News

Though attack vectors and threat environments have changed since the advent of the internet, one thing has remained a constant – humans use software, and software has predefined parameters.

That distinction is exactly why social engineering remains so effective. Cybercriminals exploit predictable weaknesses in human behavior, granting them accesss to accounts and other sensitive information.

For the first time ever, that long-standing assumption is being turned on its head. In today's increasingly autonomous world, AI agents can take action on behalf of humans, creating an entirely new class of attack vectors that target machine autonomy rather than human weaknesses.

The purpose of an agent isn't just to retrieve information or wait for a human's approval – its responsibilities can include interpreting objectives, developing plans, choosing tools, accessing data autonomously and taking actions. In short, agentic AI bridges both software and user.

This doesn't make everything we know about software and SaaS security obsolete, but it does mean that many of the assumptions underpinning today's controls are no longer sufficient. Humans will continue to use conventional software, but alongside agentic workflows, leaving organizations responsible for security both types of environment.

Thankfully, the fundamentals remain – least privilege, strong authentication and separation of duties will all be central to the next wave of cybersecurity. What will change, though, is how those principles will be applied to agents, which don't behave as software or human users.

The first requirement is to stop treating agents like features hidden inside applications, or software in their own right. An enterprise agent should actually have a first-class identity just like any other human colleague.

This means AI agents should have unique identities, named owners (line managers), clearly defined purposes and specific permissions. But they should also have their own lifecycles akin to software, such as creation dates, review points and expiry dates.

"Expiry dates or periodic recertification are important because agents can otherwise become long-lived access paths that are harder to govern than human users," Zendesk Chief Security Officer Vinay Patel explained to me in an exclusive interview.

At the end of the day, these are the sorts of controls that already exist for human users because organizations already understand the risks of unmanaged access, due to role changes or company departures, for example.

Without treating AI agents as users in their own right, companies risk accumulating abandoned agents, stored credentials and even data access paths whose original business purposes may have disappeared – an unthinkable consequence for humans, so one that should be treated just as severely for AI agents.

Importantly, AI agents don't just occupy one space. They can act autonomously, be commissioned on a task-by-task basis by a human user, or operate somewhere between the two. Patel told me that an "audit trail should preserve both identities: the human who initiated or authorized the action and the agent that executed it."

For fully autonomous agents, a log tying them back to their "owner, purpose, and approved policy" is still just as important.

But of course, it all boils down to flawless visibility and effective management. "Companies need inventory and discovery across the places agents can be created or embedded, including SaaS platforms, internal automation tools, development environments, and third-party integrations," Patel added.

Organizations must monitor not only which agents are deployed, but whether their permissions and behavior remain aligned with their original business purposes.

Recent NIST research raises many of the same priorities, including verifiable records of agent actions, intent, data sources and generated output. But while NIST is developing guidance around agent adoption, visibility, control and accountability, agents are already being deployed, and often without the necessary safeguards.

A separate Cloud Security Alliance paper concluded, "traditional identity and access management (IAM) protocols, designed for static applications and human users, can’t keep up."

The researchers argue that credentials and permissions should be task-specific, short-lived and easily revokable, unlike human identities which are generally set for the duration of their employment contracts.

The CSA also recommends applying zero-trust principles by treating agent compromise as a credible possibility. By enforcing least privilege, isolating systems and continuously verifying access, organizations can limit the potential consequences of an attack or misconfiguration as they adapt to this new security environment.

Patel says that, "accountability should not collapse onto a single party by default." It's as much the responsibility of adopters as it is lawmakers, and even end users.

Key to understanding vulnerabilities and potential risks is identifying where the failure occurred: "user’s instruction, the agent owner’s governance, the developer’s design, the platform provider’s controls, or the enterprise’s deployment model."

Above all else, Zendesk's Chief Security Officer argues that "accountability must be defined before deployment, not reconstructed after an incident."

In the short term, this work could slow AI adoption as companies address controls that might've been overlooked during early, informal experimentation. The danger arises when a successful pilot actual progresses into production without pausing to define ownership, permissions and other policies.

Before scaling agent deployments, organizations should pause other ensure the right foundations are in place. Governance becomes much harder to retrofit once an agent has actually been embedded.

The question is no longer how, or even whether, AI agents will become part of the enterprise – it's about how employers can establish the necessary controls before they're more common than human workers.

The most valuable security investments today focus on visibility, control, accountability and governance, not forgetting over investments tech admins are making across data foundations and interoperability.

But thankfully, none of this requires a business to abandon the security principles it's spent decades developing. All it requires is for leaders to extend and reframe these for the agentic world.

The future enterprise will combine the human-software environment we already know with a new end-to-end agentic layer – neither one of these will replace the other. Companies preparing for this new hybrid will see the greatest returns.

It's no secret that AI technology is advancing faster than it can be regulated, with some execs now even saying so themselves. But it seems anything which threatens the advancement of AI must be avoided, in fear of that always present and ever dangerous ‘other’.

The latest installment of ‘please, dear God, slow down before it gets too dangerous’ comes in the form of Pacing the Frontier. Thousands of staff from frontier AI companies once again pleading for a halt in the development of AI technology.

It's all too predictable that the reason from the top for continuing development will be that China ‘threatens’ to catch up. China deploying advanced AI in the military, or in the police, or using it for spying are the threats most often cited, as if these same things aren’t happening at home and around the rest of the world.

So now that China is distilling US AI models to produce rivals at a cheaper cost, I play my tiny violin - the hypocrisy of intellectual property rights suddenly becoming important to AI companies because they could lose money is comical.

The rights AI companies are citing are the same rights AI companies may have inadvertently violated in hoovering up public data to train their models in the first place, but that's still up for debate.

But AI companies can claim that this trove of public data is a trade secret as a way to prevent human creators from accessing AI training data to see (and possibly prove) that their content has been stolen. Rights for me but not for thee.

What I find funny is that the average American has more in common with the average Chinese person than they do with an AI company. Does an AI company enjoy cooking? Drawing or reading? Can it go out after work for a hot drink or a cold beer? Does it worry that if it doesn’t make any money this month everything might come crashing down? Possibly the last one.

Somehow the bond of national identity tied between a person and a corporate entity is expected to be more powerful than shared human experience. It’s also the bond that AI companies and those in power use to press the accelerator on the machine, just so long as we, the ‘good guys’, are ‘winning’.

This myth of the external ‘other’, or the ‘bad guys’, is a powerful propaganda tool. But it only works in a vacuum. If you can directly engage with those you are told are your enemy and you find they are not so different from yourself, the myth of the ‘other’ evaporates. (Social media and the internet is a double edged sword in this regard, but that's a discussion for another time).

So if Chinese companies can produce a rival product that doesn’t annihilate a monthly token budget in a matter of days, I say let them. If you are worried about China having your data, are you not worried about who is currently collecting it? If you are worried about China deploying AI systems in the military, police, surveillance, and cybersecurity, are you not worried about it happening closer to home?

The warning that using Chinese AI models is dangerous because they can steal your business secrets is especially weak, especially when you consider Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella’s warning that US AI companies are already doing exactly that, and selling it to your competition.

So the next time an AI company complains about their intellectual property being stolen, remember that it is just the great, ever-turning wheel of innovation. Or if you are warned about the data collection policies of a foreign AI model, check the policies of the tech closer to home. You’d be surprised at just how much they already know about you.

The Bowers & Wilkins Nautilus is a speaker that requires no introduction. It’s a truly iconic model, and there really is nothing else on the market that looks quite like it.

With its mollusk-like build, tapered damping tubes and exceptional sound, it's no wonder that Bowers & Wilkins proudly announces it as “the last wish” of co-founder John Bowers. And even though the Nautilus launched all the way back in 1993, it's still being produced to this day.

During my time at the High End Vienna show earlier this year, I got a chance to check out the B&W Nautilus for myself, and got to learn more about its weird and wonderful design. I even had the chance to speak with Bowers & Wilkins’ Product Marketing Director, Andy Kerr, about why people keep coming back to the speaker, even 33 years down the line — and you may be surprised by just how popular it still is…

For the uninitiated, the Bowers & Wilkins Nautilus is a floor-standing loudspeaker that boasts a striking spiral design and tapered tubes, resulting in one of the most unique looking models that money can buy. But despite its off-the-wall appearance, its design is very much rooted in utility.

Price: $110,000 / £100,000 (per pair) in standard colorways
Dimensions: 47.6 x 16.9 x 43.5 inches / 1210 x 430 x 1105mm
Weight: 190.7lbs / 86.5kg
Design philosophy: 4-way tube-loaded loudspeaker
Speaker drivers: 1x 300mm (12 inch) aluminum cone bass; 1x 100mm (4 inch) aluminum/polymer sandwich cone lower midrange; 1x 50mm (2 inch) aluminum dome upper midrange; 1x 25mm (1 inch) aluminum dome high-frequency
Frequency range: -6dB at 10Hz and 25kHz

Kerr explained to me that, in essence, the speaker attempts to create the impression of drive units “hanging in free air,” operating without the typical restrictions of a traditional cabinet or enclosure.

While B&W still decided to harness the “pressurization benefits of some form of an enclosure,” he said, there was an active effort to remove the audibility of the box — something that was achieved by using the tapered tubes that the Nautilus is still known for.

“Each tube increases in length relative to the size of the drive unit,” said Kerr. “So you've got a relatively small one for the upper tweeter, slightly longer still for the lower mid, and then this [tube for the bass section] is three meters long but kind of swirled up”.

As the driver operates, pressure dissipates into the Nautilus' tubes — which are also padded with “an absorbent wadding material” — eliminating rearward reflections and drastically reducing distortion while capturing that sense of the driver operating in free space. “It's one of the best loudspeakers you'd hear at disappearing.”

And while he accepts that the Nautilus may not be suited for a studio environment in the same way that the Bowers & Wilkins 801 D5 are, Kerr states, “As an experiment for reducing the audibility of a loudspeaker, it’s perfect”.

What does Nautilus even mean? Well, it’s a cephalopod (meaning it's related to octopuses and squid, for instance), with a spiral-shaped shell. It uses jet propulsion to traverse the ocean depths, and its name (from Greek nautilos) means ‘sailor’. The more you know, eh?

The ingenious design and sound of the Nautilus has remained, and Kerr notes that many people still purchase the speaker to this day. In fact, so many people are interested in having a Nautilus of their own that there are years' worth of backorders.

I was told that B&W is still producing approximately 50 pairs a year for sale — pretty impressive given that each individual pair takes around 31 days to make, all meticulously done by hand.

Become a TechRadar Insider by simply clicking 'Join Now' at the top of this page. Have a question? Please email membership@techradar.com

Audio enthusiasts can grab a pair of Nautilus speakers in the standard colorways — Black, Midnight Blue, and Silver — for a sum typically in the $110,000 or £100,000 ballpark. But there’s a slightly more expensive alternative, one that’s proved very popular with buyers: a custom option.

That’s right, for around £120,000 (US pricing was not shared), you can order the Bowers & Wilkins Nautilus with special paint, and get the speaker in just about any color imaginable. I was shown a handful of customer photos, and there were some exceptional finishes to behold, including McLaren Orange, Ferrari Red, and Minty Green variants, only adding to the unique nature of the Nautilus.

As things stand, there are three years — yes, three years — of backorders. Even though the Nautilus is a speaker like no other, the sheer volume of interest is seriously impressive all of these years later.

Robot vacuums have been around for many years, and modern bots are cleverer and more helpful than ever. But while they are getting more popular, they seem to be struggling to properly break through to the mainstream. See a robot vacuum in someone's house, and you'd probably still remark on it. The aim for robovac brands must be to at some point overtake manual vacs as the general public's dust-sucker of choice — so why isn't that happening?

I rounded up representatives from some of the best robot vacuum brands to get their take. I wanted to learn more about the misconceptions that brands are still fighting against, how perceptions of these handy puck-shaped home helpers has changed, and what challenges still remain if robovacs are going to truly hit the mainstream.

"Robot vacuums are gradually being accepted and adopted by the public, rather than being treated as a novel and unrealistic concept," insists Michael Meng, president of the robotic vacuum division at Dreame.

"Admittedly, the market share of robot vacuums is still smaller than that of stick vacuums and upright vacuums, but the trend towards automated, hands-free household cleaning is inevitable," he adds. The problem — as all of my interviewees agree — is that people's perceptions are stuck in the past.

The trend towards automated, hands-free household cleaning is inevitable

Michael Meng, Dreame

"The issue isn't technical — it's psychological," says Faraz Mehdi, a managing director at Eufy. "Many people who've used robot vacuums still associate the category with 'mopping with dirty water' and 'poor carpet cleaning' — real pain points from a few years ago. Today's products are fundamentally different."

"One lingering misconception is that robot vacuums are still novelty gadgets that wander randomly, get stuck constantly, and cannot clean as well as a conventional vacuum. That perception often comes from earlier generations of the category," says Ricky Ma, the general manager for Europe and America at Roborock.

The biggest opportunity is helping consumers understand that a robot vacuum is not simply a smaller vacuum; it is an automated, intelligent cleaning system

Ricky Ma, Roborock

He continues: "The biggest opportunity is helping consumers understand that a robot vacuum is not simply a smaller vacuum; it is an automated, intelligent cleaning system designed to maintain the home every day and free up their time in a way that no other appliance can compete with."

"Ultimately, the industry's continued growth will depend not only on technological innovation but also on helping consumers better understand how far the category has evolved," adds Dreame's Meng. "Bridging the gap between perception and reality remains one of the most important opportunities for the industry as a whole."

So there are unfair assumptions about modern robot vacuum performance, but there are also genuine issues that still need to be solved. As a robovac reviewer, I'm regularly struck by how simultaneously smart and stupid these bots can be — for every bot raising itself majestically over a tall room threshold, there's another determinedly head-butting a French door.

I'm in wholehearted agreement with Reena Patel — a floorcare category manager at iRobot, the brand behind Roomba — when she suggests that autonomy and reliability should be the key focus areas.

"While robot vacuums have become significantly smarter, consumers still expect them to navigate increasingly complex environments, avoid everyday obstacles, handle pet hair effectively, and transition seamlessly between different floor types without intervention," she says.

"The goal is to deliver consistently excellent cleaning results while reducing the need for maintenance, ensuring the robot can truly operate as a set-and-forget solution that fits effortlessly into consumers' daily lives."

Minimal human intervention is one of the hot robot vacuum trends du jour, but it's easier said than done. Mehdi points out that, in the UK at least, plenty of people live in old apartments or multi-story homes, both of which are "historically a nightmare for robots". Throw in challenges like clutter, low-slung furniture, uneven flooring, and mixtures of different floor types, and it's easy to see why people might assume a robot vacuum wouldn't be able to cope.

There are solutions to some of these problems — albeit mostly confined to the premium end of the market. Today's most advanced flagship robots have features like little stilts for vaulting tall thresholds, sensors that identify and respond to different surfaces, and slimline designs that can sneak under furniture.

However, the challenge is to hone those features to a point where they work consistently and reliably. After all, if, your bot misjudges the height of a space and gets itself wedged, or fails to cross a step on the way back to its dock, and you're not around to bail it out, that can put a pretty abrupt end to the cleaning for the day.

"It’s one thing for a robot to perform well in a demo, but another to perform reliably, day after day, in homes that are busy, messy, and unpredictable," admits Mehdi. "The real issue isn't what the product can do, it's that consumers haven't seen it perform in their own space."

The robot vacuum market has evolved considerably in the past few years, but so too has what customers are looking for. All my interviewees agreed lofty specs are no longer the route to a customer's heart (or wallet).

"Customers are looking beyond headline suction figures and realize that the performance of robot vacuums is the combination of a lot of features," says Dreame's Meng.

Eufy's Mehdi echoes his sentiments: "A few years ago, the category was often marketed around isolated features like suction power. But consumers are now evaluating robot vacuums much more holistically. People are looking for real cleaning outcomes, not just bigger numbers on a spec sheet."

Users are starting to realize that they can trust robot vacuums to take on more of their household cleaning

Michael Meng, Dreame

Expectations are also rising — a number of the brands I spoke to told me that customers increasingly want bots that can mop as well as vacuuming, and are looking for models with self-maintenance features like dust-emptying, water tank refilling, and mop washing.

iRobot's Patel comments that customers are "more willing to purchase premium robot vacuums to deliver a genuinely hands-off experience".

Dreame's Meng argues that the move from cheap-and-basic to pricey-and-advanced bots reflects a change in perceptions. "Users are starting to realize that they can trust robot vacuums to take on more of their household cleaning."

Pricier bots might be becoming more popular, but customers aren't willing to splash their cash on just anything. Mehdi at Eufy describes a demand for "flagship-level experiences… at broader price points", noting that even at the upper end of the market, people are "rational about value".

"The market is shifting towards products that deliver meaningful innovation people can actually use and justify paying for," he explains.

As part of this trend, the early adopters who took a leap of faith with a simpler model a few years ago are now ready for something more advanced. "We have observed a significant shift from 'first-time experimenters' to 'sophisticated upgraders'," Roborock's Ma tells me.

These shoppers are seeking out replacements that solve the issues that frustrated them with their first bot. Thanks to design innovations, many problems that plagued early robot vacuums — hair tangling, poor edge coverage and stinky mop pads — are far less common in modern models.

Features and price decisions aside, my interviewees have noticed a broader change in purchasing habits — and it's tied to how people see robot vacuums. "More consumers are treating robot vacuums as long-term home automation investments rather than one-off gadgets," says Richard Mou, co-founder of SwitchBot. "They're spending more time comparing ecosystem compatibility, software updates, and after-sales support before making a purchase."

Consumers are treating robot vacuums as long-term home automation investments rather than one-off gadgets

Richard Mou, SwitchBot

Mehdi describes a dovetailing of approaches. At the upper end of the market, he's noticed customers going really in-depth with the research and product comparison, while at the more affordable end of the market, the decision-making process is different.

"There, trust can matter more than technical comparisons," he says. "Ratings, reviews, brand reputation, and recommendations from friends or family are often more influential than specs alone."

"That tells us something important about where the category is today," he concludes. "As robot vacuums become more mainstream, people are evaluating them less like gadgets and more like long-term home appliances."

So robot vacuums are getting smarter, customers are starting to embrace the modern advancements now on offer, and brands are working to address the pain-points that still linger when it comes to using a robovac in a real, messy, haphazard home.

The fact that people are viewing their robot vacuums as investment purchases rather than short-lived impulse purchases suggests things are moving in the right direction. Perhaps we will yet see a future where, when we see a robot vacuum in the corner of a room, it'll no longer be worthy of comment.

Some mild spoilers for The Odyssey ahead.

Normally, when my TikTok FYP causes me to experience an extreme case of FOMO, I do something I regret. That's ranged from buying something cheap and tacky on TikTok Shop to queueing for hours to get sub-par food at a restaurant that influencers say is my area's "best-kept secret".

But that losing streak has ended with The Odyssey in 4DX.

If you've been active on social media in the last two weeks, you might have come across the many viral videos of cinema-goers having popcorn knocked out of their hands while their chair moves at a million miles a minute in Troy, and being sprayed in the face during one of the many seen featuring Odysseus (Matt Damon) at sea.

At first, I thought these clips were performative. I hate the idea that filming in theaters has become as commonplace as it has (which is why I won't be sharing any of those clips here), but surely watching The Odyssey in 4DX isn't like a very dark log flume at Six Flags... is it?

After giving into curiosity and getting myself a ticket, I can happily confirm that the TikToks don't lie. Not only do I think that my 4DX-perience was my favorite cinema visit of 2026 so far, but having seen The Odyssey in three different formats — standard DCP, IMAX 70mm, and now 4DX — I can confirm that 4DX wins out by a long shot.

Before you think I've taken too many Greek beatings to the head — surely Christopher Nolan's original IMAX format is superior? — let me explain my thinking. Here's what you need to know about 4DX, my review of the movie in this format, and the five most brutal scenes, which on their own are, I think, worth the price of your ticket.

4DX screenings feel almost as few and far between as IMAX 70mm. There are a relatively few 790 screens worldwide, meaning that if you don't live in a big city that has one, you'll have to add the cost of a trip to the admission price.

That price is also the most premium of the three formats. I'm based in the UK, and the cost of my three options for watching the The Odyssey is as follows:

• Standard screening: £16.99
• IMAX 70mm screening: £26
• 4DX screening: £28

In the US, the prices will look something like this:

• Standard screening: $12–$20
• IMAX 70mm screening: $25-$35
• 4DX screening: approx $35

I've left out a few other formats that I haven't seen The Odyssey in, including 70mm, IMAX and Superscreen. It's also worth pointing out that thanks to my beloved Cineworld membership, I only had to pay out an additional £6 for my 4DX screening on top of the monthly direct debit.

Do I think the full price is worth the experience? Yes and no. The cost of 4DX is extortionate, and I don't think the experience would work for a first-time viewing — you'd be too busy worrying where your nachos have gone to keep up with whether Robert Pattinson is Antinous or Agamemnon.

Having said that, I think it has to be done once. As I'll explain below, I think 4DX makes for an ideal second or third viewing of The Odyssey, and I feel quite smug that I've had the chance to experience being enlightened by the Gods (of cinema tech).

What social media has got wrong, though, is the idea that The Odyssey in 4DX is a "three-hour rollercoaster." While you're getting a lot of bang for your buck in terms of movement and effects, a lot of the movie's scenes allow for the stillness you'll feel in desperate need of.

As someone who got battered relentlessly from beginning to end while watching Top Gun: Maverick in 4DX, and was worried because she'd forgotten her travel sickness tablets before heading to Ithaca, this was a welcome surprise.

However, ladies — please don't make my mistake and wear a dress or skirt. I'd recommend long pants, a supportive sports bra. I'd also recommend a minimal amount of snacks, and a maximum amount of drinks; there's ample time and space to go to the bathroom, I promise.

Don't forget: you'll be in control of some of the effects yourself. You can choose to turn water on or off at any time, and you can lean forward to avoid any unwanted back damage during fight scenes.

My biggest problem with The Odyssey isn't just that it's clearly not Nolan's best movie, but that there's next to no heart or emotion in it.

From a technical perspective, the new film is a genuine masterpiece. Cinematography, score, performances, production design… everything, and everyone, is firing on all cylinders.

But even with all of those things in place, nothing comes through the screen enough to touch your heart. You'll absolutely be impressed… but moved? It's not like you're really rooting for anybody to reunite (and if you are, chances are they'll end up dead).

By seeing The Odyssey in 4DX, you become the character that brings the missing emotion. I defy you not to giggle your way through being slammed about on a Bronze Age boat, weep because you can literally feel the pain of Odysseus being shot by arrows, and gleefully lean into every witch-like stroke as Circe (a magnificent performance from Samantha Morton) turns soldiers into pigs.

Frankly, it's all a riot that neither Homer nor Nolan likely expected when they decided to tell this story. As I said earlier, you'll need to see the film while stationary first to fully grasp the nuances and gravitas of the story, but in 4DX you'll feel as bruised and confused as Odysseus did throughout his 10-year journey home. Bottom line: it's so much fun.

Let's start with the elephant in the room. With Odysseus and his crew taking 10 years to get home to Ithaca from Troy, we spent a lot of time at sea.

For the most part, this involves of some gentle chair-rocking, not the chaotic assault on the senses you've seen on TikTok. With the effects slowed down and used minimally in these instances, you really understand how impactful the slightest spritz of water or well thought-out vibration can be.

Depending on where you're sitting in the theater, the in-seat water effects will perform differently. As I was sitting in the center of the second row of my section, I mostly got soaked on the lower half of my body. If you sit down and there's a black barrier directly in front of you; I'm sorry to say that you'll be taking some direct hits to the face.

Regardless of where you're sitting, a separate effects system in the ceiling rig of the theater, which takes care of rain, snow, smoke and light effects, will make sure that the rest of you is drenched. And even when the waters aren't choppy, for much of Odysseus' journey home he's pelted by rain storms, so maybe save hair-wash day until the day after your screening.

Our first big action sequence in The Odyssey, the cyclops scenes, are the perfect 4DX starter, getting us ready for bigger and better things to come.

Lots of sudden, juddering movements within the seat are used each time the cyclops decides to have some dinner, with additional smoke effects being used depending on how high the fire in his cave is burning. In an ideal world, I'd have liked a bit of cheese smell-o-vision at this point... but we can't have it all.

Things ramps up a level when Odysseus decides that blinding our cyclops with a hot stick is a good means of escaping. Somehow, the cyclops' painful cries — which made me think that my ear drums were going to burst during my first screening — were more palatable to listen to, perhaps because I was being distracted by the sudden whiplash I'd suffered thanks to the stick's movement.

As Odysseus disguises his men as sheep and successfully gets them out of the cave, you can almost imagine the cyclops' gigantic fingers running down your spine. Things take a more violent 4DX turn when Odysseus decides to provoke the creature with a final arrow to the face (I mean... what was the point of that?), leaving the crew to charge towards the boats on the island's coast.

We feel every tumble, misplaced step and unexpected branch-to-head contact that the boys get — but the real fun begins when the cyclops himself enters the water. Performing a belly flop that could have won him a gold medal at the Jackass Olympics, the cyclops' demise is our first real test of the in-seat water system, combined with some severe shaking as his colossal frame hits the sea.

The action sequence I was the most impressed by (in terms of both production design and 4DX) is Odysseus' next stop on his ill-fated journey. The gang arrives on another island, only to be met by giant soldiers in silver armor, who remarkably were real 7ft-tall actors.

Given that they fight with machetes instead of Greek bows and arrows and swords, expect some serious upper back damage here. Out of every scene in the movie, this one inflicted the longest sustained impact between my shoulder blades, which I could still feel the next day.

What's also really fun here is the use of air bursts. Two 'air jets' are mounted on either side of your seat's headrest, and are used almost every time a Greek soldier shoots an arrow at his target. It feels exactly like the arrow is zooming past you, just without the pain.

4DX also manages to briefly incorporate the use of the snow machine during this scene, as Odysseus and co come across a woodland shrouded in dense mist.

There's a surprising lack of water effects, despite the soldiers clambering back into their boats mere minutes after they first disembarked. Only one of those boats makes it to freedom, but at least you won't be drowned, like the poor souls who didn't make it.

The big kahuna, and the moment you've seen plastered all over TikTok, is the final storm. By this, I mean the scene directly after Odysseus has chastised his men for eating Apollo's cattle when Tiresias (James Remar) specifically warned them not to, and their repaired ship heads out to sea once more when the volatile winds clear.

As we know, this was a trap by Poseidon and Zeus, who mean to kill all the men responsible through a fatal storm. Incredibly, the 4DX experience is exactly as brutal as it looks in all of the social media clips.

The special effects go into overdrive, with the audience bombarded by everything bar the snow machine, and the kitchen sink, at the same time. I was holding onto my seat trying to steady myself through severe turbulence, wondering whether I was the first person in history to consume the story of The Odyssey and almost die laughing in the process.

There are shots to your back and sides, water and winds to the face, rain falling onto your head, constant strobe lighting to replicate the weather (definitely not suitable for those with epilepsy) and enough jostling to give you a mild concussion.

A special shoutout must go to the in-seat air jets by your legs, which begin to be utilized shortly before, when Odysseus must steer his vessel between the whirlpool that is Charybdis, and the six-headed monster, Scylla. If you don't have anything covering your legs, they're about to be whipped so hard that they sting.

Then just when we think it's all over, a brief pause in movement lulls the audience into a false sense of security. The boat splits in half as Odysseus' crew sinks into darkness, and we're back to being pummeled to within an inch of our lives. Make sure your snacks are firmly on the floor in the moments beforehand, or risk covering the person next to you in nacho cheese and guacamole as an unexpected additional effect.

This moment alone is worth the £28, in my opinion... what an experience.

But we're not out of the woods just yet! Before attending my 4DX screening, I wondered if the effects would be limited to scenes with lots of travel in. I'd only seen Top Gun: Maverick and Jurassic World: Dominion in the format before The Odyssey, so I didn't have a handle on what happens when you're not flying, driving, or a cretaceous monster.

Turns out, fight scenes are just as thoughtfully rendered to make your back ache for days, even if they're just in a palace hall. Once Odysseus re-fights for Penelope's (Anne Hathaway) hand in marriage at the palace trial, he turns his successfully strung bow on the group of suitors, including Antinous (Pattinson). It's a different kind of chaos, and we're once again immersed in it.

Our seats sway in whichever direction our victim is being attacked from, with our shoulders blades once again jabbed to oblivion as other weapons manage to find their way back into the great hall. The air jets are working 10 to the dozen here, but thankfully just the ones by your head.

There's a particular moment where Antinous breaks an entire chair over Odysessus' back, and it got me thinking that I should really try seeing a chiropractor for the first time. Nothing says 'final farewell' quite like a parting blow that could potentially cause permanent damage — and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Good news everyone - it seems that the reason AI hasn't yet resulted in less work and more leisure time, as promised by multiple "evangelists" and AI "experts" is that we just love working too darn much.

That's according to OpenAI CEO and America's next top (AI) model whisperer Sam Altman, who has declared that people are just really big fans of grinding away and competing with others.

Speaking on the Relentless podcast, Altman told host Ti Morse that in fact, he doesn't expect a change in society or working practices for quite some time, despite widespread promises that AI would boost our productivity and efficiency across the board.

"Technology, for a long time, has been promising people that they're going to work less and they're going to have all this leisure," Altman said.

"But somehow we never get the promise of the four-hour workweek at mass scale in society," he added. "And I don't expect AI to change that."

It's a remarkably candid admission from the leader of a company which is explicitly setting out to solve some of the world's biggest problems - whether personal or work-related - with AI.

In fact, Altman pointed out that we do have more free time and luxuries today than at any point in history - but this has led to increased expectations from many people.

"We always want more," Altman added, "we think of new things to do, to create for each other, to want for ourselves. It's like a relative game. People are very focused on how they're doing relative to other people."

"I think we're all going to be much busier than we thought we were supposed to be in a post-superintelligence world. We're still going to complain about it, but secretly we're going to be happy," Altman concluded.

I'm not so sure about that - but I'm happy to be proved wrong.

I'm not so sure about that - but I'm happy to be proved wrong.

That's because Altman has been pretty vocal on the future of AI in the workplace for some time, with his viewpoints often changing depending on the situation.

For starters, he recently revealed OpenAI's future strategy would be not to automate everything but to allow people to make better decisions as AI improves their lives, particularly as it expects an AGI world to be here by 2028.

"Entirely automating everything is not the future we want", Altman declared, as he described how OpenAI is now looking to opens a "third phase" and aims to build technology "to benefit everyone".

In May 2026, Altman also criticized companies blaming job cuts on AI - but did admit the technology has some accountability in displacing human workers.

"I would expect that the real impact of AI on jobs, in the next few years, to begin to be palpable," Altman explained, adding that "Of course we'll find new kinds of jobs."

Days later, Altman said he would be "delighted to be wrong" about the effect of AI on human roles, hitting out at claims the increasing global usage of AI technology worldwide will lead to a "jobs apocalypse".

"I thought there would have been more impact on entry-level white-collar jobs being eliminated by now than ​has actually happened," Altman said, who also admitted that while he believed OpenAI has been "roughly right" on the technological predictions it made when it launched ​ChatGPT in 2022, they were "pretty wrong" on the social and economic implications.

At the time of writing, 252 companies have announced job cuts in 2026 so far, leading to 124,255 employees losing their roles (via Layoffs.fyi) - people who, I suppose, do now have a lot more free time than they expected.

Just a few weeks ago, I read an interesting article on the Festival of Ludd, the world's first-ever festival dedicated to 'Neo Luddism' — a place where technology is openly eschewed, in layman's terms.

I found it interesting that a loose, somewhat broad collection of thoughts and notions around techno-pessimism seems to be coalescing into something more mainstream. We've heard TED talks and read articles on Neo Luddism well before the Summer of Ludd was a thing, but this feels new to me — something being swept into a wider generational zeitgeist.

Of course, wariness around technology isn't exactly exclusive to Gen Z, but there is evidence to suggest that younger people are increasingly turning away. Quoted in the above article is a 2025 Pew Research study that reported that 48 per cent of teenage respondents asked said social media had a negative effect on people of their age group. That's up from 32 per cent in 2022.

This somewhat correlates to a decline in social media usage. As reported by the Financial Times, overall usage is down in all adults from a historical peak back in 2022.

What's interesting to me, however, is how younger audiences are becoming more vocal in their skepticism. Before, you could argue that skepticism was mostly associated with an older generation that was resistant to change. Now, one of the first truly digital generations is leading the call online.

I do have a few niggling doubts, though, which I'll cover shortly.

The original Luddites were a group that fought against industrialisation, and as the name suggests, Neo-Luddism is a movement that looks to reject the encroaching influence of technology on our lives in the twenty-first century.

If that sounds like a vague cause, that's because the movement encompasses everything from a simple affinity for older, single-use, and analog technology to more hardline stances on de-industrialization. It's not a new term or a new movement, but it's gaining traction recently within the wider sense of technology fatigue and growing fears around AI.

The Festival of Ludd, in my eyes, is the clearest example of the latest version of the wider movement. I've written about Gen Z eschewing technology before, but this really feels like a natural progression — an actual event that is dedicated to things like 'dumbphones', combating the attention economy, and in-person networking.

At a surface level, it could be seen as a simple protest or gathering of disaffected tech workers, but the festival does appear to attempt to answer the big questions and problems. At the very least, the diagnosis of the issues raised is completely valid.

A significant number of the population, including Gen Z, will be employed in services, media, or tech-adjacent roles.

While I'm broadly sympathetic to the overall movement, one thing that struck me about the Festival of Ludd in particular is that the movement seems to be coalescing around people who are effectively able to shut themselves out. I want to get fully on board, but there's a kind of idealism that always clashes with reality when I wrestle with this issue in my head.

This isn't as simple as being an indicator of class or someone's background, but to be able to 'turn off' in the first place suggests a certain level of privilege. I think if you can choose to turn off your phone, laptop, or smartwatch, then you're luckier than a lot of people right now.

There's nothing to suggest here that the movement is intentionally exclusive (in fact, it seems incredibly inclusive), but to walk away from all technology — even for a few days — is something that many cannot simply partake in.

That may sound like an excuse, but a simple analogy to make here is gas-powered cars. We know the effect of these vehicles on the environment. We know they cause harm. However, to simply opt out of these cars is not an option for some people — especially lower-income folk, in some cases.

Am I an advocate of gas-powered cars? Of course not, but the realist in me knows that people need infrastructure and affordable alternatives before they can switch to electric vehicles. In an ideal world, public transport and city infrastructure would be so good we wouldn't even need cars.

I see a similar situation unfolding for many in terms of technology. A significant number of the population, including Gen Z, will be employed in services, media, or tech-adjacent roles that require interfacing with at least some facet of potentially harmful technology.

To simply opt out, however, can severely limit your options in today's world. At best, it can be a healthy sacrifice of convenience. At worst, it can mean not having a decent job that can put food on your table.

The Festival of Ludd reminds me a lot of my own experience of going to week-long festivals in my twenties. These festivals didn't outwardly eschew technology, but I see them as very much analogous to the viewpoints conveyed by those at the Festival of Ludd. Phone use was discouraged, social media was commonly derided, and you'd be bombarded with messages encouraging human connection. All good things, of course.

Now, in my thirties, however, I know I simply cannot afford to switch my phone off for a week. I have elderly parents for one, and my job requires a certain level of connection.

I wouldn't call myself perpetually online, but I obviously need to be informed about the comings and goings in my field. It would be nice to spend less time online, but I'm realistic about my uses — I am a technology journalist, after all.

You could argue that I would be able to do all of the above with a 'dumb phone' or a similar Luddite-friendly device. To an extent, that is true, and I'm certainly no advocate for AI features or similar bloat on modern smartphones.

Realistically, however, I admit that a smartphone does have several uses — a calendar, maps, emails, and so on. It effectively reduces the number of things I need to do my job dramatically. Again, it's a clash of idealism versus realism for me. I enjoy the romantic notion of throwing my smartphone away, but I know that it would just mean more devices and paperwork.

I see a clash of idealism versus the reality of the situation here.

Interestingly, as a millennial, I do know people who have essentially escaped the grip of technology. People who have essentially retrained, emigrated, or even gone fully 'off-grid '. Some who have talked about a more disconnected life have effectively made it a reality.

The issue with their path, however, is that they've needed significant capital to break away. Some have even spent over a decade working in tech-adjacent roles to get to that point.

Again, I see a clash of idealism versus the reality of the situation here. These are examples where people have had to work within the wider system before they're privileged enough to make a choice whether to partake or not.

Bleakly, I can almost foresee a future where the choice of whether to 'turn off' or not is solely the reserve of the privileged. I'm somehow reminded of this report of Silicon Valley bosses sending their children to schools without computers. Most people don't have the option to send their kids to schools like this. Likewise, most people won't get to be that picky about work.

I strongly suspect that most Gen Z Neo-Luddites will face a similar path to mine in the next few decades. Some will dream of an unconnected world, but the reality may be different. The genie is unfortunately out of the bottle now, and it could take several years to actually attain a state of unconnectedness, if it is indeed possible.

So, am I against the Gen Z Neo Luddites? Not at all; I think their scepticism is absolutely valid and healthy. They've correctly diagnosed a growing issue and made their frustrations known. The question is, how do they really effect change and make the cause mainstream?

When you look for an answer to this question, you seem to generate even more questions. For one, are you able to effect change when you simply opt out of a system? Doing so seems to immediately cede the floor to the technology companies that the movement rails against. Perhaps it's more effective to try and build a more collaborative relationship, as idealistic as that sounds.

For what it's worth, the Festival of Ludd does attempt to tackle many of these questions. Such subjects as offline networking and independent websites are covered, and several attendees did point out the inherent contradiction of using social media to promote the event. They are acutely aware of the contradictions and issues raised in this article, so none of this will be news to them.

Hopefully, as the festival and wider movement grow, the option to 'turn off' becomes more of a choice, rather than a sacrifice.

• Ukraine says Russian defenses mistakenly destroyed one of Moscow's premier fighter jets
• InformNapalm claims cyber intelligence turned Russian air defenses against their own aircraft
• Russia insists a technical failure caused the reported Su-57 crash near Moscow

A Russian Su-57 fighter jet recently crashed in the Moscow region, and Ukrainian intelligence sources say it was no accident.

The international intelligence community InformNapalm claims a combined human and cyber intelligence operation manipulated a Russian air defense unit into striking its own aircraft.

The jet, valued at roughly $50 million, represents one of Russia's most advanced fighter platforms currently in active service.

InformNapalm says the effort began earlier, when analysts processed a large volume of intercepted Russian communications and footage from a training ground.

That footage showed the BARS Moscow air defense system being trained specifically to counter Ukrainian long-range drones over the capital region.

Analysts used the material to build a detailed report covering personnel training, hardware, software, and combat algorithms tied to the system.

The report also identified specific vulnerabilities within the BARS Moscow network that outside actors could exploit.

This information was reportedly submitted to the Ukrainian Defense Forces, which allegedly used the findings during the operation.

“We thank our friends — cyber specialists of the future Cyber ​​Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine,” InformNapalm emphasized, saying the intelligence gathered went beyond passive observation, and was instead used to influence how the specific air defense unit actually operated.

The group says this approach allowed the very system built by Russian engineers to be turned against a Russian aircraft.

The result, according to InformNapalm, was the destruction of the Su-57 by its own side's defenses, a claim that Russia vehemently denies.

The Russian Ministry of Defense attributed the crash to a technical malfunction, which is common rather than any external interference or sabotage.

InformNapalm disputes that account, noting reports of sabotage within the BARS Moscow system had already circulated in pro-Russian online spaces beforehand.

The group also points to a prior operation from 2025, called OKBMLeaks, in which it published documents from a Russian manufacturer supplying components for the aircraft.

That earlier material was translated into 13 languages and picked up by numerous international outlets covering the war.

However, there is no independent verification of InformNapalm's claim, leaving Ukraine's account directly contested by Russia.

Coincidentally, Russia's civil aviation authority Rosaviatsiya lowered the maximum flight altitudes near Moscow airports and banned transit flights over the region.

Officials cited security concerns tied to a rise in Ukrainian drone activity as the reason behind these restrictions.

Whether the security concern includes the recent case cited by InformNapalm remains to be seen.

Airlines remain worried that the changes could add 20 to 30 minutes to routes that once passed directly through Moscow's airspace corridor.

Kommersant, a major Russian business newspaper, also reported that the lower altitude ceiling raises the risk of bird strikes.

Whether the crash resulted from sabotage or a genuine technical fault, the competing accounts remain unresolved for now.

Via Army Inform (originally in Ukrainian)

Tom Hanks is one of the most celebrated actors in the world, having starred in several iconic films throughout his career and winning two Academy Awards in the process. Like all actors, however, he's been no stranger to the rise of AI and its potential to upend the film industry.

Hanks raised the prospect of his image being used to bring films to life far beyond his death in an episode of The Adam Buxton Podcast.

This article is part of TechRadar Pro's QOTD project to provide an insight into the minds of the brightest and most recognized figures in the technology industry today and in years gone by. Read the full series here.

The notion of using AI in film to either recreate actors that have died, or to generate performances by using the images of living actors, is highly controversial and led to industrial action at the time. Hanks said that he had first anticipated such a future during his work on 2004's 'The Polar Express', which pioneered live-action motion capture CGI.

Using technology to bring actors back from the dead, however, wasn't a new phenomenon. 'Rogue One' used technology to digitally resurrect Peter Cushing as Grand Moff Tarkin, while the 'Irishman' used AI to de-age Robert De Niro, Al Pacino and Joe Pesci so they could portray their characters over a period of decades.

What's clear now is that AI in film is here to stay, with the technology being utilized in several film and television productions today.

The 2025 Oscars saw films that used AI, including 'Emilia Perez' and 'The Brutalist', win big. Netflix, meanwhile, revealed that 300 titles used generative AI in one form or another this year. Usage spanned every stage, from concepting and visualization to post-production and eventual release.

As far as audiences go, most people may not notice these subtle uses of AI in the production process, and may not object to this kind of AI usage either. But, generally, research consistently shows they reject the idea of AI-generated content.