are developing the technology are recognizing the harms and then partnering with people who have expertise in kind of the law and policy and regulatory side of things. So that together, you know, they're kind of a dream team of how you do this responsibly.
And that's really inspiring to me because I think sometimes people get caught in this, um, weird, you know, choose, you know, the tech will either protect us or the law will either protect us. And I think what Rafa and Jared are really embodying and making real is that we need both of these to come together to really move into a better technological future.

JASON KELLEY: And that's our episode for today. Thanks so much for joining us. If you have feedback or suggestions, we'd love to hear from you. Visit eff.org/podcast and click on listener feedback. And while you're there, you can become a member and donate, maybe even pick up some of the merch and just see what's happening in digital rights this week and every week.
Our theme music is by Nat Keefe of Beat Mower with Reed Mathis, and How to Fix the Internet is supported by the Alfred P Sloan Foundation's program and public understanding of science and technology. We'll see you next time. I'm Jason Kelley.

CINDY COHN: And I'm Cindy Cohn.

MUSIC CREDITS: This podcast is licensed Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 international, and includes the following music licensed Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 unported by its creators: Drops of H2O, The Filtered Water Treatment by Jay Lang. Additional music, theme remixes and sound design by Gaetan Harris.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 27 August 2025; doi:10.1038/s41558-025-02411-0

The authors assess the impacts of tropical deforestation and its subsequent local warming on human heat-related mortality. They estimate that deforestation-related warming (+0.27 °C) is associated with approximately 28,000 heat-related deaths per year.

MIT Professor Emeritus Rainer Weiss ’55, PhD ’62, a renowned experimental physicist and Nobel laureate whose groundbreaking work confirmed a longstanding prediction about the nature of the universe, passed away on Aug. 25. He was 92.

Weiss conceived of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) for detecting ripples in space-time known as gravitational waves, and was later a leader of the team that built LIGO and achieved the first-ever detection of gravitational waves. He shared the Nobel Prize in Physics for this work in 2017. Together with international collaborators, he and his colleagues at LIGO would go on to detect many more of these cosmic reverberations, opening up a new way for scientists to view the universe.

During his remarkable career, Weiss also developed a more precise atomic clock and figured out how to measure the spectrum of the cosmic microwave background via a weather balloon. He later co-founded and advanced the NASA Cosmic Background Explorer project, whose measurements helped support the Big Bang theory describing the expansion of the universe.

“Rai leaves an indelible mark on science and a gaping hole in our lives,” says Nergis Mavalvala PhD ’97, dean of the MIT School of Science and the Curtis and Kathleen Marble Professor of Astrophysics. As a doctoral student with Weiss in the 1990s, Mavalvala worked with him to build an early prototype of a gravitational-wave detector as part of her PhD thesis. “He will be so missed but has also gifted us a singular legacy. Every gravitational wave event we observe will remind us of him, and we will smile. I am indeed heartbroken, but also so grateful for having him in my life, and for the incredible gifts he has given us — of passion for science and discovery, but most of all to always put people first.” she says.

A member of the MIT physics faculty since 1964, Weiss was known as a committed mentor and teacher, as well as a dedicated researcher. 

“Rai’s ingenuity and insight as an experimentalist and a physicist were legendary,” says Deepto Chakrabarty, the William A. M. Burden Professor in Astrophysics and head of the Department of Physics. “His no-nonsense style and gruff manner belied a very close, supportive and collaborative relationship with his students, postdocs, and other mentees. Rai was a thoroughly MIT product.”

“Rai held a singular position in science: He was the creator of two fields — measurements of the cosmic microwave background and of gravitational waves. His students have gone on to lead both fields and carried Rai’s rigor and decency to both. He not only created a huge part of important science, he also populated them with people of the highest caliber and integrity,” says Peter Fisher, the Thomas A. Frank Professor of Physics and former head of the physics department.

Enabling a new era in astrophysics

LIGO is a system of two identical detectors located 1,865 miles apart. By sending finely tuned lasers back and forth through the detectors, scientists can detect perturbations caused by gravitational waves, whose existence was proposed by Albert Einstein. These discoveries illuminate ancient collisions and other events in the early universe, and have confirmed Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Today, the LIGO Scientific Collaboration involves hundreds of scientists at MIT, Caltech, and other universities, and with the Virgo and KAGRA observatories in Italy and Japan makes up the global LVK Collaboration — but five decades ago, the instrument concept was an MIT class exercise conceived by Weiss.

As he told MIT News in 2017, in generating the initial idea, Weiss wondered: “What’s the simplest thing I can think of to show these students that you could detect the influence of a gravitational wave?”

To realize the audacious design, Weiss teamed up in 1976 with physicist Kip Thorne, who, based in part on conversations with Weiss, soon seeded the creation of a gravitational wave experiment group at Caltech. The two formed a collaboration between MIT and Caltech, and in 1979, the late Scottish physicist Ronald Drever, then of the University of Glasgow, joined the effort at Caltech. The three scientists — who became the co-founders of LIGO — worked to refine the dimensions and scientific requirements for an instrument sensitive enough to detect a gravitational wave. Barry Barish later joined the team at Caltech, helping to secure funding and bring the detectors to completion.

After receiving support from the National Science Foundation, LIGO broke ground in the mid-1990s, constructing interferometric detectors in Hanford, Washington, and in Livingston, Louisiana. 

Years later, when he shared the Nobel Prize with Thorne and Barish for his work on LIGO, Weiss noted that hundreds of colleagues had helped to push forward the search for gravitational waves.

“The discovery has been the work of a large number of people, many of whom played crucial roles,” Weiss said at an MIT press conference. “I view receiving this [award] as sort of a symbol of the various other people who have worked on this.”

He continued: “This prize and others that are given to scientists is an affirmation by our society of [the importance of] gaining information about the world around us from reasoned understanding of evidence.”

“While I have always been amazed and guided by Rai’s ingenuity, integrity, and humility, I was most impressed by his breadth of vision and ability to move between worlds,” says Matthew Evans, the MathWorks Professor of Physics. “He could seamlessly shift from the smallest technical detail of an instrument to the global vision for a future observatory. In the last few years, as the idea for a next-generation gravitational-wave observatory grew, Rai would often be at my door, sharing ideas for how to move the project forward on all levels. These discussions ranged from quantum mechanics to global politics, and Rai’s insights and efforts have set the stage for the future.”

A lifelong fascination with hard problems

Weiss was born in 1932 in Berlin. The young family fled Nazi Germany to Prague and then emigrated to New York City, where Weiss grew up with a love for classical music and electronics, earning money by fixing radios.

He enrolled at MIT, then dropped out of school in his junior year, only to return shortly after, taking a job as a technician in the former Building 20. There, Weiss met physicist Jerrold Zacharias, who encouraged him in finishing his undergraduate degree in 1955 and his PhD in 1962.

Weiss spent some time at Princeton University as a postdoc in the legendary group led by Robert Dicke, where he developed experiments to test gravity. He returned to MIT as an assistant professor in 1964, starting a new research group in the Research Laboratory of Electronics dedicated to research in cosmology and gravitation.

Weiss received numerous awards and honors in addition to the Nobel Prize, including the Medaille de l’ADION, the 2006 Gruber Prize in Cosmology, and the 2007 Einstein Prize of the American Physical Society. He was a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the American Physical Society, as well as a member of the National Academy of Sciences. In 2016, Weiss received a Special Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics, the Gruber Prize in Cosmology, the Shaw Prize in Astronomy, and the Kavli Prize in Astrophysics, all shared with Drever and Thorne. He also shared the Princess of Asturias Award for Technical and Scientific Research with Thorne, Barry Barish of Caltech, and the LIGO Scientific Collaboration.

Weiss is survived by his wife, Rebecca; his daughter, Sarah, and her husband, Tony; his son, Benjamin, and his wife, Carla; and a grandson, Sam, and his wife, Constance. Details about a memorial are forthcoming.

This article may be updated.

Environmental scientists are increasingly using enormous artificial intelligence models to make predictions about changes in weather and climate, but a new study by MIT researchers shows that bigger models are not always better.

The team demonstrates that, in certain climate scenarios, much simpler, physics-based models can generate more accurate predictions than state-of-the-art deep-learning models.

Their analysis also reveals that a benchmarking technique commonly used to evaluate machine-learning techniques for climate predictions can be distorted by natural variations in the data, like fluctuations in weather patterns. This could lead someone to believe a deep-learning model makes more accurate predictions when that is not the case.

The researchers developed a more robust way of evaluating these techniques, which shows that, while simple models are more accurate when estimating regional surface temperatures, deep-learning approaches can be the best choice for estimating local rainfall.

They used these results to enhance a simulation tool known as a climate emulator, which can rapidly simulate the effect of human activities onto a future climate.

The researchers see their work as a “cautionary tale” about the risk of deploying large AI models for climate science. While deep-learning models have shown incredible success in domains such as natural language, climate science contains a proven set of physical laws and approximations, and the challenge becomes how to incorporate those into AI models.

“We are trying to develop models that are going to be useful and relevant for the kinds of things that decision-makers need going forward when making climate policy choices. While it might be attractive to use the latest, big-picture machine-learning model on a climate problem, what this study shows is that stepping back and really thinking about the problem fundamentals is important and useful,” says study senior author Noelle Selin, a professor in the MIT Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS) and the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS), and director of the Center for Sustainability Science and Strategy.

Selin’s co-authors are lead author Björn Lütjens, a former EAPS postdoc who is now a research scientist at IBM Research; senior author Raffaele Ferrari, the Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Oceanography in EAPS and co-director of the Lorenz Center; and Duncan Watson-Parris, assistant professor at the University of California at San Diego. Selin and Ferrari are also co-principal investigators of the Bringing Computation to the Climate Challenge project, out of which this research emerged. The paper appears today in the Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems.

Comparing emulators

Because the Earth’s climate is so complex, running a state-of-the-art climate model to predict how pollution levels will impact environmental factors like temperature can take weeks on the world’s most powerful supercomputers.

Scientists often create climate emulators, simpler approximations of a state-of-the art climate model, which are faster and more accessible. A policymaker could use a climate emulator to see how alternative assumptions on greenhouse gas emissions would affect future temperatures, helping them develop regulations.

But an emulator isn’t very useful if it makes inaccurate predictions about the local impacts of climate change. While deep learning has become increasingly popular for emulation, few studies have explored whether these models perform better than tried-and-true approaches.

The MIT researchers performed such a study. They compared a traditional technique called linear pattern scaling (LPS) with a deep-learning model using a common benchmark dataset for evaluating climate emulators.

Their results showed that LPS outperformed deep-learning models on predicting nearly all parameters they tested, including temperature and precipitation.

“Large AI methods are very appealing to scientists, but they rarely solve a completely new problem, so implementing an existing solution first is necessary to find out whether the complex machine-learning approach actually improves upon it,” says Lütjens.

Some initial results seemed to fly in the face of the researchers’ domain knowledge. The powerful deep-learning model should have been more accurate when making predictions about precipitation, since those data don’t follow a linear pattern.

They found that the high amount of natural variability in climate model runs can cause the deep learning model to perform poorly on unpredictable long-term oscillations, like El Niño/La Niña. This skews the benchmarking scores in favor of LPS, which averages out those oscillations.

Constructing a new evaluation

From there, the researchers constructed a new evaluation with more data that address natural climate variability. With this new evaluation, the deep-learning model performed slightly better than LPS for local precipitation, but LPS was still more accurate for temperature predictions.

“It is important to use the modeling tool that is right for the problem, but in order to do that you also have to set up the problem the right way in the first place,” Selin says.

Based on these results, the researchers incorporated LPS into a climate emulation platform to predict local temperature changes in different emission scenarios.

“We are not advocating that LPS should always be the goal. It still has limitations. For instance, LPS doesn’t predict variability or extreme weather events,” Ferrari adds.

Rather, they hope their results emphasize the need to develop better benchmarking techniques, which could provide a fuller picture of which climate emulation technique is best suited for a particular situation.

“With an improved climate emulation benchmark, we could use more complex machine-learning methods to explore problems that are currently very hard to address, like the impacts of aerosols or estimations of extreme precipitation,” Lütjens says.

Ultimately, more accurate benchmarking techniques will help ensure policymakers are making decisions based on the best available information.

The researchers hope others build on their analysis, perhaps by studying additional improvements to climate emulation methods and benchmarks. Such research could explore impact-oriented metrics like drought indicators and wildfire risks, or new variables like regional wind speeds.

This research is funded, in part, by Schmidt Sciences, LLC, and is part of the MIT Climate Grand Challenges team for “Bringing Computation to the Climate Challenge.”

While sharing a single cup of coffee, Raul Radovitzky, the Jerome C. Hunsaker Professor in the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and his wife Flavia Cardarelli, senior administrative assistant in the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society, recently discussed the love they have for their “nighttime jobs” living in McCormick Hall as faculty heads of house, and explained why it is so gratifying for them to be a part of this community.

The couple, married for 32 years, first met playing in a sandbox at the age of 3 in Argentina (but didn't start dating until they were in their 20s). Radovitzky has been a part of the MIT ecosystem since 2001, while Cardarelli began working at MIT in 2006. They became heads of house at McCormick Hall, the only all-female residence hall on campus, in 2015, and recently applied to extend their stay.

“Our head-of-house role is always full of surprises. We never know what we’ll encounter, but we love it. Students think we do this just for them, but in truth, it’s very rewarding for us as well. It keeps us on our toes and brings a lot of joy,” says Cardarelli. “We like to think of ourselves as the cool aunt and uncle for the students,” Radovitzky adds.

Heads of house at MIT influence many areas of students’ development by acting as advisors and mentors to their residents. Additionally, they work closely with the residence hall’s student government, as well as staff from the Division of Student Life, to foster their community’s culture.

Vice Chancellor for Student Life Suzy Nelson explains, “Our faculty heads of house have the long view at MIT and care deeply about students’ academic and personal growth. We are fortunate to have such dedicated faculty who serve in this way. The heads of house enhance the student experience in so many ways — whether it is helping a student with a personal problem, hosting Thanksgiving dinner for students who were not able to go home, or encouraging students to get involved in new activities, they are always there for students.”

“Our heads of house help our students fully participate in residential life. They model civil discourse at community dinners, mentor and tutor residents, and encourage residents to try new things. With great expertise and aplomb, they formally and informally help our students become their whole selves,” says Chancellor Melissa Nobles.

“I love teaching, I love conducting research with my group, and I enjoy serving as a head of house. The community aspect is deeply meaningful to me. MIT has become such a central part of our lives. Our kids are both MIT graduates, and we are incredibly proud of them. We do have a life outside of MIT — weekends with friends and family, personal activities — but MIT is a big part of who we are. It’s more than a job; it’s a community. We live on campus, and while it can be intense and demanding, we really love it,” says Radovitzky.

Jessica Quaye ’20, a former resident of McCormick Hall, says, “what sets McCormick apart is the way Raul and Flavia transform the four dorm walls into a home for everyone. You might come to McCormick alone, but you never leave alone. If you ran into them somewhere on campus, you could be sure that they would call you out and wave excitedly. You could invite Raul and Flavia to your concerts and they would show up to support your extracurricular endeavors. They built an incredible family that carries the fabric of MIT with a blend of academic brilliance, a warm open-door policy, and unwavering support for our extracurricular pursuits.”

Soundbytes

Q: What first drew you to the heads of house role?

Radovitzky: I had been aware of the role since I arrived at MIT, and over time, I started to wonder if it might be something we’d consider. When our kids were young, it didn’t seem feasible — we lived in the suburbs, and life there was good. But I always had an innate interest in building stronger connections with the student community.

Later, several colleagues encouraged us to apply. I discussed it with the family. Everyone was excited about it. Our teenagers were thrilled by the idea of living on a college campus. We applied together, submitting a letter as a family explaining why we were so passionate about it. We interviewed at McCormick, Baker, and McGregor. When we were offered McCormick, I’ll admit — I was nervous. I wasn’t sure I’d be the right fit for an all-female residence.

Cardarelli: We would have been nervous no matter where we ended up, but McCormick felt like home. It suited us in ways we didn’t anticipate. Raul, for instance, discovered he had a real rapport with the students, telling goofy jokes, making karaoke playlists, and learning about Taylor Swift and Nicki Minaj.

Radovitzky: It’s true! I never knew I’d become an expert at picking karaoke playlists. But we found our rhythm here, and it’s been deeply rewarding.

Q: What makes the McCormick community special?

Radovitzky: McCormick has a unique spirit. I can step out of our apartment and be greeted by 10 smiling faces. That energy is contagious. It’s not just about events or programming — it’s about building trust. We’ve built traditions around that, like our “make your own pizza” nights in our apartment, a wonderful McCormick event we inherited from our predecessors. We host four sessions each spring in which students roll out dough, choose toppings, and we chat as we cook and eat together. Everyone remembers the pizza nights — they’re mentioned in every testimonial.

Cardarelli: We’ve been lucky to have amazing graduate resident assistants and area directors every year. They’re essential partners in building community. They play a key role in creating community and supporting the students on their floors. They help with everything — from tutoring to events to walking students to urgent care if needed.

Radovitzky: In the fall, we take our residents to Crane Beach and host a welcome brunch. Karaoke in our apartment is a big hit too, and a unique way to make them comfortable coming to our apartment from day one. We do it three times a year — during orientation, and again each semester.

Cardarelli: We also host monthly barbecues open to all dorms and run McFast, our first-year tutoring program. Raul started by tutoring physics and math, four hours a week. Now, upperclass students lead most of the sessions. It’s great for both academic support and social connection.

Radovitzky: We also have an Independent Activities Period pasta night tradition. We cook for around 100 students, using four sauces that Flavia makes from scratch — bolognese, creamy mushroom, marinara, and pesto. Students love it.

Q: What’s unique about working in an all-female residence hall?

Cardarelli: I’ve helped students hem dresses, bake, and even apply makeup. It’s like having hundreds of daughters.

Radovitzky: The students here are incredibly mature and engaged. They show real interest in us as people. Many of the activities and connections we’ve built wouldn’t be possible in a different setting. Every year during “de-stress night,” I get my nails painted every color and have a face mask on. During “Are You Smarter Than an MIT Professor,” they dunk me in a water tank.

I wrote about this in 2023. Here’s the story:

Three Dutch security analysts discovered the vulnerabilities­—five in total—­in a European radio standard called TETRA (Terrestrial Trunked Radio), which is used in radios made by Motorola, Damm, Hytera, and others. The standard has been used in radios since the ’90s, but the flaws remained unknown because encryption algorithms used in TETRA were kept secret until now.

There’s new news:

In 2023, Carlo Meijer, Wouter Bokslag, and Jos Wetzels of security firm Midnight Blue, based in the Netherlands, discovered vulnerabilities in encryption algorithms that are part of a European radio standard created by ETSI called TETRA (Terrestrial Trunked Radio), which has been baked into radio systems made by Motorola, Damm, Sepura, and others since the ’90s. The flaws remained unknown publicly until their disclosure, because ETSI refused for decades to let anyone examine the proprietary algorithms...

Growing up in the suburban town of Spring, Texas, just outside of Houston, Erik Ballesteros couldn’t help but be drawn in by the possibilities for humans in space.

It was the early 2000s, and NASA’s space shuttle program was the main transport for astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS). Ballesteros’ hometown was less than an hour from Johnson Space Center (JSC), where NASA’s mission control center and astronaut training facility are based. And as often as they could, he and his family would drive to JSC to check out the center’s public exhibits and presentations on human space exploration.

For Ballesteros, the highlight of these visits was always the tram tour, which brings visitors to JSC’s Astronaut Training Facility. There, the public can watch astronauts test out spaceflight prototypes and practice various operations in preparation for living and working on the International Space Station.

“It was a really inspiring place to be, and sometimes we would meet astronauts when they were doing signings,” he recalls. “I’d always see the gates where the astronauts would go back into the training facility, and I would think: One day I’ll be on the other side of that gate.”

Today, Ballesteros is a PhD student in mechanical engineering at MIT, and has already made good on his childhood goal. Before coming to MIT, he interned on multiple projects at JSC, working in the training facility to help test new spacesuit materials, portable life support systems, and a propulsion system for a prototype Mars rocket. He also helped train astronauts to operate the ISS’ emergency response systems.

Those early experiences steered him to MIT, where he hopes to make a more direct impact on human spaceflight. He and his advisor, Harry Asada, are building a system that will quite literally provide helping hands to future astronauts. The system, dubbed SuperLimbs, consists of a pair of wearable robotic arms that extend out from a backpack, similar to the fictional Inspector Gadget, or Doctor Octopus (“Doc Ock,” to comic book fans). Ballesteros and Asada are designing the robotic arms to be strong enough to lift an astronaut back up if they fall. The arms could also crab-walk around a spacecraft’s exterior as an astronaut inspects or makes repairs.

Ballesteros is collaborating with engineers at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory to refine the design, which he plans to introduce to astronauts at JSC in the next year or two, for practical testing and user feedback. He says his time at MIT has helped him make connections across academia and in industry that have fueled his life and work.

“Success isn’t built by the actions of one, but rather it’s built on the shoulders of many,” Ballesteros says. “Connections — ones that you not just have, but maintain — are so vital to being able to open new doors and keep great ones open.”

Getting a jumpstart

Ballesteros didn’t always seek out those connections. As a kid, he counted down the minutes until the end of school, when he could go home to play video games and watch movies, “Star Wars” being a favorite. He also loved to create and had a talent for cosplay, tailoring intricate, life-like costumes inspired by cartoon and movie characters.

In high school, he took an introductory class in engineering that challenged students to build robots from kits, that they would then pit against each other, BattleBots-style. Ballesteros built a robotic ball that moved by shifting an internal weight, similar to Star Wars’ fictional, sphere-shaped BB-8. 

“It was a good introduction, and I remember thinking, this engineering thing could be fun,” he says.

After graduating high school, Ballesteros attended the University of Texas at Austin, where he pursued a bachelor’s degree in aerospace engineering. What would typically be a four-year degree stretched into an eight-year period during which Ballesteros combined college with multiple work experiences, taking on internships at NASA and elsewhere. 

In 2013, he interned at Lockheed Martin, where he contributed to various aspects of jet engine development. That experience unlocked a number of other aerospace opportunities. After a stint at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, he went on to Johnson Space Center, where, as part of a co-op program called Pathways, he returned every spring or summer over the next five years, to intern in various departments across the center.

While the time at JSC gave him a huge amount of practical engineering experience, Ballesteros still wasn’t sure if it was the right fit. Along with his childhood fascination with astronauts and space, he had always loved cinema and the special effects that forged them. In 2018, he took a year off from the NASA Pathways program to intern at Disney, where he spent the spring semester working as a safety engineer, performing safety checks on Disney rides and attractions.

During this time, he got to know a few people in Imagineering — the research and development group that creates, designs, and builds rides, theme parks, and attractions. That summer, the group took him on as an intern, and he worked on the animatronics for upcoming rides, which involved translating certain scenes in a Disney movie into practical, safe, and functional scenes in an attraction.

“In animation, a lot of things they do are fantastical, and it was our job to find a way to make them real,” says Ballesteros, who loved every moment of the experience and hoped to be hired as an Imagineer after the internship came to an end. But he had one year left in his undergraduate degree and had to move on.

After graduating from UT Austin in December 2019, Ballesteros accepted a position at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. He started at JPL in February of 2020, working on some last adjustments to the Mars Perseverance rover. After a few months during which JPL shifted to remote work during the Covid pandemic, Ballesteros was assigned to a project to develop a self-diagnosing spacecraft monitoring system. While working with that team, he met an engineer who was a former lecturer at MIT. As a practical suggestion, she nudged Ballesteros to consider pursuing a master’s degree, to add more value to his CV.

“She opened up the idea of going to grad school, which I hadn’t ever considered,” he says.

Full circle

In 2021, Ballesteros arrived at MIT to begin a master’s program in mechanical engineering. In interviewing with potential advisors, he immediately hit it off with Harry Asada, the Ford Professor of Enginering and director of the d'Arbeloff Laboratory for Information Systems and Technology. Years ago, Asada had pitched JPL an idea for wearable robotic arms to aid astronauts, which they quickly turned down. But Asada held onto the idea, and proposed that Ballesteros take it on as a feasibility study for his master’s thesis.

The project would require bringing a seemingly sci-fi idea into practical, functional form, for use by astronauts in future space missions. For Ballesteros, it was the perfect challenge. SuperLimbs became the focus of his master’s degree, which he earned in 2023. His initial plan was to return to industry, degree in hand. But he chose to stay at MIT to pursue a PhD, so that he could continue his work with SuperLimbs in an environment where he felt free to explore and try new things.

“MIT is like nerd Hogwarts,” he says. “One of the dreams I had as a kid was about the first day of school, and being able to build and be creative, and it was the happiest day of my life. And at MIT, I felt like that dream became reality.”

Ballesteros and Asada are now further developing SuperLimbs. The team recently re-pitched the idea to engineers at JPL, who reconsidered, and have since struck up a partnership to help test and refine the robot. In the next year or two, Ballesteros hopes to bring a fully functional, wearable design to Johnson Space Center, where astronauts can test it out in space-simulated settings.

In addition to his formal graduate work, Ballesteros has found a way to have a bit of Imagineer-like fun. He is a member of the MIT Robotics Team, which designs, builds, and runs robots in various competitions and challenges. Within this club, Ballesteros has formed a sub-club of sorts, called the Droid Builders, that aim to build animatronic droids from popular movies and franchises.

“I thought I could use what I learned from Imagineering and teach undergrads how to build robots from the ground up,” he says. “Now we’re building a full-scale WALL-E that could be fully autonomous. It’s cool to see everything come full circle.”

Cognitive readiness denotes a person's ability to respond and adapt to the changes around them. This includes functions like keeping balance after tripping, or making the right decision in a challenging situation based on knowledge and past experiences. For military service members, cognitive readiness is crucial for their health and safety, as well as mission success. Injury to the brain is a major contributor to cognitive impairment, and between 2000 and 2024, more than 500,000 military service members were diagnosed with traumatic brain injury (TBI) — caused by anything from a fall during training to blast exposure on the battlefield. While impairment from factors like sleep deprivation can be treated through rest and recovery, others caused by injury may require more intense and prolonged medical attention.

"Current cognitive readiness tests administered to service members lack the sensitivity to detect subtle shifts in cognitive performance that may occur in individuals exposed to operational hazards," says Christopher Smalt, a researcher in the laboratory's Human Health and Performance Systems Group. "Unfortunately, the cumulative effects of these exposures are often not well-documented during military service or after transition to Veterans Affairs, making it challenging to provide effective support."

Smalt is part of a team at the laboratory developing a suite of portable diagnostic tests that provide near-real-time screening for brain injury and cognitive health. One of these tools, called READY, is a smartphone or tablet app that helps identify a potential change in cognitive performance in less than 90 seconds. Another tool, called MINDSCAPE — which is being developed in collaboration with Richard Fletcher, a visiting scientist in the Rapid Prototyping Group who leads the Mobile Technology Lab at the MIT Auto-ID Laboratory, and his students — uses virtual reality (VR) technology for a more in-depth analysis to pinpoint specific conditions such as TBI, post-traumatic stress disorder, or sleep deprivation. Using these tests, medical personnel on the battlefield can make quick and effective decisions for treatment triage.

Both READY and MINDSCAPE are a response to a series of Congressional legislation mandates, military program requirements, and mission-driven health needs to improve brain health screening capabilities for service members.

Cognitive readiness biomarkers

The READY and MINDSCAPE platforms incorporate more than a decade of laboratory research on finding the right indicators of cognitive readiness to build into rapid testing applications. Thomas Quatieri oversaw this work and identified balance, eye movement, and speech as three reliable biomarkers. He is leading the effort at Lincoln Laboratory to develop READY.

"READY stands for Rapid Evaluation of Attention for DutY, and is built on the premise that attention is the key to being 'ready' for a mission," he says. "In one view, we can think of attention as the mental state that allows you to focus on a task."

For someone to be attentive, their brain must continuously anticipate and process incoming sensory information and then instruct the body to respond appropriately. For example, if a friend yells "catch" and then throws a ball in your direction, in order to catch that ball, your brain must process the incoming auditory and visual data, predict in advance what may happen in the next few moments, and then direct your body to respond with an action that synchronizes those sensory data. The result? You realize from hearing the word "catch" and seeing the moving ball that your friend is throwing the ball to you, and you reach out a hand to catch it just in time.

"An unhealthy or fatigued brain — caused by TBI or sleep deprivation, for example — may have challenges within a neurosensory feed-forward [prediction] or feedback [error] system, thus hampering the person's ability to attend," Quatieri says.

READY's three tests measure a person’s ability to track a moving dot with their eye, balance, and hold a vowel fixed at one pitch. The app then uses the data to calculate a variability or "wobble" indicator, which represents changes from the test taker's baseline or from expected results based on others with similar demographics, or the general population. The results are displayed to the user as an indication of the patient's level of attention.

If the READY screen shows an impairment, the administrator can then direct the subject to follow up with MINDSCAPE, which stands for Mobile Interface for Neurological Diagnostic Situational Cognitive Assessment and Psychological Evaluation. MINDSCAPE uses VR technology to administer additional, in-depth tests to measure cognitive functions such as reaction time and working memory. These standard neurocognitive tests are recorded with multimodal physiological sensors, such as electroencephalography (EEG), photoplethysmography, and pupillometry, to better pinpoint diagnosis.

Holistic and adaptable

A key advantage of READY and MINDSCAPE is their ability to leverage existing technologies, allowing for rapid deployment in the field. By utilizing sensors and capabilities already integrated into smartphones, tablets, and VR devices, these assessment tools can be easily adapted for use in operational settings at a significantly reduced cost.

"We can immediately apply our advanced algorithms to the data collected from these devices, without the need for costly and time-consuming hardware development," Smalt says. "By harnessing the capabilities of commercially available technologies, we can quickly provide valuable insights and improve upon traditional assessment methods."

Bringing new capabilities and AI for brain-health sensing into operational environments is a theme across several projects at the laboratory. Another example is EYEBOOM (Electrooculography and Balance Blast Overpressure Monitoring System), a wearable technology developed for the U.S. Special Forces to monitor blast exposure. EYEBOOM continuously monitors a wearer's eye and body movements as they experience blast energy, and warns of potential harm. For this program, the laboratory developed an algorithm that could identify a potential change in physiology resulting from blast exposure during operations, rather than waiting for a check-in.

All three technologies are in development to be versatile, so they can be adapted for other relevant uses. For example, a workflow could pair EYEBOOM's monitoring capabilities with the READY and MINDSCAPE tests: EYEBOOM would continuously monitor for exposure risk and then prompt the wearer to seek additional assessment.

"A lot of times, research focuses on one specific modality, whereas what we do at the laboratory is search for a holistic solution that can be applied for many different purposes," Smalt says.

MINDSCAPE is undergoing testing at the Walter Reed National Military Center this year. READY will be tested with the U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine (USARIEM) in 2026 in the context of sleep deprivation. Smalt and Quatieri also see the technologies finding use in civilian settings — on sporting event sidelines, in doctors' offices, or wherever else there is a need to assess brain readiness.

MINDSCAPE is being developed with clinical validation and support from Stefanie Kuchinsky at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. Quatieri and his team are developing the READY tests in collaboration with Jun Maruta and Jam Ghajar from the Brain Trauma Foundation (BTF), and Kristin Heaton from USARIEM. The tests are supported by concurrent evidence-based guidelines lead by the BTF and the Military TBI Initiative at Uniform Services University.

Back in the 17th century, German astronomer Johannes Kepler figured out the laws of motion that made it possible to accurately predict where our solar system’s planets would appear in the sky as they orbit the sun. But it wasn’t until decades later, when Isaac Newton formulated the universal laws of gravitation, that the underlying principles were understood. Although they were inspired by Kepler’s laws, they went much further, and made it possible to apply the same formulas to everything from the trajectory of a cannon ball to the way the moon’s pull controls the tides on Earth — or how to launch a satellite from Earth to the surface of the moon or planets.

Today’s sophisticated artificial intelligence systems have gotten very good at making the kind of specific predictions that resemble Kepler’s orbit predictions. But do they know why these predictions work, with the kind of deep understanding that comes from basic principles like Newton’s laws? As the world grows ever-more dependent on these kinds of AI systems, researchers are struggling to try to measure just how they do what they do, and how deep their understanding of the real world actually is.

Now, researchers in MIT’s Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS) and at Harvard University have devised a new approach to assessing how deeply these predictive systems understand their subject matter, and whether they can apply knowledge from one domain to a slightly different one. And by and large the answer at this point, in the examples they studied, is — not so much.

The findings were presented at the International Conference on Machine Learning, in Vancouver, British Columbia, last month by Harvard postdoc Keyon Vafa, MIT graduate student in electrical engineering and computer science and LIDS affiliate Peter G. Chang, MIT assistant professor and LIDS principal investigator Ashesh Rambachan, and MIT professor, LIDS principal investigator, and senior author Sendhil Mullainathan.

“Humans all the time have been able to make this transition from good predictions to world models,” says Vafa, the study’s lead author. So the question their team was addressing was, “have foundation models — has AI — been able to make that leap from predictions to world models? And we’re not asking are they capable, or can they, or will they. It’s just, have they done it so far?” he says.

“We know how to test whether an algorithm predicts well. But what we need is a way to test for whether it has understood well,” says Mullainathan, the Peter de Florez Professor with dual appointments in the MIT departments of Economics and Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and the senior author on the study. “Even defining what understanding means was a challenge.” 

In the Kepler versus Newton analogy, Vafa says, “they both had models that worked really well on one task, and that worked essentially the same way on that task. What Newton offered was ideas that were able to generalize to new tasks.” That capability, when applied to the predictions made by various AI systems, would entail having it develop a world model so it can “transcend the task that you’re working on and be able to generalize to new kinds of problems and paradigms.”

Another analogy that helps to illustrate the point is the difference between centuries of accumulated knowledge of how to selectively breed crops and animals, versus Gregor Mendel’s insight into the underlying laws of genetic inheritance.

“There is a lot of excitement in the field about using foundation models to not just perform tasks, but to learn something about the world,” for example in the natural sciences, he says. “It would need to adapt, have a world model to adapt to any possible task.”

Are AI systems anywhere near the ability to reach such generalizations? To test the question, the team looked at different examples of predictive AI systems, at different levels of complexity. On the very simplest of examples, the systems succeeded in creating a realistic model of the simulated system, but as the examples got more complex that ability faded fast.

The team developed a new metric, a way of measuring quantitatively how well a system approximates real-world conditions. They call the measurement inductive bias — that is, a tendency or bias toward responses that reflect reality, based on inferences developed from looking at vast amounts of data on specific cases.

The simplest level of examples they looked at was known as a lattice model. In a one-dimensional lattice, something can move only along a line. Vafa compares it to a frog jumping between lily pads in a row. As the frog jumps or sits, it calls out what it’s doing — right, left, or stay. If it reaches the last lily pad in the row, it can only stay or go back. If someone, or an AI system, can just hear the calls, without knowing anything about the number of lily pads, can it figure out the configuration? The answer is yes: Predictive models do well at reconstructing the “world” in such a simple case. But even with lattices, as you increase the number of dimensions, the systems no longer can make that leap.

“For example, in a two-state or three-state lattice, we showed that the model does have a pretty good inductive bias toward the actual state,” says Chang. “But as we increase the number of states, then it starts to have a divergence from real-world models.”

A more complex problem is a system that can play the board game Othello, which involves players alternately placing black or white disks on a grid. The AI models can accurately predict what moves are allowable at a given point, but it turns out they do badly at inferring what the overall arrangement of pieces on the board is, including ones that are currently blocked from play.

The team then looked at five different categories of predictive models actually in use, and again, the more complex the systems involved, the more poorly the predictive modes performed at matching the true underlying world model.

With this new metric of inductive bias, “our hope is to provide a kind of test bed where you can evaluate different models, different training approaches, on problems where we know what the true world model is,” Vafa says. If it performs well on these cases where we already know the underlying reality, then we can have greater faith that its predictions may be useful even in cases “where we don’t really know what the truth is,” he says.

People are already trying to use these kinds of predictive AI systems to aid in scientific discovery, including such things as properties of chemical compounds that have never actually been created, or of potential pharmaceutical compounds, or for predicting the folding behavior and properties of unknown protein molecules. “For the more realistic problems,” Vafa says, “even for something like basic mechanics, we found that there seems to be a long way to go.”

Chang says, “There’s been a lot of hype around foundation models, where people are trying to build domain-specific foundation models — biology-based foundation models, physics-based foundation models, robotics foundation models, foundation models for other types of domains where people have been collecting a ton of data” and training these models to make predictions, “and then hoping that it acquires some knowledge of the domain itself, to be used for other downstream tasks.”

This work shows there’s a long way to go, but it also helps to show a path forward. “Our paper suggests that we can apply our metrics to evaluate how much the representation is learning, so that we can come up with better ways of training foundation models, or at least evaluate the models that we’re training currently,” Chang says. “As an engineering field, once we have a metric for something, people are really, really good at optimizing that metric.”

In welcoming the undergraduate Class of 2029 to campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT President Sally Kornbluth began the Institute’s convocation on Sunday with a greeting that underscored MIT’s confidence in its new students.

“We believe in all of you, in the learning, making, discovering, and inventing that you all have come here to do,” Kornbluth said. “And in your boundless potential as future leaders who will help solve real problems that people face in their daily lives.”

She added: “If you’re out there feeling really lucky to be joining this incredible community, I want you to know that we feel even more lucky. We’re delighted and grateful that you chose to bring your talent, your energy, your curiosity, creativity, and drive here to MIT. And we’re thrilled to be starting this new year with all of you.”

The event, officially called the President’s Convocation for First-years and Families, was held at the Johnson Ice Rink on campus.

While recognizing that academic life can be “intense” at MIT, Kornbluth highlighted the many opportunities available to students outside the classroom, too. A biologist and cancer researcher herself, Kornbluth observed that students can participate in the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (UROP), which Kornbluth called “an unmissable opportunity to work side by side with MIT faculty at the front lines of research.” She also noted that MIT offers abundant opportunities for entrepreneurship, as well as 450 official student organizations.

“It’s okay to be a beginner,” Kornbluth said. “Join a group you wouldn’t have had time for in high school. Explore a new skill. Volunteer in the neighborhoods around campus.”

And if the transition to college feels daunting at any point, she added, MIT provides considerable resources to students for well-being and academic help.

“Sometimes the only way to succeed in facing a big challenge or solving a tough problem is to admit there’s no way you can do it all yourself,” Kornbluth observed. “You’re surrounded by a community of caring people. So please don’t be shy about asking for guidance and help.”

The large audience heard additional remarks from two faculty members who themselves have MIT degrees, reflecting on student life at the Institute.

As a student, “The most important things I had were a willingness to take risks and put hard work into the things I cared about,” said Ankur Moitra SM ’09, PhD ’11, the Norbert Wiener Professor of Mathematics.

He emphasized to students the importance of staying grounded and being true to themselves, especially in the face of, say, social media pressures.

“These are the things that make it harder to find your own way and what you really care about,” Moitra said. “Because the rest of the world’s opinion is right there staring you in the face, and it’s impossible to avoid it. And how will you discover what’s important to you, what’s worth pouring yourself into?”

Moitra also advised students to be wary of the tech tools “that want to do the thinking for you, but take away your agency” in the process. He added: “I worry about this because it’s going to become too easy to rely on these tools, and there are going to be many times you’re going to be tempted, especially late at night, with looming p-set deadlines. As educators, we don’t always have fixes for these kinds of things, and all we can do is open the door and hope you walk through it.”

Beyond that, he suggested,“Periodically remind yourself about what’s been important to you all along, what brought you here. For your next four years, you’re going to be surrounded by creative, clever, passionate people every day, who are going to challenge you. Rise to that challenge.” 

Christopher Palmer PhD ’14, an associate professor of finance in the MIT Sloan School of Management, began his remarks by revealing that his MIT undergraduate application was not accepted — although he later received his doctorate at the Institute and is now a tenured professor at MIT.

“I played the long game,” he quipped, drawing laughs.

Indeed, Palmer’s remarks focused on cultivating the resilience, focus, and concentration needed to flourish in the long run.

While being at MIT is “thrilling,” Palmer advised students to “build enough slack into your system to handle both the stress and take advantage of the opportunities” on campus. Much like a bank conducts a “stress test” to see if it can withstand changes, Palmer suggested, we can try the same with our workloads: “If you build a schedule that passes the stress test, that means time for curiosity and meaningful creativity.”

Students should also avoid the “false equivalency that your worth is determined by your achievements,” he added. “You have inherent, immutable, instrinsic, eternal value. Be discerning with your commitments. Future you will be so grateful that you have built in the capacity to sleep, to catch up, to say ‘Yes’ to cool invitations, and to attend to your mental health.”

Additionally, Palmer recommended that students pursue “deep work,” involving “the hard thinking where progress actually happens” — a concept, he noted, that has been elevated by computer scientist Cal Newport SM ’06, PhD ’09. As research shows, Palmer explained, “We can’t actually multitask. What we’re really doing is switching tasks at high frequency and incurring a small cost every single time we switch our focus.”

It might help students, he added, to try some structural changes: Put the phone away, turn off alerts, pause notifications, and cultivate sleep. A healthy blend of academic work, activities, and community fun can emerge.

Concluding her own remarks, Kornbluth also emphasized that attending MIT means being part of a community that is respectful of varying viewpoints and all people, and sustains an ethos of fair-minded understanding.

“I know you have extremely high expectations for yourselves,” Kornbluth said, adding: “We have high expectations for you, too, in all kinds of ways. But I want to emphasize one that’s more important than all the others — and that’s an expectation for how we treat each other. At MIT, the work we do is so important, and so hard, that it’s essential we treat each other with empathy, understanding and compassion. That we take care to express our own ideas with clarity and respect, and make room for sharply different points of view. And above all, that we keep engaging in conversation, even when it’s difficult, frustrating or painful.”

Look at this: McDonald’s chose the password “123456” for a major corporate system.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 25 August 2025; doi:10.1038/s41558-025-02395-x

Many of us have experienced heatwaves and survived unscathed — or so we thought. Research now shows that exposure to heatwaves affects the rate at which we age.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 25 August 2025; doi:10.1038/s41558-025-02407-w

Ageing is linked to environmental factors. This study shows that although participants gradually adapted to heat over time, cumulative exposure to heatwaves had stable and adverse impacts on ageing, especially among manual workers, rural residents and those with limited air conditioning.

Revolution Wind off Rhode Island is about 80 percent completed.

Nice short article on the bobtail squid.

As usual, you can also use this squid post to talk about the security stories in the news that I haven’t covered.

Blog moderation policy.

This academic year, I am taking a sabbatical from the Kennedy School and Harvard University. (It’s not a real sabbatical—I’m just an adjunct—but it’s the same idea.) I will be spending the Fall 2025 and Spring 2026 semesters at the Munk School at the University of Toronto.

I will be organizing a reading group on AI security in the fall. I will be teaching my cybersecurity policy class in the Spring. I will be working with Citizen Lab, the Law School, and the Schwartz Reisman Institute. And I will be enjoying all the multicultural offerings of Toronto...

EFF legal intern Noam Shemtov was the principal author of this post.

When police have a warrant to search a phone, should they be able to see everything on the phone—from family photos to communications with your doctor to everywhere you’ve been since you first started using the phone—in other words, data that is in no way connected to the crime they’re investigating? The Michigan Supreme Court just ruled no. 

In People v. Carson, the court held that to satisfy the Fourth Amendment, warrants authorizing searches of cell phones and other digital devices must contain express limitations on the data police can review, restricting searches to data that they can establish is clearly connected to the crime.

The realities of modern cell phones call for a strict application of rules governing the scope of warrants.

EFF, along with ACLU National and the ACLU of Michigan, filed an amicus brief in Carson, expressly calling on the court to limit the scope of cell phone search warrants. We explained that the realities of modern cell phones call for a strict application of rules governing the scope of warrants. Without clear limits, warrants would  become de facto licenses to look at everything on the device, a great universe of information that amounts to “the sum of an individual’s private life.” 

The Carson case shows just how broad many cell phone search warrants can be. Defendant Michael Carson was suspected of stealing money from a neighbor’s safe. The warrant to search his phone allowed the police to access:

Any and all data including, text messages, text/picture messages, pictures and videos, address book, any data on the SIM card if applicable, and all records or documents which were created, modified, or stored in electronic or magnetic form and, any data, image, or information.

There were no temporal or subject matter limitations. Consequently, investigators obtained over 1,000 pages of information from Mr. Carson’s phone, the vast majority of which did not have anything to do with the crime under investigation.

The Michigan Supreme Court held that this extremely broad search warrant was “constitutionally intolerable” and violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment. 

The Fourth Amendment requires that warrants “particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This is intended to limit authorization to search to the specific areas and things for which there is probable cause to search and to prevent police from conducting “wide-ranging exploratory searches.” 

Cell phones hold vast and varied information, including our most intimate data.

Across two opinions, a four-Justice majority joined a growing national consensus of courts recognizing that, given the immense and ever-growing storage capacity of cell phones, warrants must spell out up-front limitations on the information the government may review, including the dates and data categories that constrain investigators’ authority to search. And magistrates reviewing warrants must ensure the information provided by police in the warrant affidavit properly supports a tailored search.

This ruling is good news for digital privacy. Cell phones hold vast and varied information, including our most intimate data—“privacies of life” like our personal messages, location histories, and medical and financial information. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized as much, saying that application of Fourth Amendment principles to searches of cell phones must respond to cell phones’ unique characteristics, including the weighty privacy interests in our digital data. 

We applaud the Michigan Supreme Court’s recognition that unfettered cell phone searches pose serious risks to privacy. We hope that courts around the country will follow its lead in concluding that the particularity rule applies with special force to such searches and requires clear limitations on the data the government may access.

The MIT Sailing Pavilion hosted an altogether different marine vessel recently: a prototype of a solar electric boat developed by James Worden ’89, the founder of the MIT Solar Electric Vehicle Team (SEVT). Worden visited the pavilion on a sizzling, sunny day in late July to offer students from the SEVT, the MIT Edgerton Center, MIT Sea Grant, and the broader community an inside look at the Anita, named for his late wife.

Worden’s fascination with solar power began at age 10, when he picked up a solar chip at a “hippy-like” conference in his hometown of Arlington, Massachusetts. “My eyes just lit up,” he says. He built his first solar electric vehicle in high school, fashioned out of cardboard and wood (taking first place at the 1984 Massachusetts Science Fair), and continued his journey at MIT, founding SEVT in 1986. It was through SEVT that he met his wife and lifelong business partner, Anita Rajan Worden ’90. Together, they founded two companies in the solar electric and hybrid vehicles space, and in 2022 launched a solar electric boat company.

On the Charles River, Worden took visitors for short rides on Anita, including a group of current SEVT students who peppered him with questions. The 20-foot pontoon boat, just 12 feet wide and 7 feet tall, is made of carbon fiber composites, single crystalline solar photovoltaic cells, and lithium iron phosphate battery cells. Ultimately, Worden envisions the prototype could have applications as mini-ferry boats and water taxis.

With warmth and humor, he drew parallels between the boat’s components and mechanics and those of the solar cars the students are building. “It’s fun! If you think about all the stuff you guys are doing, it’s all the same stuff,” he told them, “optimizing all the different systems and making them work.” He also explained the design considerations unique to boating applications, like refining the hull shape for efficiency and maneuverability in variable water and wind conditions, and the critical importance of protecting wiring and controls from open water and condensate.

“Seeing Anita in all its glory was super cool,” says Nicole Lin, vice captain of SEVT. “When I first saw it, I could immediately map the different parts of the solar car to its marine counterparts, which was astonishing to see how far I’ve come as an engineer with SEVT. James also explained the boat using solar car terms, as he drew on his experience with solar cars for his solar boats. It blew my mind to see the engineering we learned with SEVT in action.”

Over the years, the Wordens have been avid supporters of SEVT and the Edgerton Center, so the visit was, in part, a way to pay it forward to MIT. “There’s a lot of connections,” he says. He’s still awed by the fact that Harold “Doc” Edgerton, upon learning about his interest in building solar cars, carved out a lab space for him to use in Building 20 — as a first-year student. And a few years ago, as Worden became interested in marine vessels, he tapped Sea Grant Education Administrator Drew Bennett for a 90-minute whiteboard lecture, “MIT fire-hose style,” on hydrodynamics. “It was awesome!” he says.