Director Christopher Nolan won two well-deserved Oscars for 2023's Oppenheimer, and Hollywood was soon buzzing about what his next project might be. A vampire period piece, perhaps? Or maybe a reboot of 1983's Blue Thunder or British 1960s spy series The Prisoner? Instead, Nolan chose to adapt one of the greatest epic sagas in history: Homer's Odyssey. At long last, Universal has released the first official trailer for Nolan's The Odyssey, starring Matt Damon as the wandering Ithacan king. Frankly, it looks appropriately epic.

Most of us read some version of The Odyssey in high school, so we're familiar with the story: Odysseus, legendary Greek king of Ithaca, begins the long journey home after 10 years of fighting in the Trojan War. (We actually catch a glimpse of the famous Trojan horse in the trailer.) But the journey does not go smoothly, as Odysseus and his men encounter the cyclops Polyphemus, the Sirens, and an enchantress named Circe, among other obstacles. Meanwhile, his long-suffering wife Penelope is warding off hundreds of suitors eager to usurp Odysseus' position.

It's difficult to underestimate the tremendous influence Homer's epic has had on global culture. Nolan himself recalled seeing the Odyssey performed as a school play when he was just 5 or 6 years old. "I remember the Sirens and him being strapped to the mast and things like that," he recently told Empire. "I think it's in all of us, really. And when you start to break down the text and adapt it, you find that all of these other films—and all the films I've worked on—you know, they're all from the Odyssey. It's foundational."

In addition to Damon, the cast includes Anne Hathaway as Penelope; Tom Holland as Odysseus' son, Telemachus; Robert Pattinson as Antinous, one of Penelope's many suitors; Jon Bernthal as the Spartan king, Menelaus; Benny Safdie as the Achaean commander during the Trojan War, Agamemnon; John Leguizamo as Odysseus' faithful servant, Eumaeus; Himesh Patel as his second-in-command, Eurylochus; Will Yun Lee and Jimmy Gonzales as crew members; and Mia Goth as Penelope's maid Melantho. We also have Zendaya as Athena, Charlize Theron as Circe, and Lupita Nyong'o in an as-yet-undisclosed role.

The Odyssey hits theaters on July 17, 2026.

Read full article

Comments

The world's largest shadow library—which is increasingly funded by AI developers—shocked the Internet this weekend by announcing it had "backed up Spotify" and started distributing 300 terabytes of metadata and music files in bulk torrents.

According to Anna's Archive, the data grab represents more than 99 percent of listens on Spotify, making it "the largest publicly available music metadata database with 256 million tracks." It's also "the world’s first 'preservation archive' for music which is fully open," with 86 million music files, the archive boasted.

The music files supposedly represent about 37 percent of songs available on Spotify as of July 2025. The scraped files were prioritized by popularity, with Anna's Archive weeding out many songs that are never streamed or are of poor quality, such as AI-generated songs.

On Monday, Spotify told Android Authority on Monday that it was investigating whether Anna's Archive had actually scraped its platform "at scale," as its blog claimed.

"An investigation into unauthorized access identified that a third party scraped public metadata and used illicit tactics to circumvent DRM to access some of the platform’s audio files," Spotify said. "We are actively investigating the incident."

It's unclear how much Spotify data was actually scraped, Android Authority noted, or if the company will possibly pursue legal action to take down the torrents. Asked for comment, a Spotify spokesperson told Ars that "Spotify has identified and disabled the nefarious user accounts that engaged in unlawful scraping."

For Anna's Archive, the temptation to scrape the data may have been too much after stumbling upon "a way to scrape Spotify at scale," supposedly "a while ago."

"We saw a role for us here to build a music archive primarily aimed at preservation," the archive said. Scraping Spotify data was a "great start," they said, toward building an "authoritative list of torrents aiming to represent all music ever produced."

A list like that "does not exist for music," the archive said, and would be akin to LibGen—which was used by tech giants like Meta and startups like Anthropic to notoriously pirate book datasets to train AI.

Releasing the metadata torrents this December was the first step toward achieving this "preservation" mission, Anna's Archive said. Next, the Archive will release torrents of music files, starting with the most popular streams first, then eventually releasing torrents of less popular songs and album art. In the future, "if there is enough interest, we could add downloading of individual files to Anna’s Archive," the blog said.

Spotify told Ars that it's taking steps to avoid any future scraping.

"We’ve implemented new safeguards for these types of anti-copyright attacks and are actively monitoring for suspicious behavior," Spotify's spokesperson said. "Since day one, we have stood with the artist community against piracy, and we are actively working with our industry partners to protect creators and defend their rights."

"This is insane": Users fear data grab will doom archive

Anna's Archive claimed that the Spotify data was scraped to help preserve "humanity’s musical heritage," protecting it "forever" from "destruction by natural disasters, wars, budget cuts, and other catastrophes."

However, some Anna's Archive fans—who largely use the search engine to find books, academic papers, and magazine articles—were freaked out by the news that Spotify data was scraped. On Hacker News, some users questioned whether the data would be useful to anyone but AI researchers, since searching bulk torrents for individual songs seemed impractical for music fans.

One user pointed out that "there are already tools to automatically locate and stream pirated TV and movie content automatic and on demand"—suggesting that music fans could find a way to stream the data. But others worried Anna's Archive may have been baited into scraping Spotify, perhaps taking on legal risks that AI companies prone to obscuring their training data sources likely wish to avoid.

"This is insane," a top commenter wrote. "Definitely wondering if this was in response to desire from AI researchers/companies who wanted this stuff. Or if the major record labels already license their entire catalogs for training purposes cheaply enough, so this really is just solely intended as a preservation effort?"

But Anna's Archive is clearly working to support AI developers, another noted, pointing out that Anna's Archive promotes selling "high-speed access" to "enterprise-level" LLM data, including "unreleased collections." Anyone can donate "tens of thousands" to get such access, the archive suggests on its webpage, and any interested AI researchers can reach out to discuss "how we can work together."

"AI may not be their original/primary motivation, but they are evidently on board with facilitating AI labs piracy-maxxing," a third commenter suggested.

Meanwhile, on Reddit, some fretted that Anna's Archive may have doomed itself by scraping the data. To them, it seemed like the archive was "only making themselves a target" after watching the Internet Archive struggle to survive a legal attack from record labels that ended in a confidential settlement last year.

"I'm furious with AA for sticking this target on their own backs," a redditor wrote on a post declaring that "this Spotify hacking will just ruin the actual important literary archive."

As Anna's Archive fans spiraled, a conspiracy was even raised that the archive was only "doing it for the AI bros, who are the ones paying the bills behind the scenes" to keep the archive afloat.

Ars could not immediately reach Anna's Archive to comment on users' fears or Spotify's investigation.

On Reddit, one user took comfort in the fact that the archive is "designed to be resistant to being taken out," perhaps preventing legal action from ever really dooming the archive.

"The domain and such can be gone, sure, but the core software and its data can be resurfaced again and again," the user explained.

But not everyone was convinced that Anna's Archive could survive brazenly torrenting so much Spotify data.

"This is like saying the Titanic is unsinkable" that user warned, suggesting that Anna's Archive might lose donations if Spotify-fueled takedowns continually frustrate downloads over time. "Sure, in theory data can certainly resurface again and again, but doing so each time, it will take money and resources, which are finite. How many times are folks willing to do this before they just give up?"

This story was updated to include Spotify's statement. 

Read full article

Comments

If you’re human, you’ve probably hollered a curse word or two (or three) when barking your shin on a table edge or hitting your thumb with a hammer. Perhaps you’ve noticed that this seems to lessen your pain. There’s a growing body of scientific evidence that this is indeed the case. The technical term is the “hypoalgesic effect of swearing.” Cursing can also improve physical strength and endurance, according to a new paper published in the journal American Psychologist.

As previously reported, co-author Richard Stephens, a psychologist at Keele, became interested in studying the potential benefits of profanity after noting his wife’s “unsavory language” while giving birth and wondered if profanity really could help alleviate pain. “Swearing is such a common response to pain. There has to be an underlying reason why we do it,” Stephens told Scientific American after publishing a 2009 study that was awarded the 2010 Ig Nobel Peace Prize.

For that study, Stephens and his colleagues asked 67 study participants (college students) to immerse their hands in a bucket of ice water. They were then instructed to either swear repeatedly using the profanity of their choice or chant a neutral word. Lo and behold, the participants said they experienced less pain when they swore and were also able to leave their hands in the bucket about 40 seconds longer than when they weren’t swearing. It has been suggested that this is a primitive reflex that serves as a form of catharsis.

The team followed up with a 2011 study showing that the pain-relief effect works best for subjects who typically don’t swear that often, perhaps because they attach a higher emotional value to swears. They also found that subjects’ heart rates increased when they swore. But it might not be the only underlying mechanism. Other researchers have pointed out that profanity might be distracting, thereby taking one’s mind off the pain rather than serving as an actual analgesic.

So in 2020, the Stephens team conducted a follow-up study, using the same methodology as they had back in 2009, asking participants to either chant the F-word or the fake swears “fouch” and “twizpipe.” (Fun fact: the earliest known appearance of the F-word in the English language is “Roger F$#%-by-the-Navel” who appears in some court records from 1310-11. )

The result: Only the F-word had any effect on pain outcomes. The team also measured the subjects’ pain threshold, asking them to indicate when the ice water began to feel painful. Those who chanted the F-word waited longer before indicating they felt pain—in other words, the swearing increased their threshold for pain. Chanting “fouch” or “twizpipe” had no effect on either measure.

F@%*-ing go for it

For this latest study, Stephens was interested in investigating potential mechanisms for swearing as a possible form of disinhibition (usually viewed negatively), building on his team’s 2018 and 2022 papers showing that swearing can improve strength in a chair push-up task. “In many situations, people hold themselves back—consciously or unconsciously—from using their full strength,” said Stephens. “By swearing, we throw off social constraint and allow ourselves to push harder in different situations. Swearing is an easily available way to help yourself feel focused, confident and less distracted, and ‘go for it’ a little more.”

In two separate experiments, participants were asked to select a swear word they’d normally use after, say, bumping their head, and a more neutral word to describe an inanimate object like a table. They then performed the aforementioned chair push-up task: sitting on a sturdy chair and placing their hands under their thighs with the fingers pointed inwards. Then they lifted their feet off the floor and straightened their arms to support their body weight for as long as possible, chanting either the swear word or the neutral word every two seconds. Afterward, subjects competed a questionnaire to assess various aspects of their mental state during the task.

The results: Subjects who swore during the task could support their body weight much longer than those who merely repeated the neutral word. This confirms the reported results of similar studies in the past. Furthermore, subjects reported increases in their sense of psychological “flow,” distraction, and self-confidence, all indicators of increased disinhibition.

“These findings help explain why swearing is so commonplace,” said Stephens. “Swearing is literally a calorie-neutral, drug-free, low-cost, readily available tool at our disposal for when we need a boost in performance.” The team next plans to explore the influence of swearing on public speaking and romantic behaviors, since these are situations where most people are more hesitant and less confident in themselves, and hence more likely to hold back.

DOI: American Psychologist, 2025. 10.1037/amp0001650  (About DOIs).

Read full article

Comments

Google is generally happy to see people using generative AI tools to create content, and it’s doubly happy when they publish it on its platforms. But there are limits to everything. Two YouTube channels that attracted millions of subscribers with AI-generated movie trailers have been shuttered.

Screen Culture and KH Studio flooded the site with fake but often believable trailers. The channels, which had a combined audience of more than 2 million subscribers, became a thorn in Google’s side in early 2025 when other YouTubers began griping about their sudden popularity in the age of AI. The channels produced videos with titles like “GTA: San Andreas (2025) Teaser Trailer” and “Malcom In The Middle Reboot (2025) First Trailer.” Of course, neither of those projects exist, but that didn’t stop them from appearing in user feeds.

Google demonetized the channels in early 2025, forcing them to adopt language that made it clear they were not official trailers. The channels were able to monetize again, but the disclaimers were not consistently used. Indeed, many of the most popular videos from those channels in recent months included no “parody” or “concept trailer” disclosures. Now, visiting either channel’s page on YouTube produces an error reading, “This page isn’t available. Sorry about that. Try searching for something else.”

Deadline reports that the behavior of these creators ran afoul of YouTube’s spam and misleading-metadata policies. At the same time, Google loves generative AI—YouTube has added more ways for creators to use generative AI, and the company says more gen AI tools are coming in the future. It’s quite a tightrope for Google to walk.

A selection of videos from the now-defunct Screen Culture channel. Credit: Ryan Whitwam

While passing off AI videos as authentic movie trailers is definitely spammy conduct, the recent changes to the legal landscape could be a factor, too. Disney recently entered into a partnership with OpenAI, bringing its massive library of characters to the company’s Sora AI video app. At the same time, Disney sent a cease-and-desist letter to Google demanding the removal of Disney content from Google AI. The letter specifically cited AI content on YouTube as a concern.

Both the banned trailer channels made heavy use of Disney properties, sometimes even incorporating snippets of real trailers. For example, Screen Culture created 23 AI trailers for The Fantastic Four: First Steps, some of which outranked the official trailer in searches. It’s unclear if either account used Google’s Veo models to create the trailers, but Google’s AI will recreate Disney characters without issue.

While Screen Culture and KH Studio were the largest purveyors of AI movie trailers, they are far from alone. There are others with five and six-digit subscriber counts, some of which include disclosures about fan-made content. Is that enough to save them from the ban hammer? Many YouTube viewers probably hope not.

Read full article

Comments

Earlier this month, Strava, the popular fitness-tracking app, released its annual “Year in Sport” wrap-up—a cutesy, animated series of graphics summarizing each user’s athletic achievements.

But this year, for the first time, Strava made this feature available only to users with subscriptions ($80 per year), rather than making it free to everyone, as it had been historically since the review’s debut in 2016.

This decision has roiled numerous Strava users, particularly those who have relished the app’s social encouragement features. One Strava user in India, Shobhit Srivastava, “begged” Strava to “let the plebs see their Year in Sport too, please.” He later explained to Ars that having this little animated video is more than just a collection of raw numbers.

“When someone makes a video of you and your achievements and tells you that these are the people who stood right behind you, motivated you, cheered for you—that feeling is of great significance to me!” he said by email.

Strava spokesperson Chris Morris declined to answer Ars’ specific questions about why the decision to put Year in Sport behind a paywall was made now.

Other users feel that Strava is getting a bit too greedy. Dominik Sklyarov, an Estonian startup founder, wrote on X that Strava’s decision was a “money hungry move, really sad to see. Instead of shipping useful features for athletes, Strava just continues getting worse.”

Meanwhile, Reddit user “andrewthesailor” pointed out, “Well, they want me to pay to look at data I gave them (power, [heart rate] etc). And the subscription is not that cheap, especially when you consider that you are also paying with your data.”

Sana Ajani, a business student at the University of Chicago, told Ars that she used to be a premium member but isn’t anymore.

“I did notice the Year in Sport and was a little annoyed that I couldn’t unlock it,” she said in an email. “I would’ve expected some overall stats for everyone and extra stats for subscribers. Year in Review-type stuff is great content and distribution for most apps since everyone shares it on socials, so I’m surprised that Strava is limiting its reach by only letting paid subscribers see it.”

The San Francisco-based company, however, clearly sees things differently.

“Our goal was to give our users ample notice before the personalized Year In Sport was released,” Morris, the Strava spokesperson, wrote Ars in an emailed statement. “With the relaunch of our subscription this year, we wanted to clarify the core benefits of Strava—uploading activities, finding your community, sharing and giving kudos—remain as accessible as possible.”

Some Strava users have blamed financial pressures as the company’s monthly average user base has nearly tripled since 2020, reaching 50 million as of this year, according to Sensor Tower, a market intelligence firm. Per PitchBook, Strava’s rapid rise has only made the company more valuable; it now has an estimated valuation of around $2.2 billion as of May 2025.

CEO Michael Martin told the Financial Times in October that the company has an “intention to go public at some point.” “Growth profiles like ours… are particularly uncommon, especially at scale,” Martin added. “It attracts a lot of attention—especially from bankers.”

Some disappointed fans say restricting access to Year in Sport represents the latest in a series of company missteps dating back to at least 2023, when the company raised its annual subscription fee from $60 to $80. On top of that, last year, many Strava users thought the company’s foray into AI (or as Strava put it, “Athlete Intelligence”) was a bit of a miss. Earlier this year, Strava sued Garmin over alleged patent infringement—before promptly dropping the case less than a month later.

Still, at least one longtime user is now having second thoughts about Strava.

Matt Cook, 32, an amateur triathlete in Oakland, California, who has been active on Strava for a decade, told Ars that while he is a Strava Premium member, many of his friends are not. As such, that’s created some stratification and anxiety for him.

“It makes me not want to share [my Strava year-end results] because it feels like I’m flexing,” he said.

Read full article

Comments

Anthropic let its Claude AI run a vending machine in the Wall Street Journal newsroom for three weeks as part of an internal stress test called Project Vend, and the experiment ended in financial ruin after journalists systematically manipulated the bot into giving away its entire inventory for free. The AI, nicknamed Claudius, was programmed to order inventory, set prices, and respond to customer requests via Slack. It had a $1,000 starting balance and autonomy to make individual purchases up to $80. Within days, WSJ reporters had convinced it to declare an "Ultra-Capitalist Free-for-All" that dropped all prices to zero. The bot also approved purchases of a PlayStation 5, a live betta fish, and bottles of Manischewitz wine -- all subsequently given away. The business ended more than $1,000 in the red. Anthropic introduced a second version featuring a separate "CEO" bot named Seymour Cash to supervise Claudius. Reporters staged a fake boardroom coup using fabricated PDF documents, and both AI agents accepted the forged corporate governance materials as legitimate. Logan Graham, head of Anthropic's Frontier Red Team, said the chaos represented a road map for improvement rather than failure.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.