News

• Grok Imagine asked users to create an AI version of The Odyssey
• You can now see the winners online
• There are some tell-tale signs of AI filmmaking in these clips

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk was pretty clear about his opinions on Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey movie when it came out, promising us that the Grok Imagine AI generator would have a full-length, "historically accurate" take on Homer's epic poem by the end of 2026.

Well, we don't have that yet, but we do have the winner of a $100k Grok Imagine competition (via PetaPixel) that tasked AI prompters to put together 3–5 minutes of video footage of scenes from The Odyssey, with at least a minute of dialog.

Step forward filmmaker Nem Perez who has scooped the top prize, creating what he calls "The Odyssey as Homer intended" (a claim which seems hard to verify). He puts more of a focus on Odysseus telling his story to Princess Nausicaa, a framing device that was in Homer's poem but wasn't in the Nolan adaptation.

@JSFILMZ0412 scoops the second $50k price with an extended ending to the story of The Odyssey, which imagines an older Odysseus passing on his knowledge to the next generation. In third place, earning $25k, is @Mr_AllenT, who has turned the Cyclops cave scene into something out of a horror movie.

This is "The Odyssey" as Homer intended. My longest, most intricate work to date. I pushed @grok @imagine to its absolute limits to create this 5-minute epic. What bothered me most about the recent adaptation was the omission of the Phaeacians and Princess Nausicaa, whom… https://t.co/awYW6Hu4W8 pic.twitter.com/hJHOgdkEecAugust 31, 2026

It's clear that AI video generation has come a long way in recent years, but we're also still a long way from the point at which it can match up to real filmmaking — even if you dismiss worries about copyright violations and energy use.

The Odyssey as prompted by Nem Perez of course has the bad physics and random costume changes you could expect from AI videos, plus that generic AI look to everything. From swords and trees to faces and monsters, it's all the smooth mush you would expect to get from training the AI on millions of hours of actual video made by actual humans.

We've got Princess Nausicaa and Odysseus swapping their seating positions and angles from scene to scene, sailors' hands that look suspiciously like feet, a bow that seems to work backwards, and a Cyclops monster who keeps changing size and has three eyes rather than one — surely not what Homer intended.

AI critics from across Reddit and social media naturally aren't impressed, with some equating it to "eating a bowl of wet cardboard" and others succinctly calling it "outstandingly bad".

Of course, AI doesn't really understand anything about story, physical space, or scene setting: it's just trying to create frame-by-frame approximations to match prompts, based on its training. Are real filmmakers in trouble? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.

AI has become remarkably good at producing answers. But smart business leaders don't make decisions based on answers alone. They ask where the information came from, what assumptions shaped the conclusion, and how much confidence they should place in the recommendation.

Those questions are becoming increasingly important as AI takes on a larger role in enterprise decision-making. Marketing teams are now using it to evaluate campaign concepts. Insights teams are asking it to synthesize years of consumer research. Executives are relying on it to identify growth opportunities, assess competitive threats, and pressure test major investments.

Once AI starts influencing decisions instead of simply accelerating work, understanding how it reached a conclusion becomes just as important as the conclusion itself.

Consider a CPG firm looking to enter convenience stores while continuing to sell products in supermarkets. The decision calls for balancing dozens of variables, from the impact on supermarket sales and pricing to customer demographics, channel growth, and long-term brand implications.

No single report has all this information. A leader needs to compile it from multiple sources and analyze it comprehensively before deciding whether to pursue the expansion.

AI can dramatically accelerate that process by synthesizing years of research, identifying patterns across hundreds of documents, and surfacing insights in minutes – helping teams to spend less time gathering information and more time evaluating it.

But AI doesn't eliminate the need for judgment. Leaders are still responsible for understanding the reasoning behind the recommendations they ultimately act on.

That's where some of the most commonly used AI tools today can fall short.

Many AI tools create answers that appear compelling; however, they often contain no indication of how the system developed them.

These answers combine proprietary research, web data, and AI-generated content, with little indication of how each component was utilized and weighed in the final recommendation.

For this reason, many current AI tools operate like black boxes – offering recommendations without the requisite context. This opaque approach may be acceptable for exploratory or non-critical applications. However, decisions involving major investments, new products, or strategic planning require visibility and transparency.

Imagine AI recommends expanding into convenience stores because consumer demand is expected to grow. The recommendation itself may be reasonable, but decision-makers should also understand the sources, which sources carried the most weight, which conclusions are supported by evidence, which rely on inference, and where the available information leaves room for uncertainty.

Without that visibility, it's difficult to know whether you're acting on well-supported evidence or simply accepting a convincing narrative.

One of the biggest misconceptions about AI is that uncertainty is a weakness. Any degree of uncertainty or equivocation expressed by AI is deemed a bug, not a feature. In reality, uncertainty has always been part of good decision-making.

Experienced leaders don't expect perfect information. They expect to understand where evidence is strong, where it's limited, and which assumptions deserve further discussion.

Traditional research naturally encouraged those conversations. However, AI can compress that process into a polished answer, making it easier to overlook what stays uncertain.

Yet those unknowns are often the most valuable output. Recognizing weak evidence, conflicting findings, or missing information gives organizations the opportunity to ask better questions, gather additional research, and avoid making important decisions with a false sense of certainty.

These principles point toward what I think of as a “Glass Box” approach to AI. Instead of treating transparency as a singular feature, this approach provides greater visibility into the information, reasoning, and uncertainty within enterprise AI.

At its core, every AI output should provide an explanation for its reasoning that is understandable and retrievable. Leaders should be able to examine the evidence evaluated, the filters used, and how the evidence became a conclusion.

Each claim should also include references to exact pages and passages in source materials rather than referring broadly to an entire library of documents requiring manual review. Glass Box AI clearly separates what the source material stated from what was inferred by the AI. Thin evidence should be identified as such and not masked by presentation techniques.

A Glass Box AI approach should also identify gaps in knowledge as well as what was found. Lack of evidence regarding a key assumption should be included in the report so users can consider it during the decision-making process.

Critically, it should preserve user intervention. Leaders should have the ability to question, reject, or adapt an AI system’s conclusions – and record the basis for their rationale. If an AI suggests that convenience stores will allow a CPG firm to charge higher prices, yet a member of the product team believes otherwise, that disagreement should be reflected in the documentation.

Transparency should exist throughout an AI system’s processing cycle, not only once the answer is completed. While working, the system should demonstrate what it is searching for, what it is weighing, and where it is moving toward convergence. This allows users to catch issues early and adjust the weighting before the recommendation is completed.

Organizations increasingly rely on AI to make strategic decisions about enterprise development, capital deployment, product innovation, marketing strategy, and more. In this new reality, "trust me" cannot be an acceptable citation when making these types of decisions.

Enterprises require evidence that can be traced, reasoning that can be challenged, and conclusions that can withstand scrutiny. This is the foundation of Glass Box AI, and what I believe should be built towards, to meet the new enterprise AI standard that must be met.

Because the value of AI will ultimately be measured not by how confidently it answers, but by how confidently organizations can act on those answers.

We've featured the best AI website builder.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

• Community Fibre has installed an 8.5Gbps line in London
• It's the fastest broadband connection in the UK
• You get 8,200Mbps for both downloads and uploads, but it's pricey at £300 per month

A London homeowner has become the first person in the UK to have an 8.5Gbps residential broadband connection courtesy of Community Fibre.

Community Fibre previously offered a 5Gbps full fibre connection, but has upped the ante with a 70% speed boost on that with the new 8.5Gbps plan, which is getting very close to a full 10Gbps.

The 8.5Gbps line – which offers a speed of 8,200Mbps for both downloading and uploading – was installed yesterday (September 16) in a house in Beckton, Newham, just east of Charing Cross.

Peter Rampling, who is the Chief Commercial Officer at Community Fibre, observed that this "demonstrates what's possible when world-class infrastructure is paired with relentless innovation and long-term investment".

Community Fibre has its own full fibre network that's within reach of some 1.4 million homes in and around London, currently with over 450,000 customers.

Full fibre is distinct from fibre-to-the-cabinet (or FTTC) in that the cable goes directly into the home. With FTTC, the fibre goes to a (roadside) cabinet and the last stretch of the connection to the house remains copper (telephone) wire (constraining speeds to a theoretical maximum of 80Mbps – I get just over 60Mbps on average).

As well as the new 8.5Gbps full fibre plan, Community Fibre sells a 5Gbps line, as mentioned, and a 2.5Gbps product (among other lesser offerings).

How much will an 8.5Gbps broadband connection set you back? £300 per month on a 24-month contract, which is a huge jump on the cost of the 5Gbps line that's £56.70 per month.

You can expect to pay a considerable premium to be on the cutting edge of broadband (or any tech), but this really is a hike and a half, and it's difficult to see why you'd pay so much more compared to the 5Gbps plan. The vast majority of consumers will find the latter caters for all their online needs with ease, anyway – let's face it. This is more about bragging rights than anything else for now.

For 2.5Gbps broadband, you'll fork out £38.70 per month, which seems very reasonable. In fact, I paid a touch more than that for my FTTC connection at one point, briefly, until that latest price hike spurred me to change provider – it's always worth keeping an eye on pricing when your contract runs out.

8.5Gbps broadband is in London now – in serviced areas – if you want it, though, providing your wallet can cope with the monthly outlay.