The Top Stories of 2025: MIT Tech Review’s Best
▼ Summary
– A 2025 analysis provided an unprecedented, detailed look at the energy and water consumption required by widespread generative AI use.
– Vitamin D deficiency is common, and new research suggests it influences not just bone health but also immune function and heart health.
– A 2024 article on defining AI explained why there is no universal agreement and why this ambiguity is important for critical thinking.
– Stanford experts propose that creating non-sentient, pain-free human “bodyoids” could revolutionize medical research and drug development.
– While biotechnology advances make “bodyoids” a potential future pathway, significant technical and ethical challenges remain.
The conversation around artificial intelligence’s environmental impact reached a critical point in 2025, as widespread adoption of generative tools forced a reckoning with their hidden costs. Senior reporters James O’Donnell and Casey Crownhart conducted a groundbreaking analysis, breaking down AI’s resource demands to the level of a single query. Their work provided a crucial, data-driven foundation for understanding the future energy and water requirements of this pervasive technology, moving the discussion beyond speculation to measurable facts.
Beyond the digital world, a more familiar nutrient took center stage in health discussions. Vitamin D deficiency remains a common concern, especially during darker months when natural sunlight is scarce. While its role in supporting bone health is well-established, new research is revealing its potential influence on other critical bodily systems. Investigations into immune function and cardiovascular health suggest the “sunshine vitamin” may have far-reaching effects we are only beginning to understand, prompting a fresh look at its overall importance.
Defining the very technology driving these changes proved to be a persistent challenge. A comprehensive exploration into the meaning of “artificial intelligence” resonated deeply, highlighting a fundamental ambiguity. The analysis explains why consensus on a definition is so elusive and, more importantly, why that lack of clarity matters. Understanding this conceptual fluidity is key to developing informed and critical perspectives on AI’s role in society, from its promises to its perils.
On the frontier of medical science, a provocative proposal emerged from experts at Stanford University. They argue that ethically sourcing non-sentient human biological constructs, entities without consciousness or the capacity for pain, could transform research and drug development. These “bodyoids” could provide essential, consistent biological materials for testing and transplantation, potentially accelerating medical breakthroughs. While significant technical and ethical hurdles must be navigated, advances in biotechnology are making this once-speculative concept a tangible possibility for the future of medicine.
(Source: Technology Review)
