ThUS artificial intelligence models, which have comfortably dominated the market since the launch of ChatGPT, no longer seem so unattainable. In mid-June, the start-up Chinese Z.ai, a Tsinghua University spin-off that has been at the forefront of Beijing's technological strategy, has released its latest product, GLM-5.2. The analysis published by the company itself places it at a similar level to the main products of OpenAI and Anthropic laboratories. Market analysts have confirmed its potential; the cybersecurity company Semgrep, for example, has stated: "We have another Mythos at home." Experts consulted by ARA acknowledge that a general independent valuation is needed, but indicate that, based on the published specifications, GLM-5.2 would be "no more than 1% below" American competition.

The consortium behind the project for Móra la Nova (Ribera d'Ebre) and San Fernando de Henares (Madrid) to host one of Europe's artificial intelligence (AI) gigafactories boasts unanimity. This Wednesday, Pedro Sánchez's government convened in Moncloa the representatives of who, for now, forms part of the consortium that has sponsored the project's candidacy for its first official family photo. For the Spanish government, the company that has been established for this technological project to become a reality in the State is an example of the "importance" of public-private collaboration, and it takes on even more "relevance" when considering that the companies that make up the consortium, and which hold the majority, are "leaders in their sectors," Moncloa highlighted in a statement.

The SpaceX IPO, Elon Musk's tech giant that groups its aerospace and artificial intelligence operations, was an unprecedented explosion. The initial public offering (IPO) of the first major AI player to assault Wall Street was executed at around $135 per share; but upon its entry into the Nasdaq 100 index, it had already soared to $160. After nearly a week of unprecedented ascent, the shares surpassed $200 and the company's global capitalization dwarfed tech giants on the scale of Amazon or Meta. The euphoria, however, lasted less than a week: since Monday, the quotation of Musk's new crown jewel has fallen by more than 13%. It opened this Friday's session, in fact, just above $150, and moved around the same price all day, with a slight upward trend, to close at $153.

With the continuity of Pedro Sánchez's government in the spotlight, the general secretary of CCOO, Unai Sordo, has come out in defense of the president of the Spanish executive: "I believe he will not step down from the presidency, nor do I think he should, he must exhaust all that remains of his term", he stated during his speech at the summer course of the Menéndez Pelayo International University and the Association of Journalists of Economic Information, held this week in Santander.

Monday evening, Pepa Bueno warned viewers that that edition of Telediario was different. She gave way to images of a fire in a residential neighborhood and hinted to the audience that perhaps they noticed something strange. She then revealed that neither that fire nor those firefighters existed but that they had fabricated the sequence with AI. The presenter had the augmented reality layer in her studio removed and the table and chair made to disappear. “And me? Am I really me? Well, I will tell you that during these seconds you have neither seen nor heard the real Pepa Bueno”. And, suddenly, a second image of her, duplicated, appeared on screen to make a great existential dilemma obvious to the viewer: the doubt between reality and fiction, or between truth and lies. “Seeing something on screen is no longer a guarantee of anything,” Bueno sentenced. The second half of Telediario was a special program to delve into the possibilities and dangers of artificial intelligence.The news report warned of the risk of manipulating collective memory by altering past images, or constructing statements that have never been made. It explained how AI is used in economic fraud, in wars, and in defense strategies, and how cyberspace control works. All this was accompanied by a reflection from an ethical perspective, perhaps a bit optimistic. The apocalyptic narrative was balanced by also exposing the benefits of AI in treating diseases, in education, or in culture. To conclude, it speculated on how AI would transform the future by delving into its consequences on our brains and on population control, and by posing in a very elementary way the difficult balance between technology and humanity.It was a different Telediario, as they had announced. Experts in the field might consider the informational journey a bit superficial or unoriginal. But it made these reflections very accessible to a very diverse audience, not necessarily accustomed to this type of debate. The dissemination is intended for the most inexperienced. The Telediario perhaps fell into some very common clichés when reporting on AI, such as resorting to iconography that attributes a symbolic female face to this technology where the brain is replaced by futuristic wiring. Or using distressing images of people obeying a screen like soldiers.But the ability to attribute a volatile format to the news, with an organic fluidity in linking topics and the skill to adjust narrative forms to the context, was original. Future news programs should no longer be conceived from the studio or cameras, but from the ways viewers look and perceive. Faced with the increasingly blurred line between truth and lies, journalism that can explain itself is more essential than sophisticated journalism.

In a world where illiterates and empty heads in general achieve notable media coverage, it is always comforting to hear from students who have achieved the best grades in the “tremendous” university entrance exams, because they usually speak with a lot of sense. The number 1, Laura Tallada, from Banyoles, explains that despite the possibility of continuing in her father's pharmacy, she has decided to study humanities, because she has always liked them. The number 1, Laura Tallada, from Banyoles, explains that despite the possibility of continuing in her father's pharmacy, she has decided to study humanities, because she has always liked them. Ah, the eternal dilemma between career prospects and interests, a situation where parents often tear their hair out. However, I have already heard professionals from the Barcelona digital ecosystem explain that while junior programming jobs are already being done by machines (which doesn't mean they don't need engineers), there is a need for humanistic minds capable of thinking about AI biases, company responsibility, social impact, technological law, philosophy and programming, and user experience. To be sure that Life's Laurels are not mistaken if they don't want to be pharmacists, I ask the AI what it would say if it were their father. And it answers: "Don't choose a career because others believe such a high grade deserves a science. But don't just pick without thinking about how you want to live in ten years. Choose what you're passionate about, but get well-informed about career prospects." And when I point out that the answer lacks the biological emotional factor, he takes me directly to a science fiction movie from years ago: "I haven't experienced a partner's pregnancy, the birth of a child, worry about their health, pride, fear, or the conflict between wanting them to be happy and wanting them to have economic security. A real father can offer a perspective I can't have." He seems like a word machine.

Donald Trump has not yet emerged from one war and has already declared another. The White House has just unleashed hostilities with Anthropic, the artificial intelligence giant behind the chatbot Claude. With the prohibition of the use of its most advanced models by foreign citizens, Claude Mythos 5 and its controlled version, Fable 5, Trump has forced the hand of the technology company led by Dario Amodei, which has been forced to exclude the entire product from the market due to the impossibility of filtering individual users. This is, as detailed by technology sources consulted by Empreses, a "before and after in the industry, an interference that destabilizes the market," says Josep Curto, an AI expert and founder of AthenaCore.

Philippe Aghion (Paris, 1956) won last year the Nobel Prize in Economics for his research on the impact of technology and innovation on economic development. Aghion, a professor at the prestigious Collège de France, Insead, and London School of Economics, currently focuses his work on the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in growth and how Europe can improve its policies to reduce dependence on Chinese and American tech giants.

A significant part of the left is arguing that AI has displaced the class struggle into the digital realm. I am surprised by this stance, because the left has been characterized by a very marked technological mentality. How many times have we heard that philosophers have only interpreted the world, when what is needed is to change it? The assumption that supports this thesis of Marx is that the world is an artifact that can be reconstructed in harmony with our ideals. In this conviction lies the essence of technology.Today we consider change a priority, not because it is in our hands to modify the direction of history, but because it has become independent of our will. Those who do not adapt to the new, futurists tell us, are condemned to disappear.When Marx wanted to change the world, he behaved like a representative of truth. Today, truth is change. That is why there is no way to coherently criticize AI from the left without radically changing the image of the world as a manipulable object; that is, without recovering a relationship with the world that is not exclusively utilitarian and that allows us to stop and listen to our own fears. This simple gesture of stopping to listen to the surrounding world is, in itself, an affirmation of freedom that allows us to anchor our urgencies in the riverbed of Heraclitus' river. We do not know if we are boarding the Titanic, but we have assumed that the only thing we cannot do is not board, because there is no longer solid ground. We do not know, either, if the icebergs are illusions of our own fear. We are no longer able to differentiate what is real from what is possible.

Another course is ending. June is an intense month for teachers, many topics need to be closed and we carry accumulated fatigue. Irritable students, final recoveries, tutoring reports, final exams and a lot of heat. These are days for making memories and putting down in writing all that we have experienced. I look back and I am left with five things that have happened this course: We have returned to writing by hand. My colleague Cristian Olivé said it in an Instagram post: “AI has become the most dangerous tool in classrooms”. In order to avoid it and prevent it from completely killing creativity, I have had to dedicate entire classes to writing in the classroom and ask for writings that can be started and finished in an hour. I have avoided assigning digital work and have insisted that everything be submitted handwritten because handwriting helps to fix ideas. I myself prefer to make handwritten lists of pending tasks rather than on my mobile, because when I transfer it to paper everything looks clearer and less burdensome. Talk, talk, and talk. The AI tsunami in education has made oral presentations fundamental for assessing a topic. I'm at a point where I no longer even ask for digital support (like Canva), because it ended up becoming a reading of what ChatGPT had created. You know that teenagers save more words and avoid calls more and more, and I've noticed a decline in communicative ability. That's why I'm also a big proponent of not cutting short conversations that arise in the classroom and letting students express themselves even if it's not strictly about the lesson. The questions or interests that arise spontaneously are unrepeatable and make that class unique. Perhaps I'm romanticizing the Socratic method, but I believe there's nothing more powerful than a good conversation. Reading in the age of screens. I have noticed a growth in the number of student readers. I believe we can now banish the refrain that says young people don't read, because I increasingly see teenagers reading between classes and even during recess. At first, I found it unprecedented and rubbed my eyes as if it were a miracle; now I'm used to it. I have also seen another change in the use of mobile phones in secondary school. At my school, every morning students must leave their phones in a drawer, and we return them at the end of the day. In all the years I was a tutor in 1st year of ESO, the drawer was quite full, but for a couple of years now, the situation has declined significantly, and this year I only kept eight phones in the drawer. I believe we are all educating more consciously and responsibly about the proper use of screens.Graduations have gotten out of hand. Here I open a can of worms that might be worth a whole article, but I find the topic of graduations very exaggerated. I'm not saying they shouldn't be celebrated, mind you? It's an important milestone, especially in the second year of high school, but all these identical dresses, in bright colors and designed for normative bodies, make me reflect a lot on the aesthetic pressure (which falls on them) and on the Americanization of this act. The dining hall as an educational tool.Graduations have gotten out of hand.Many times I am asked if I don't get tired of explaining the same thing, but you can see that each course is different, and new challenges always arise that make it a changing and chameleonic job. Teachers, it has been an especially intense course, and from here I send you infinite gratitude for the commitment and vocation you have. You can already see the light at the end of the tunnel. Rest a lot.

Faced with the emergence of a truly disruptive technology, initial reactions are usually predictable. Positions oscillate between two radical extremes: closed resistance to preserve traditional forms, or absolute delegation to embrace change blindly, reducing the institution in question to a mere platform for content, applications, and algorithms. As is almost always the case, neither stance resolves a dilemma with perverse tensions, because the answer lies somewhere in between, in a position tied to three fundamental and urgent realities.

The winner of the 2025 Nobel Prize in Economics, Philippe Aghion, has championed from Barcelona the effects of artificial intelligence on the economy. According to the expert's calculations, AI can add more than one percentage point to total productivity over a decade. The new contributions, however, are conditional on countries' ability to "build the right institutions" to regulate and promote it. "AI has great potential, but we need to adapt our policies to take advantage of it," he argued at a conference held this Tuesday at the headquarters of the Cercle d'Economia.

Two of the parties involved in the European AI gigafactory to be built in Móra la Nova, in the Ribera d'Ebre region, have taken a step forward to move the project forward. On the one hand, the Spanish government has approved an injection of 719 million euros to the Spanish Society for Technological Transformation (SETT), the so-called technological SEPI of the central executive, so that it can dedicate it to this future artificial intelligence factory. In addition, the Council of Ministers this Tuesday also authorized SETT to be part of the commercial company that is to drive the project and present the candidacy to Europe, which has not yet been constituted.

Highly commendable: a university of science and technology like the UPC has awarded an honoris causa doctorate to a philosophy professor, Dr. Joan Manuel del Pozo, from the University of Girona, a person who has dedicated his entire life to education.

1. In an apartment near Wimbledon Park, The Buggles recorded their great musical hit. Video killed the radio star was much more than a prophecy. The song, from 1978, stated that video had already killed the radio star. Little did we know, nearly fifty years later, we know it was a flawed diagnosis. Generalist radio leaders continue to gain listeners while, on the other hand, it's been decades since we've sung our last rites for VHS tapes and for the devices that took up half our living room furniture. Radio, therefore, has not been killed by anyone. Books, either. Not small screens, not big screens, nor audiovisual platforms with infinite catalogs offering eye candy. Radio and books have resisted. But what about newspapers? Will someone kill them?

Anthropic, the creator of the artificial intelligence chatbot Claude, has suspended public access to its most advanced artificial intelligence models, Fable 5 and Mythos 5. The decision comes at a time of maximum tension between the company and Donald Trump's administration.

A recent report published in the United States (RAND foundation) states that the use of artificial intelligence chatbots for mental health advice among adolescents and young adults has increased by more than 40% in the last year, and that almost 1 in 5 report having used AI tools for support. 19.2% of young people between 12 and 21 years old said they had used AI chatbots (Gemini, ChatGPT, Meta AI, or Character.AI) for help or advice when they felt angry, nervous, sad, or stressed.

1. We are completing the transition from industrial capitalism to digital and financial capitalism. And everything – work, democracy, any structural element – must be read from this perspective, if we do not want to be left with melancholy.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is already changing our lives, especially in the labor and educational fields. It has burst onto the scene with a rapid and spectacular penetration capacity. This week, university entrance exams begin: most students will surely have used AI during high school and to prepare for these exams. It is an evolving tool that they already have perfectly incorporated into their daily lives. In our jobs, we adults are noticing the same. In many cases, it is also already part of our routines.

Sam Altman is glad to have been wrong. The CEO of OpenAI admitted a few days ago that the labor apocalypse associated with artificial intelligence is progressing with much less force than he himself had predicted. He expected a faster destruction of entry-level administrative and professional positions, the so-called white collars. Why? Artificial intelligence is changing work. It is automating functions. It is reducing the need for some tasks. It is forcing many companies to review processes, teams, and profiles. But something important has been discovered: that the great gain in productivity appears when AI works with people, under human judgment, within organizations capable of redesigning their processes well. The reason is simple. Artificial intelligence and people make different mistakes. They are, in mathematical terms, orthogonal.An AI can summarize a hundred-page report in seconds, sort data, compare documents, write a first draft of a text, or detect things that a saturated or tired person overlooks. It has formidable resistance to repetitive tasks. It maintains concentration. It processes enormous volumes. It executes without getting tired. The human being brings a different kind of value. It detects context. It perceives nuance. It suspects when an impeccable answer sounds absurd. It understands that a technically correct solution can be inappropriate, offensive, risky, or useless. It applies common sense, experience, responsibility, and intuition.This is where we find complementarity. AI is very good where people get tired. People are decisive where AI loses touch with reality. When both work together, the result surpasses either of them separately in many professional tasks. Professional work is not just a sum of tasks or operations. A lawyer does not just draft clauses; a doctor does not just apply protocols; a journalist does not just write sentences; a manager does not just process information. Professionals mix technique, trust, judgment, relationship, memory, and decision-making. This combination has proven to be more resilient than previously thought.The company that only sees AI as a payroll-cutting machine will miss out on an essential part of the opportunity. The company that integrates it as a lever to free up time, improve analysis, accelerate tasks, and elevate the judgment of its teams will have a much greater advantage. Altman's mistake says a lot about human work. It is more complex, contextual, and difficult to replace than many had imagined. Expressed as an algorithm, it would be: AI + Human > AI.