AI weather predictions are in vogue, and the skies look like they are darkening. OpenAI’s eagerly awaited GPT-5 received a muted response. Valuations are sky high, and overall AI investment plans keep surging into the billions and trillions. On the prediction market Manifold Markets, someone recently put up a question on whether there will be an AI winter at the end of 2025.  

But the current collective answer seems to be no. The prediction trades at a 1.1% chance.  

AI is here to stay, and no short-term autumn chill can stop it from producing profound change. It might be helpful to remind ourselves of a distinction that is often lost in another field: environmental policy. Climate change experts distinguish between weather and climate — where the daily weather may fluctuate, but the overall shift in the climate emerges more slowly over time. A cold summer day does not provide evidence of a lowering of the average temperature of the planet. 

We are moving from a world in which we think about AI as a quick shift in weather to one in which we need to, and have time to, prepare for a changing climate. AI will impact jobs, security, education, science, and almost every other field of society over time. In regulatory terms, this means taking a long view. Regulations must avoid trying to legislate for a shift in the weather. 

Climate change experts built an ingenious model dividing climate change into different changes in the temperature: this is what it will look like if the Earth becomes on average one degree Celsius hotter, and what if two or three degrees.  

An AI capabilities report should take the same approach. Instead of temperature, we should look at things like percentage of jobs displaced, the length of autonomous tasks AI can perform, and the percentage of benchmarks that change over time. 

These metrics outline a space of possibilities crucial to explore for policymakers. Just as with temperature, we can then choose to impose ambitions at the pace of change — and try to stay below a certain percentage of jobs displaced within a certain timeframe, to take just one example. 

Now, you may protest, we have much more influence over technological change than over climate change, and the idea that we should try to forecast the AI transformation may seem wrong, or even offensive. Such models seem to be infused with technical determinism. 

But maybe we have more influence over technology than we do over the way the climate changes? Or are these both examples of complex systems that evolve as a result of our collective choices over time scales that measure in decades and centuries rather than in days?  

We have more influence over technological weather — the short-term uses of technology, the design today of systems, and the behaviors of tech companies — than we do over regular weather. But it does not follow automatically that the evolving technological climate is ours to choose. 

When a technology becomes a geopolitical hinge, it becomes hard for any single political constituency to affect its long-term trajectory — not impossible, but hard — and if we assume this is the case, we would do well to prepare for a spectrum of scenarios. 

A long-term observatory for artificial intelligence is needed, tasked with exploring different scenarios, key dimensions of change, and possible policy options. We might be heading for some dreary autumn AI weather. But we should prepare for a deep technological climate shift.  

Nicklas Berild Lundblad is a Senior Fellow with the Tech Policy Program at the Center for European Policy Analysis. Nicklas is a writer, researcher, and public policy expert with 20 years of experience leading, building, and developing policy functions at companies like Google, Stripe, and now DeepMind. His interests include technology, politics, philosophy, and science.  

Bandwidth is CEPA’s online journal dedicated to advancing transatlantic cooperation on tech policy. All opinions expressed on Bandwidth are those of the author alone and may not represent those of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis. CEPA maintains a strict intellectual independence policy across all its projects and publications.

The intersection of artificial intelligence and cooking technology has launched a new era for home chefs—one where perfect barbecue is no longer reserved for pitmasters with decades of experience. Christopher Huang, founder of Brisk It, is pioneering this transformation with AI-powered smart grills that make exceptional barbecue accessible to everyone, regardless of skill level or time constraints.

Bridging the Barbecue Gap

Brisk It began with a simple but powerful insight: most people love eating barbecue but find the cooking process intimidating. Even with traditional pellet grills, barbecuing remained a special-occasion activity. The fear of ruining expensive cuts of meat kept many potential grillers away from the smoker. Huang, a self-described barbecue enthusiast rather than a pitmaster, saw this gap and set out to solve it through technology.

What Sets Brisk It Apart: Agentic AI

Unlike many smart cooking devices that rely on pre-programmed recipes, Brisk It employs “agentic AI”—a system that adapts in real time, making decisions based on data rather than just following instructions. Their Vera AI allows users to simply state their goal (“make me a brisket”), and the system handles the rest—considering available ingredients, flavor preferences, and time constraints to create a personalized cooking program.

Advanced Temperature Control and Real-Time Problem Solving

Brisk It’s temperature control algorithms are adaptive and dynamic, using different logic for maintaining heat, rapid warm-ups, and cool-downs. This ensures exceptional temperature stability—critical for consistent barbecue results. The system even detects common issues like “stalls” (when meat temperature stops rising during smoking) and automatically adjusts or alerts the user, preventing hours of unnecessary waiting.

Personalized Cooking Through AI Learning

Through reinforcement learning with human feedback, Brisk It’s AI improves with every cookout. The more you use the grill, the more it understands your taste preferences, cooking style, and habits—creating a personalized and continually improving barbecue experience.

Innovation in Hardware and Design

Brisk It’s dedication to quality extends beyond software. The company built its grills from the ground up, going through 13 prototypes to achieve its distinctive look. They deliberately hired industrial designers from automotive and tech industries—including Apple devices—to bring a fresh, user-centric perspective to grill design.

Rapid Iteration and Continuous Updates

Unlike traditional appliance makers that release updates once a year, Brisk It pushes software improvements multiple times monthly, refining features based on user feedback. This Silicon Valley-style iteration allows them to move quickly and continually enhance the user experience.

Beyond Grilling: The Future of AI-Powered Cooking

Huang envisions Brisk It automating the entire home cooking experience—from deciding what to eat and grocery shopping to preparation, cooking, and even the social aspects of sharing meals. The goal: remove the stress from daily cooking while ensuring nutritious, delicious results tailored to individual preferences and dietary needs.

Technology Enhancing the Joy of Cooking

As the AI-powered cooking revolution gains momentum, it’s clear that technology isn’t replacing the joy of cooking—it’s making it more accessible and less stressful. For those who love eating barbecue but dread the process, solutions like Brisk It offer a middle ground, where technology handles the intimidating parts while still delivering authentic, delicious results.

This blog post was generated using Buzzsprout’s CoHost AI tool and is based directly on content from the associated podcast interview. While it has been reviewed for general accuracy and alignment with Tomorrow’s World Today’s values, edits have been made. The views and information presented may not fully reflect those of Tomorrow’s World Today or its partners.

Federal regulators and elected officials are moving to crack down on AI chatbots over perceived risks to children’s safety. However, the proposed measures could ultimately put more children at risk.

On Thursday, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sent orders to Alphabet (Google), Character Technologies (blamed for the suicide of a 14-year-old in 2024), Instagram, Meta, OpenAI (blamed for the suicide of a 16-year-old in April), Snap, and xAI. The inquiry seeks information on, among other things, how the AI companies process user inputs and generate outputs, develop and approve the characters with which users may interact, and monitor the potential and actual negative effects of their chatbots, especially with respect to minors.

The FTC’s investigation was met with bipartisan applause from Reps. Brett Guthrie (R–Ky.)—the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee—and Frank Pallone (D–N.J.). The two congressmen issued a joint statement “strongly support[ing] this action by the FTC and urg[ing] the agency to consider the tools at its disposal to protect children from online harms.”

Alex Ambrose, policy analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, tells Reason that she finds it interesting that the FTC’s inquiry is solely interested in “potentially negative impacts,” paying no heed to potentially positive impacts of chatbots on mental health. “While experts should consider ways to reduce harm from AI companions, it is just as important to encourage beneficial uses of the technology to maximize its positive impact,” says Ambrose.

Meanwhile, Sen. Jon Husted (R–Ohio) introduced the CHAT Act on Monday, which would allow the FTC to enforce age verification measures for the use of companion AI chatbots. Parents would need to consent before underage users could create accounts, which would be blocked from accessing “any companion AI chatbot that engages in sexually explicit communication.” Parents would be immediately informed of suicidal ideation expressed by their child, whose underage account would be actively monitored by the chatbot company.

Taylor Barkley, director of public policy at the Abundance Institute, argues that this bill won’t improve child safety. Barkley explains that the bill “lumps ‘therapeutic communication’ in with companion bots,” which could prevent teens from benefiting from AI therapy tools. Thwarting minors’ access to therapeutic and companion chatbots alike could have unintended consequences.

In a study of women who were diagnosed with an anxiety disorder and living in regions of active military conflict in Ukraine, daily use of the Friend chatbot was associated with “a 30% drop on the Hamilton Anxiety Scale and a 35% reduction on the Beck Depression Inventory” while traditional psychotherapy—three 60-minute sessions per week—was associated with “45% and 50% reductions on these measures, respectively,” according to a study published this February in BMC Psychology. Similarly, a June study in the Journal of Consumer Research found that “AI companions successfully alleviate loneliness on par only with interacting with another person.”

Protecting kids from harmful interactions with chatbots is an important goal. In their quest to achieve it, policymakers and regulators would be wise to remember the benefits that AI may bring and not pursue solutions that discourage AI companies from making potentially helpful technology available to kids in the first place.