trilemma

—Joshua A. Basseches is the David and Jane Flowerree Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies and Public Policy at Tulane University.

The second Trump administration is proving to be more disastrous for the climate and the clean energy economy than many had feared.

Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act repealed most of the clean energy incentives in former president Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. Meanwhile, his EPA administrator has moved to revoke the endangerment finding, the legal basis for federal oversight of greenhouse gases.

This has left many in the climate and clean energy communities wondering what do we do now? The answer, I would argue, is to return to state capitals—a policymaking venue that climate and renewable energy advocates already know well. Read the full story.

This story is part of MIT Technology Review’s Heat Exchange guest opinion series, offering expert commentary on legal, political and regulatory issues related to climate change and clean energy. You can read the rest of the pieces here.

Should AI flatter us, fix us, or just inform us?

How do you want your AI to treat you? 

It’s a serious question, and it’s one that Sam Altman, OpenAI’s CEO, has clearly been chewing on since GPT-5’s bumpy launch at the start of the month. 

He faces a trilemma. Should ChatGPT flatter us, at the risk of fueling delusions that can spiral out of hand? Or fix us, which requires us to believe AI can be a therapist despite the evidence to the contrary? Or should it inform us with cold, to-the-point responses that may leave users bored and less likely to stay engaged? 

It’s safe to say the company has failed to pick a lane, and if these are indeed AI’s options, the rockiness of this latest update might be due to Altman believing ChatGPT can juggle all three. Read the full story.