Mention psychotherapy and many people picture a familiar movie scene: someone lying on a couch, talking about their childhood, while a therapist sits behind them taking notes.

That image comes largely from psychoanalysis. But it doesn’t represent most psychotherapy today. Psychotherapy and psychoanalysis aren’t really competing treatments.

Psychotherapy is the broader term for a range of psychological treatments designed to help people change troubling thoughts, feelings, behaviours, or relationships. These include cognitive behavioural therapy, family therapy, and psychoanalysis, which played an important role in the field’s development.

Where did psychoanalysis come from?

Psychoanalysis developed from the work of Austrian neurologist Sigmund Freud in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Freud proposed that much of our mental life happens outside our conscious awareness. He believed early experiences and unconscious conflicts could shape how we feel and behave.

Psychoanalysis aimed to bring these influences into awareness. Patients were encouraged to say whatever came to mind, a technique known as free association, while the analyst helped them look for patterns and meanings. Dreams and the patient’s relationship with the analyst could also be explored.

Psychoanalysis also strongly influenced early psychotherapy with children. Freud famously worked with a five-year-old boy known as “Little Hans” for a phobia of horses. His daughter, Anna Freud, later became a pioneer of child psychoanalysis.

So, do you really lie on a couch?

In traditional psychoanalysis, quite possibly.

Traditional psychoanalysis is intensive. Patients may attend several sessions each week, often for years, typically lying on a couch with the analyst out of view.

In the early days of psychoanalysis, the analyst wasn’t necessarily silent. But rather than giving advice or teaching skills, they listened, asked questions, and offered interpretations intended to help the patient recognise patterns outside their awareness. Some psychoanalysts still practise this way.

But from the early 20th century, psychotherapy began to diversify. Behavioural therapies focused on learning and changing what people do. Later, cognitive therapies focused on changing patterns of thinking, while family therapies focused on interactions between people.

Meanwhile, modern psychodynamic therapy grew from psychoanalysis and retains some of its focus on unconscious processes and relationship patterns. But it is usually less intensive. Therapist and client generally sit face-to-face, meet less frequently, and the therapist may take a more active role.

What does psychotherapy look like today?

There’s no single answer because psychotherapy now includes many approaches. Many involve more than just talking.

A therapist might use carefully chosen questions to help someone examine a belief. For example, what evidence supports it? Is there another way of looking at the situation? They might then test that belief with a behavioural experiment in everyday life.

Someone who thinks, “If I speak at a meeting, I’ll make a fool of myself”, for example, might make a small contribution and observe how others respond – perhaps finding things don’t go as badly as they feared.

A therapist might help a person with depression plan activities that provide pleasure or a sense of achievement. Therapy may also involve practising new skills between sessions.

None of this involves mind-reading. Good psychotherapy should be collaborative: therapist and client agree on what they are trying to change and work together towards those goals.

What about children?

Psychotherapy doesn’t always involve an adult talking one-to-one with a therapist.

With children, the person doing much of the therapeutic work may sometimes be the parent.

Evidence-based parenting programs can help parents encourage positive behaviour, respond differently to problem behaviour and strengthen their relationship with their child. Other therapies involve both children and parents or use developmentally appropriate activities.

So, what happens in psychotherapy depends on who needs help and what problem they are experiencing.

But does psychotherapy work?

For many mental health problems, yes. But “psychotherapy” isn’t a single treatment. Asking whether psychotherapy works is a little like asking whether medicine works: which treatment, for which problem?

Some therapies have much stronger evidence for particular problems than others. The Australian Psychological Society’s ⁠Evidence-based Psychological Interventions review brings together research on psychological treatments for a range of mental health problems in adults, children, and adolescents.

So someone seeking help can ask not only, “Does therapy work?”, but “Which therapies have the best evidence for my problem?” They can also ask a psychologist what approach they use and how they’ll know if it’s working.

What about psychoanalysis? Research supports shorter psychodynamic therapies, which grew from the psychoanalytic tradition, for some mental health problems. But traditional, intensive psychoanalysis itself has been studied much less extensively.

So, what’s the difference?

The simplest answer is that psychotherapy is the umbrella, while psychoanalysis is one approach underneath it.

Psychoanalysis played a major role in psychotherapy’s history. But the field has changed enormously since Freud’s time.

Today, psychotherapy is unlikely to involve lying on a couch while someone silently analyses your unconscious mind. It’s much more likely to involve therapist and client agreeing on what needs to change and actively working together.

Trevor Mazzucchelli is a registered psychologist with the Psychology Board of Australia, with endorsement in clinical psychology, and is a member of the Australian Psychological Society and a Fellow of the APS College of Clinical Psychologists. He is a co-author of the Stepping Stones Triple P – Positive Parenting Program and a consultant to Triple P International. The Parenting and Family Support Centre receives funding from royalties generated by Triple P resources, which are developed and owned by The University of Queensland. Royalties are distributed to the University, its Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, and contributing authors. Trevor Mazzucchelli does not hold shares in Triple P International but has received, and may receive in the future, royalties and consultancy fees. Triple P International had no involvement in this article. He has received research funding from the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council. He does not endorse any specific program, product or organisation in this article.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/19/whats-the-difference-between-psychotherapy-and-psychoanalysis/

RNZ Pacific

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/19/on-another-scale-png-province-unprepared-for-el-nino-impacts-warns-governor/

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has called for a 75% cut to the tobacco tax and a freeze on any price indexation of the tax for three years. Hanson said this would make cigarettes cheaper and so undercut Australia’s growing illicit tobacco market.

One Nation argues this would bring a packet of cigarettes currently selling for about A$46.50 down to roughly $21 or $22. That’s if the tax cut is passed on in full to consumers.

That “if” matters. Tobacco companies, not governments, set the retail price of cigarettes. There is no legal mechanism to force tobacco companies to pass a tax cut on to people who smoke.

A large tax cut could be an immediate cash windfall for companies that manufacture a product killing about 24,000 Australians each year, while doing very little to dismantle illicit supply networks.

Earlier today, Health Minister Mark Butler said of One Nation’s proposal, “Governments aren’t usually in the habit of engaging in price competition with organised crimes.”

Is this new?

One Nation’s proposal is not entirely new. Hanson floated a 50% tobacco tax cut earlier this year ahead of her National Press Club address. The federal Coalition and shadow cabinet are reportedly considering recommending an 80% reduction in tobacco tax.

The Tasmanian Liberal government has also publicly called for the Albanese government to lower tobacco taxes – but has not specified by how much.

NSW Labor Premier Chris Minns has openly voiced his support to review and cut the tobacco tax. This is a break from the federal Labor position to focus on strengthened and coordinated enforcement activities to curb the illicit market.

States such as South Australia and Queensland have brought police, small business, and health interests together to collectively tackle illicit tobacco sales.

Calls to cut the tobacco excise directly align with the position of the tobacco industry. Philip Morris Limited and British American Tobacco Australia both argued for a cut to the tobacco tax in their submissions to the parliamentary inquiry into Australia’s illegal tobacco crisis.

Read more:
Could making tobacco cheaper actually cut down smoking rates? We asked 5 experts

What would happen if we slashed the tax?

There is no independent published modelling to look at the impact of One Nation’s proposed 75% tobacco tax cut – on illicit tobacco sales, smoking uptake and quitting, or health.

A report commissioned by Ritchies IGA (an Australian supermarket chain that sells tobacco products) that uses data provided by British American Tobacco Australia positions tax cuts as part of the solution to the growing illicit market. The report estimated reducing excise by 42% combined with stronger enforcement, could shrink the illicit tobacco market by about 47%. The report does not establish how much of the reduction would be because of the excise cut rather than enforcement.

The report is problematic for other reasons.

First, there is a clear commercial conflict of interest in a supermarket chain, using tobacco industry data, advocating for a lower tobacco tax (and cheaper cigarettes).

Second, the report assumes the price of illicit cigarettes will remain broadly stable while the prices of taxed products will fall. Illicit suppliers could easily respond by lowering their prices, as there is no evidence to suggest illicit tobacco prices have hit “rock bottom” in Australia.

But there is strong Australian evidence to show the benefits of increasing the tobacco tax – fewer people smoking, including among lower socioeconomic groups.

How about the cost of living crisis?

Many households buying tobacco face financial stress. But that does not mean the tobacco excise is the cause of the financial hardship, or cutting the excise would reduce economic disadvantage.

In response to lower prices, many people would smoke more cigarettes a day, and take more years to quit, offsetting any savings and greatly increasing sales to tobacco companies.

Strengthening tobacco control policies that protect people from predatory promotion by the tobacco industry would reduce tobacco-related disparities.

For example, we have long known tobacco retailers are far more concentrated in lower income communities. This makes it more difficult for people who smoke to quit and more likely children will be exposed to tobacco promotions and sales.

Improving access to proven smoking cessation medicines – including nicotine replacement therapies such as patches, gums and inhalers – for all people who smoke is also urgently needed. It should not be more expensive to quit smoking than to buy cigarettes.

Read more:
Despite claims smoking has made a comeback, just 5.6% of Australians now smoke daily

What’s happened internationally?

International examples show there is no simple relationship between tobacco excise rates and illicit tobacco sales. In some countries with high taxes (for example Singapore) illicit trade is low and in many countries with low taxes (for example Vietnam), illicit trade is high.

Proponents of tax cuts often point to Canada’s tobacco tax cuts in the 1990s. But the lesson is not as simple as they suggest.

There was some reduction in the volume of illicit tobacco sales when accompanied by well-resourced enforcement. However, provinces that cut the tax had more people smoking, more people starting to smoke and lower quitting rates than provinces that did not cut taxes.

What should we do instead?

Cutting tobacco tax will not solve the illicit tobacco crisis. And it could easily undo the progress Australia has made in bringing smoking prevalence down to a new low of 7.8% in 2025.

The illicit tobacco market needs a serious response: licensing, inspections, penalties, border control, and swift action against landlords and retailers who profit from illegal sales.

What it does not need is a policy that makes tobacco cheaper, rewards tobacco companies, and risks recruiting another generation to smoking.

Becky Freeman is an expert advisor to the Cancer Council tobacco issues committee, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) e-cigarette advisory committee, and a member of the Cancer Institute vaping communications advisory panel. She has received relevant competitive grants and funding from the Australian Department of Health Disability and Ageing, NHMRC, Medical Research Future Fund, NSW Health, the Ian Potter Foundation, VicHealth, Cancer Council, and Healthway WA.

Christina Watts has received funding from the Australian Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, NSW Health, Cancer Council NSW and Cancer Council Australia for work relating to e-cigarette and tobacco control.

Sam Egger does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/19/one-nation-wants-to-cut-the-tobacco-tax-would-that-curb-the-illicit-cigarette-market/

Microfinance was once celebrated as Asia’s tool to lift people out of poverty. From Bangladesh to India, Cambodia and the Philippines, the promise was simple: provide small loans to low-income households, help them start businesses, increase income and escape poverty.

Pioneered in the 1970s, microfinance was designed to provide financial services to low income people typically excluded from traditional banking.

Small loans, usually between US$200 and US$500 were particularly targeted at empowering women to start businesses and support their families. According to the World Bank, more than 1.7 billion people do not have access to banking.

Yet decades of experience suggest that credit alone has not delivered the transformation to economic independence promised.

We need to ask a difficult question: what if we solved the wrong problem?

Based on flawed assumptions

One fundamental problem is the assumption that poor households in developing nations lack capital but have profitable investment opportunities.

In reality, many poor families operate very small businesses such as food stalls, small shops, farming, tailoring or petty trading. These activities are often labour intensive and face intense local competition.

Giving more people loans can therefore create more businesses without creating more customers. When many borrowers enter the same market, additional credit may simply divide existing demand among more businesses. That boosts competition and makes it harder for individual businesses to generate a profit.

This problem is closely related to another assumption: that poor families are entrepreneurial. Some borrowers do have business experience, skills, networks and opportunities that allow them to generate a high return on their investment.

But others would benefit much more from stable employment, education, vocational training and infrastructure such as reliable roads and transport, electricity, internet access, and market facilities.

Treating all poor households as potential entrepreneurs can therefore lead to the wrong policy intervention. Evidence from India shows access to microloans increased borrowing and investment by existing businesses, rather than helping people to start new businesses.

This suggests microloans can help particular types of households, but they are not a universal mechanism for escaping poverty.

What some microloans are actually used for

A second problem is that loans are not always used for productive investment. Poor households face medical expenses, school fees, food costs, housing needs and unexpected economic shocks.

Sometimes, a business loan is used for these immediate needs or to repay another debt. That borrowing may help manage a financial emergency, but it does not necessarily generate the additional income required to repay the loan and increase household wealth.

The cost of borrowing can further increase this pressure. Microfinance loans can carry substantial interest charges. In Bangladesh, for example, the Microcredit Regulatory Authority sets a maximum charge of 24% on microfinance loans.

With such high interest rates, a small business has to earn enough just to pay back the loan. The real problem is that the enterprise the loan pays for might not make enough profit to cover the cost and risk of borrowing. A micro business that only makes a small return may not earn enough to repay the debt, especially if the loan is just financing survival rather than financial independence.

Multiple loans can create further problems

When borrowers obtain loans from several financial institutions, new borrowing can be used to repay existing debt rather than to finance productive investment.

Research on rural households in Cambodia shows how microfinance borrowers increasingly rely on other debt to meet microfinance repayments. This debt juggling means lenders such as banks or development agencies appear to maintain a strong repayment record, but households remain financially vulnerable.

The experience of Pakistan highlights another important change in microfinance: the increasing use of land as collateral. In rural Sindh province, land is one of the most valuable assets held by farmers and is widely used as security for bank loans. But farmers with small land holdings have less access to credit than large landowners, because they lack enough collateral to pledge against loans.

This creates an important paradox. The original promise of microfinance was to help people who had no collateral. The modernisation of the sector can instead make the poor’s most valuable productive asset – their land – the security behind their debt. And that can put their main asset at risk if they have trouble repaying the loan.

Broader support is essential

The stark lesson is that access to capital is only one constraint on economic development.

In reality, entrepreneurs also need skills, technology, infrastructure, digital connectivity, market access, and stable employment opportunities. For the poorest households, taking on debt may be particularly inappropriate when they lack the capacity to generate a reliable and sustainable return.

Ruipeng Liu does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/19/microfinance-was-supposed-to-save-asias-poor-why-has-it-failed-to-live-up-to-its-promise/

If you’re a keen angler and regularly catch yellowtail kingfish (Seriola lalandi), you may have encountered instances of the fish’s flesh turning mushy and unpalatable once cooked. Some have said it’s a bit like trying to eat wet newspaper.

This can be disappointing for the angler and for the hungry guests you’ve invited to dinner. It is also a waste of food – and of the fish’s life.

It’s often hard to pinpoint which fish will turn mushy when cooked as they can look, smell and taste the same when raw, such as when served as sashimi. The issue only appears once the fish is cooked or prepared as ceviche. In other words, you need heat or a pH change for the problem to reveal itself.

The mushy flesh problem is associated with the parasite Unicapsula seriolae but it’s too soon to say it’s definitely the cause – that research hasn’t been done yet.

What we do know is that this parasite shows up in a lot of kingfish that turn mushy when cooked.

Now, our research suggests infection with Unicapsula seriolae may be more widespread than first thought.

In fact, we found even flesh that doesn’t go mushy after cooking can still be infected.

Mushy kingfish and parasite infection in NSW

I’ve been fascinated by the mushy kingfish problem for over 15 years now, following my own encounters in the waters off Sydney, the mid north coast of New South Wales, and at the dinner table.

There are reports dating back to the 1990s of people in NSW catching kingfish that later turns mushy when cooked.

But our research wanted to go beyond anecdotal evidence, so we scientifically tested for and detected this parasite in kingfish caught in NSW. For the first time, we show it is present in kingfish from NSW.

Scientists had previously only tested for and detected this parasite in kingfish caught in Queensland and Western Australia, and in aquaculture settings in Western Australia.

Our recent research involved working closely with NSW-based anglers, spearfishers and charter operators to obtain donations of kingfish tissue in 2024 and 2025.

We tested for the presence of microscopic parasites in kingfish by:

• looking at samples under the microscope

• doing polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing and

• DNA sequencing.

In the samples we tested, we found 38.9% of fish were infected with the myxosporean parasite, Unicapsula seriolae. This falls within the range of infections in wild kingfish in previous Australian reports, which put the figure at between at 29.3% and 80%.

But crucially, we also showed that a larger proportion of infected fish (71.4%) did not develop mushy flesh when cooked, or were asymptomatic.

This indicates that relying on fish turning mushy once cooked will mean most infections get missed.

This microscopic marine parasite is similar in size to the human red blood cell, making it impossible to spot with the naked eye. Only some fish will develop signs of infection in the form of black cysts that can be seen with the naked eye.

We also found the parasite in fish caught throughout the year, even though the issue of flesh turning mushy when cooked only usually shows up in fish caught in summer and spring.

This might suggest there’s a temperature link that causes this issue to become more prevalent in warmer months, but it’s too soon to say for sure.

How does this parasite affect fish health and human health?

Scientists don’t yet fully understand the impacts this parasite can have on the health of kingfish. But we do know that in aquaculture settings outside of NSW this parasite has been associated with mass-mortality events (when other pathogens are also present).

Despite this, we still do not know the exact role the parasite plays in the health and physiology of wild kingfish.

Scientists are also unsure what the consumption of raw Unicapsula seriolae-infected kingfish means for human health.

Currently, there is no evidence to suggest it causes food-borne illnesses here in Australia. In Japan, the same parasite has been linked to cases of food-borne illnesses in people who ate raw greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili) – a species closely related to the yellowtail kingfish.

We do not have any accounts of similar cases here in Australia. More research is required to investigate the impacts to human health, if there are any.

All in all, we found most infected kingfish from NSW waters do not become mushy when cooked. And we still do not exactly know why the flesh turns mushy when cooked for some infected kingfish but not others.

Further research is required to understand the significance and consequence of infection, and to develop improved rapid detection methods.

Although sample sizes were small, we are continuing our work to better understand infection.

If you’re an angler or consumer and would like to contribute to the ongoing research you can become a citizen scientist and log your encounters with mushy kingfish on the mushy fish app.

The research upon which this story is based was supported by the Charles Sturt University Faculty Early Career Researcher scheme, the Gulbali Institute and the SUNY Center for Biotechnology and Biodiversity.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/19/parasite-linked-to-mushy-fish-could-be-much-more-widespread-than-thought/

Imagine your team has been tasked to deliver a high-stakes policy paper under intense time pressure. Everyone turns to generative artificial intelligence (AI) and within minutes, it delivers a full draft complete with structured arguments and authoritative-looking citations.

The team then transfers the AI-generated text into the corporate template, polishes the narrative flow and structure, and gives it one final check before sending it up the chain. Leadership takes a glimpse of the polished-looking draft, and – assuming the underlying research has already been verified – signs off and publishes.

This scenario is not hypothetical. South Africa’s Draft National AI Policy had to be withdrawn earlier this year after reviewers found a number of the citations pointed to journal articles and authors that didn’t exist. Ironically, the mistakes were introduced by AI.

Similarly, last year, consultancy firm Deloitte provided a partial refund to the Australian government after admitting that generative AI had been used to help produce a commissioned document which contained fabricated citations and referenced quotes from sources that simply did not exist. The report cost Australian taxpayers A$440,000.

But the cost of letting AI do our work and thinking also comes at a cost to our brain.

Value of thought

As seen in the examples above, work tasks produced by AI often look polished on the surface but carry significant underlying flaws. This is a byproduct of how the modern workplace has conditioned us to prioritise the final deliverable – the report, the presentation, the assignment – over the actual process.

However, this strictly outcome-driven approach rarely rewards the process by which results are obtained. When we skip the process, we lose the ability to fully grasp what the output actually means.

This will inevitably result in us finding it challenging to critically evaluate the outcomes we consume. More importantly, it will also impact our capacity to discern facts from partial truths and lies.

Ultimately, the true value of knowledge work lies not just in the final deliverable, but in the clarity of thought and the messy, iterative process required to achieve it.

Blindly relying on AI

Recent empirical evidence also highlights a severe disconnect between perceived benefits of using AI and its improvement in quality.

A 2025 study by the University of Melbourne and accounting firm KPMG surveyed more than 48,000 respondents across 47 countries. It found two in three people (66%) use AI on a regular basis, while more than half believe their performance benefits from its usage.

The study specified that the primary driver of AI adoption was the fear of missing out (48%), leading users to prioritise the speed of delivery over the quality of the final output.

Yet 61% of respondents said they have had no AI training, while 60% also reported inappropriate, complacent and non-transparent use of AI in their workplace.

A separate study from July 2026 by the Centre of AI Safety, a San Francisco-based nonprofit research organisation, found even the top-performing AI agents failed to complete roughly 85% of projects to a standard acceptable for commissioned work.

This indicates that even today’s best AI models still fall short of professional quality on most projects. It also shows we are relying on AI to generate final deliverables without understanding how it gets there.

This blind reliance strips away quality control, replacing genuine knowledge creation with an ever-increasing volume of automated “work slop”.

Improving cognitive skills

So how do we reverse this trend?

The answer isn’t simply banning or limiting AI in the workplace. Instead, we need to redefine our working relationship with AI and the outcomes it produces by taking a more human-centric approach.

First, organisations must set realistic time frames for deliverables that genuinely allow for people to think rather than focus on doing things quicker. There is a need to actively disconnect from AI tools during the brainstorming and structuring phases so ideas and thoughts are driven by actual human synthesis, not just algorithmic prediction.

Traditional whiteboard sessions – where teams physically map out their initial concepts through markers and pens – is a way this may be facilitated.

Second, we must cultivate a culture that is constructively critical of all outputs, whether generated by humans or AI.

This means actively questioning logic, structure, references and underlying assumptions. When teams are expected to defend the behavioural reasoning and methodology behind their work, it very quickly reveals who actually did the thinking and who merely copy-pasted from an AI agent.

Perhaps creating a critque group can create a safe, comfortable environment where feedback and comments can flow freely.

Technology can assist with certain processes, but it is dangerous to assume it can replace our ability to think critically. This is because the most valuable asset we have isn’t the polished final page – it’s the ebbs and flows of the cognitive process that is required to honestly write and evaluate one.

Jongkil Jay Jeong has previously received funding from the Cyber Security Cooperative Research Centre and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australia.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/19/offloading-work-tasks-to-ai-comes-with-a-cost-to-our-brains/

For many parents, keeping their children safe online is a top priority. But now there’s an emerging threat: “com networks”.

Com networks (short for community networks) are online groups that mostly target vulnerable young people in the online spaces they use every day, including gaming platforms and social media.

Through threats, they convince young people to harm themselves and others.

Perpetrators are often motivated by status, fascination with violence, or sexual gratification.

What do we know about these networks?

These groups are known by many names and promote different harms. This makes them difficult to define and detect.

But we do know these groups are a growing threat to young people.

In June, Australian Federal Police Commissioner Krissy Barrett said the threats are “confronting”. She added:

Right now, kids are hurting their siblings, killing their pets or injuring themselves because they are being blackmailed by other youth, teens or adults who enjoy watching the pain of others or are dominating and exploiting the vulnerable.

Europol recently removed more than 4,000 websites linked to “The Com” network in a joint operation with international authorities.

But the true number of com networks is unknown. As more reports emerge, there are warning signs parents should look for.

How are young people targeted?

A young person’s first encounter with a com network might not appear dangerous. It often seems like a normal conversation online, making the warning signs difficult to spot.

Perpetrators gradually build trust with the young person, exposing them to increasingly extreme content and behaviours. They may encourage the young person to share or do something humiliating, using this to pressure them into more harmful acts.

Children can be coerced into harming siblings, pets, or themselves, or encouraged to attempt suicide.

These groups often target isolated young people, those struggling with their mental health or body image, exploring their identity, or looking for friendship or acceptance online.

The line between victimisation and causing harm can become blurred: a young person might be experiencing abuse while also being pressured to recruit others or harm someone.

What are the warning signs?

There is no single giveaway of someone being linked to a com network.

But some suggested indicators of concern include:

• sudden changes in eating or sleeping habits

• distancing from friend groups

• receiving anonymous gifts (physical or digital)

• sudden changes in behaviour, routine, or appearance

• unexplained injuries, including bruises, cuts or burns, and those which appear to form a symbol or word (“cut signs”)

• family pets or other animals being harmed.

Other potential indicators of concern include:

• letters, symbols, or numbers written in blood on walls (“blood signs”)

• obsession with new online friends

• unexplained injuries to siblings

• use of encrypted communications platforms

• cruelly sharing identifiable or private information (“doxing”)

• hoaxing an emergency service to trigger an armed police response to a location (“swatting”).

In isolation, these indicators may not be related to com networks. But knowing what to look out for might help some people – including parents and caregivers – identify and report abuse.

What can be done?

Com networks do not sit neatly within existing categories of crime. Their hybrid nature means there are potential gaps in current interventions.

Effective prevention needs a holistic approach. It also needs to be collaborative, with tech providers and industry working alongside law enforcement.

Schools must keep working to reduce bullying and exclusion, equip children with digital literacy skills to recognise and resist this grooming, embed accessible reporting and anonymous support for bullying and harm, and provide greater monitoring of tech use in the classroom.

Parents and caregivers also play an important role in prevention. They are encouraged to understand the online games their children are accessing, along with talking with their children about whom they are interacting with online.

Communication and trust are key: young people are better protected when they feel they can talk to trusted adults and won’t be blamed.

If parents and caregivers are concerned about their children’s online interactions, they do not need to navigate this alone. Support is available, including Family and Child Connect, Kids Helpline and other child and family support services.

The eSafety Commissioner also has a reporting page for online harm.

Where there is an immediate risk of harm, parents should contact emergency services.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

Sue Sweeney, co-author of our upcoming research project on this topic, contributed to this article.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/19/the-emerging-threat-of-violent-exploitative-digital-com-networks-what-do-we-need-to-know/

Erupting or silent, volcanoes have always captured our imagination.

As volcanologists, we have seen how that fascination can collide with rolling news coverage and social media, amplifying false claims, misleading images and long-standing misconceptions about how volcanoes behave. We want to help.

Much more than simply getting the science wrong, misinformation can distort people’s perceptions of hazards and risk and influence how they respond to an eruption.

With this in mind, we sought to better understand which misconceptions about volcanoes are most common and how they take hold and spread.

Our newly published research draws on our own experiences as science communicators, as well as an analysis of hundreds of international media articles published during volcanic events.

By providing a clearer picture, we hope to help journalists communicate volcanic hazards more accurately – and to help everyone from any background recognise misleading information.

When misconceptions become misinformation

Our international study team included experts from universities, volcano observatories, and government agencies, while our media analysis covered 375 articles published between 2017 and 2022.

We identified 18 common misconceptions spanning everything from seismology and volcanic hazards to climate, eruption timescales and misleading images.

Some involved attention-grabbing terms such as the Pacific Ring of Fire, supervolcanoes and mega-tsunamis. Others reflected more basic misunderstandings about how volcanoes work.

Volcanic ash, for instance, is often described as “smoke”. In fact, it consists of tiny fragments of rock, crystals, and volcanic glass, mixed with gases and water vapour in an eruption plume.

Similarly, the term magma “chamber” can suggest a vast underground tank of liquid magma. The reality beneath many volcanoes is more complex, involving networks of molten rock, crystals and gas.

We also examined how misinformation spreads during volcanic events around the world.

During Mt Agung’s 2017 unrest and eruption in Bali, old footage of other volcanoes was presented as current activity, while clouds and gas emissions were wrongly reported as eruptions.

Some reports suggested an eruption could affect the entire island, contributing to tourist cancellations and leaving volcanologists to counter false information.

More recently, a 2025 eruption of Mt Etna in Sicily produced a pyroclastic flow within an area already closed to the public. Videos of tourists outside the affected area moving away were shared as people “fleeing for their lives”, creating the impression Sicily itself was unsafe.

The resulting coverage fuelled public anxiety and tourism concerns, while exaggerating the actual danger.

We also examined misinformation surrounding Yellowstone volcano in the United States, which has often been portrayed as an “overdue” supervolcano capable of destroying humanity.

Documentaries, disaster films, and tabloid media have exaggerated the likelihood and potential impacts of a future eruption, while earthquakes have been portrayed as signs an eruption is imminent. In reality, its last 50 or so eruptions were lava flows with only local impacts.

How to spot volcano misinformation

So, how can people navigate the flood of information online during a volcanic crisis?

We recommend first checking the source. Start with organisations responsible for monitoring and managing the volcano, including volcano observatories, geological agencies, and emergency management authorities.

Scientists and other experts can also provide valuable context, but it is worth considering whether they are speaking within their area of expertise.

When it comes to reporting about what a volcano might do next, it is also important to distinguish between what is possible and what is likely.

Volcano science involves uncertainty and scientists and emergency managers may discuss a range of scenarios because they need to prepare for what is more likely.

But an alarming headline stating a volcano “could” produce a massive eruption or tsunami can easily be written as suggesting that it “will”.

And before sharing images and videos they encounter online, it’s always a good idea to ensure they’re credible – particularly as AI-generated content becomes more common.

Is the image actually from the volcano being discussed? Has the same image appeared elsewhere online with a different location or date?

Even with intensive monitoring, volcanologists cannot always forecast what a volcano will do next. Good communication can, however, help people understand what is happening, what could happen, and what is most likely.

That distinction is more important than we might think. Describing volcanic ash as “just smoke” can cause people to underestimate its hazards, while calling a volcano “overdue” can make an eruption seem inevitable.

Our guide is intended to help journalists and individuals recognise such misconceptions, assess the evidence behind claims, and make better-informed decisions during volcanic events.

For journalists in particular, our message is simple: there’s no need to exaggerate the science. Volcanoes are interesting enough on their own.

The authors acknowledge the contribution to this article of study co-author Sam Poppe, Assistant Professor in Planetary Volcanology at the Space Research Centre of the Polish Academy of Sciences.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/19/during-eruptions-misinformation-can-spread-further-than-ash-how-can-we-spot-it/

RNZ Pacific reporters

Access remains the biggest challenge for humanitarian workers in the Pacific Islands region, but humanitarians are not targeted as they are in other parts of the world, according to World Vision.

To mark World Humanitarian Day, World Vision, an international Christian humanitarian and development organisation, is highlighting the unprecedented risks faced by global humanitarian workers in recent times.

There has been a threefold increase in deaths of humanitarian workers over the past three years, with over 1000 deaths — mainly in Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan.

• READ MORE: Other Pacific humanitarian aid reports

World Vision said in such parts of the world, humanitarians and medical personnel were targeted by states they were trying to assist.

World Vision’s Hanna Taylor-Moller told RNZ Pacific that in the Pacific, humanitarian agencies were not seeing the lawlessness and disregard for international humanitarian law that they were experiencing in other parts of the world.

Different challenges
Taylor-Moller said that there was a different suite of challenges facing humanitarian workers in the Pacific, a region of often remote islands spread across a wide region.

“When we are responding to things like climate-induced or climate-driven cyclones, it’s making them worse,” she said.

“But because we are responding to a lot of these areas by boat, small planes in the case of Papua New Guinea, access is the biggest challenge we are facing in the Pacific to reach the communities who really need it, who will often be a very small number of people in very very remote locations.

Climate-induced crises in the Pacific, particularly the impact of the El Niño cycle on cyclones and storms, present particular challenges for humanitarian agencies in their efforts to get help to communities.

“When you try and convey to people the work we do, people often like to hear these big numbers of the thousands of people reached, but the reality in the Pacific is that you’ll go to huge effort to literally get food, supplies, soap, clean water to quite a small number of families in remote locations,” she explained.

Daunting logistics
The logistics can be daunting, as humanitarian agencies set out to get clear information immediately following, for example, a natural disaster.

Taylor-Moller said often the internet or phone connectivity was very low in the Pacific Islands, making it hard to get the details out.

“The first port of call in a in a crisis is to find out what the needs are. And that’s the first thing, trying to get people out to an area to assess it, local people who speak the language, who know the terrain, getting to find who’s injured, who’s in need of shelter, water, supplies, getting that information back — and then getting the necessary supplies out to these remote locations.

She said while humanitarian workers were operating in the Pacific often with a much higher degree of safety compared to what they were seeing in other countries and other responses.

“But the logistics are definitely a challenge. A lot of lot of sea, open water travel. Not as easy with the roads, that’s for sure.”

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/18/pacific-humanitarian-workers-face-major-logistical-and-access-challenges-says-world-vision/

Last week, the Fair Work Commission ruled Gregory Baker, a computing academic at Macquarie University, should be treated as an ongoing, part-time employee, after the university had earlier declined his request to convert from a casual role.

It was immediately described as a “landmark” decision, the first test of Labor’s “employee choice pathway” reforms passed in 2024.

But the ruling also made headlines for other reasons. Baker represented himself at the tribunal, and has said he won with the help of trained artificial intelligence (AI) agents. His success again has us asking: can AI replace lawyers?

On closer scrutiny, Baker’s case looks less like evidence of AI replacing lawyers and more like a powerful illustration of how a highly capable user can employ AI tools to terrific effect.

Request denied

Speaking to the Australian Financial Review following the ruling, Baker said it was actually an AI tool that alerted him to the possibility of converting his role from casual to permanent part-time in the first place.

He had been teaching computer science at Macquarie University over consecutive semesters from 2023 to 2025, and in November 2025, he gave the university the required notice that he believed his work no longer met the requirements of casual employment.

The university did not accept this notification and Baker lodged a dispute at the Fair Work Commission – without a lawyer – in December 2025. The parties could not reach agreement, and the case went to arbitration on May 12. A decision was handed down last Wednesday.

Expert use of AI

Baker has said he won by using multiple paid AI agents, such as OpenAI’s paid offering, ChatGPT Pro. This “team” helped assemble his case, follow up references and anticipate his employer’s counterarguments.

His victory has been celebrated as historic, with the Australian Financial Review describing it as:

the first known successful use of technology by a self-represented person in the legal arena.

However, a few things set this particular case apart. Baker’s IT background, expertise managing AI agents and ability to optimise their use for his case represent a rare level of expertise in using AI in a legal context.

Details included in the Fair Work Commission’s decision also suggest he kept his legal argument narrowly focused on teaching he’d done in one particular unit.

Less expert use of AI in court often sees those bringing claims produce “kitchen sink”-style arguments, which include weak, exaggerated and nonsense claims.

Baker’s dispute was also narrow, limited to the application of a casual conversion law that had not yet been tested. Importantly, the Fair Work Commission (a tribunal, not a court) is designed to be user-friendly, to enable workers to bring claims without a lawyer.

Less positive attention

Elsewhere, the use of generative AI in legal proceedings is attracting a lot of attention for less positive reasons.

Most of this attention centres on the damage caused by inaccuracies, hallucinations and “AI slop”, and how courts and tribunals should best respond.

By making it easier to put a case together, AI has removed traditional access barriers for some litigants. But while case numbers are going up, case precision and quality is going down, making it harder to manage disputes to resolution.

Courts and tribunals are struggling with the volume. At the Fair Work Commission alone, workload has reportedly increased by 70% over three years.

New challenges are emerging as time goes on. Reports suggest litigants and lawyers in some overseas jurisdictions are embedding prompts in digital documents (something called “prompt injection”) to overcome or manipulate AI-based review systems some courts use to process documents.

A big opportunity

Baker’s example shows us something significant: used well, AI tools can empower people with narrow legal disputes and digital skills to achieve successful resolutions, at low cost.

This is an important development in access to justice. In Australia, there is a huge gap between the number of people with legal problems and the very limited funding available for legal assistance.

Most of the community is in the “missing middle”, unable to afford private legal assistance but on incomes too high to qualify for free legal aid.

AI tools stand a good chance of helping people with sufficient legal capability with problems and cases – like Gregory Baker’s – that are a good fit for the solutions AI can offer. These are few and far between, however.

Where might things be headed?

We should expect case numbers and self-representation in courts and tribunals will continue to grow and expand beyond Fair Work.

While there will be some baseless cases, the growth also represents the natural consequence of removing one traditional access barrier to our formal justice institutions – getting in the front door to start proceedings.

The bigger picture challenges are persistent, and raise important questions: who will most benefit from the capacity of AI tools to enhance access to justice, and who will continue to struggle to get basic legal problems resolved?

For courts and tribunals, the challenge will be striking a balance between managing caseloads and delivering justice, while not wasting the opportunity to expand access to justice.

Professor Genevieve Grant receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/18/an-ai-legal-team-has-won-its-first-case-its-a-rare-win-for-access-to-justice/

Before booking a holiday, it pays to check the weather.

Rain can turn a joyful trip into a glum stretch of days. Soaring temperatures are making sunny summers less appealing. And destructive fires, floods and other natural disasters often lead to tourist evacuations.

Australians are keen travellers. In 2025 alone, we made about 113 million overnight trips locally and more than 12 million trips abroad. We also live in one of the world’s most heatwave-prone nations, meaning Australians are exposed to unpredictable weather at home.

But just how much does weather influence the behaviour of Australian tourists? That’s the question at the core of our new study, which we believe is the first to reveal how Australians’ travel choices are being shaped by our rapidly changing climate.

Holidaying in heat

For our new study, we conducted a national online survey to unpack how weather influences when, where and how Australians travel.

We found a fifth of the 2,292 people we surveyed had changed their most recent holiday because of weather. This included 8% who had been affected by fires, floods or storms, and 6% who had been affected by heavy rain.

However, our main interest was heat.

Extreme heat poses an urgent threat to human health. It kills thousands of people each year, and research suggests this figure is rising due to the effects of human-induced climate change. In Australia alone, the number of deaths from heatwaves is expected to double in the next 40 years.

Existing evidence suggests rain dampens tourist enthusiasm more than heat. However, our study revealed 6% of Australians altered their holiday plans based on impending hot weather. On top of this, a third of those surveyed had decided against going to holiday destinations they considered too hot, such as Dubai or northern Australia. We understand this represents the first empirical evidence that Australians are altering their travel patterns due to heat.

Read more:
Study finds 2 billion people will struggle to survive in a warming world – and these parts of Australia are most vulnerable

Whims of the weather

Beyond extreme heat, our study suggests weather shapes how Australians holiday in several ways.

Timing

Of the surveyed Australians who tweaked their travel based on weather, 36% either shortened, extended or changed the original dates of their holidays in response to unexpected weather. Natural disasters – such as bushfires or storms – as well as forecast rain and heat were common reasons people changed their travel plans.

Activities

Weather also influences what Australians get up to while on holiday. About 31% of our weather-sensitive survey participants adjusted their planned activities – such as shopping indoors on a humid day – to align with weather forecasts. This was particularly true among beach tourists and those visiting friends or relatives.

Destination

About a fifth of the people who altered plans abandoned their original destination to travel somewhere else instead. A destination change was most common among people doing nature-based activities – such as camping, hiking, cycling or water sports – and least common for city tourists. Natural disasters were the primary reason people switched destinations, followed by heat and then rain.

However, 10% simply gave up and stayed home due to unfavourable weather. The majority were people who had planned to visit family and friends – and perhaps used the weather as a handy excuse.

In rain, hail or shine

What most surprised us was that 80% of people stuck to their original holidays, regardless of the weather.

Nature-based tourists were reluctant to change their holiday plans even in adverse weather. However, this is worrying from a health perspective, particularly given the number of heat-related deaths among hikers.

To protect our outdoorsy travellers, authorities must strengthen heat-related warning systems, build more shaded spaces at major tourist sites, and provide more water sources. They should also provide clear information about staying safe in hot conditions, such as avoiding hiking during the hottest parts of the day and drinking enough water. Heat safety training should be mandatory for staff dealing with tourists at major outdoor attractions, such as national parks.

Older Australians were also more likely to travel in spite of unpredictable weather. This may be because they can’t easily change prepaid holiday plans, particularly if they lack computer skills or have limited finances. But given older people are more vulnerable to heat, tourism operators must be especially conscious of heat stress when running tours or activities for seniors.

Read more:
Extreme heat is particularly hard on older adults – an aging population and climate change put ever more people at risk

Where to from here

Worryingly, many Australian tourists lack the knowledge and resources to cope with unpredictable weather. Nearly half of our survey participants were poorly prepared for heat, and about 5% were not prepared at all. Just under half had no weather apps on their phones that would deliver timely weather warnings.

Australia’s new national warning system alerts anyone with a mobile phone when a heatwave is about to hit. However, the current understanding of a heatwave – defined as a stretch of at least three abnormally hot days – means Australians won’t be warned of any single sweltering day.

Research shows people often recognise the risks of extreme heat, but don’t believe it will affect them personally. Education could help bridge this gap. Our study found educating people about extreme heat led them to avoid heatwave-prone places.

We must also educate local health professionals and tourism operators about the dangers of extreme heat and strategies to mitigate it. Only then can we keep Australian tourists safe – both at home and abroad.

Read more:
Drowning risk increases during heatwaves in unexpected ways – here’s how to stay safe this summer

Kerstin Zander receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Stephen Garnett receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/18/extreme-heat-is-altering-when-where-and-how-we-travel-new-research/

Humanity’s family tree is long and tangled. Scientists sort our ancient relatives into three familiar groups: Homo, Australopithecus and Paranthropus.

Each of these is a “genus”, the rank just above a species. (In Homo sapiens, Homo is the genus and sapiens is the species.)

These names dominate how we talk about human origins. But new fossils, advances in genetic analysis, and more rigorous methods for figuring out who’s related to whom show these groupings don’t really reflect the true shape of our family tree.

Is it therefore time to come up with a new way to classify humans and our closely related extinct relatives? As I argue in a new paper in the American Journal of Biological Anthropology, the current system is overdue for revision.

Finding family branches

The core problem is the current groups often don’t represent real family branches – what scientists call “clades”. A clade is one common ancestor and every one of its descendants.

There’s a second issue too. Ideally, a genus should also tell us something about the behaviour, key traits, or way of life shared by all its member species.

Australopithecus (which includes the famous “Lucy” skeleton) is the clearest case. Large-scale analyses consistently find this genus isn’t a real family branch at all.

The problem traces back to how the genus was originally defined – not by shared ancestry, but by shared lifestyle or appearance. Recent fossils show traits such as brain size and gait, as well as diet and behaviour, don’t map cleanly onto the actual family tree.

Distinctive human traits are hard to find

Homo has its own problems. Traits once thought to define our genus, such as large brains, tool use and dietary shifts, and committed full-time land-dwelling bipedalism, have been undercut by more recent discoveries. Species such as Homo naledi and Homo floresiensis (the so-called “hobbit” species) pair small brains and other “primitive” features with traits typical of other Homo species.

It’s now hard to name a single feature shared by all Homo species not also found in some Paranthropus or Australopithecus species. That’s because different body parts evolve at different rates and directions, in what is called mosaic evolution. Traits also tend to evolve more than once, independently, in different closely related lineages facing similar pressures.

What’s more, key behaviours we associate with being human emerged much later than the genus itself did. The earliest members of Homo, as currently defined, include very small-brained species that may even have evolved independently from different Australopithecus lineages. The small-brained, later-surviving species mentioned above may likewise have surprisingly deep, separate roots.

Even Paranthropus, arguably the most physically distinctive of the three, known for its heavy jaws and huge molars, isn’t safe. Those features have long been read as adaptations for eating hard foods such as nuts, but evidence now suggests eastern and southern African species ate quite differently from one another, and neither relied heavily on hard foods.

Some researchers argue the group may not even be a single lineage, but rather two independent regional groups that evolved oversized teeth, meaning Paranthropus would not be a real family branch either, although most researchers today think this group is the most likely to be a genuine clade out of the three.

Taken together, there’s now little anatomical, behavioural or ecological evidence to justify keeping these three genera.

Why classification matters

This may sound like an abstract semantic question. But when genus names don’t reflect real relationships, they can obscure patterns of descent, overstate differences between groups, and reinforce outdated “primitive versus advanced” thinking. With a fast-growing fossil record and better methods for reconstructing family trees, the gap has become too large to ignore.

One solution is to fold Australopithecus and Paranthropus into a single, much larger Homo genus, which would represent a real and complete branch of the family tree. This would fix the “not a real clade” problem, align our classification with the way we treat non-human species, and better account for interbreeding between closely related lineages over the past few million years.

Changing the classification would have costs. We’d lose some intuitive distinctions researchers rely on, especially the ecological and physical uniqueness of Paranthropus and later, large-brained Homo.

Language must keep up with understanding

The fossil record seems to be increasingly showing a large, branching burst of evolution beginning around 4 million years ago, with diet, brain size, movement and tooth size all varying substantially among groups in ways that don’t necessarily map neatly onto their true relationships. A group this large and complex, shaped by migration and repeated rapid bursts of evolution in particular traits and behaviours, is best captured under a single genus.

Our everyday language is changing too. Humans were only formally recognised in recent decades as great apes – in the sense of being placed in the same family as chimps, gorillas and orangutans (Hominidae) – yet “ape” in casual usage still often excludes humans.

Similarly, “monkey” is often assumed to be a genuine evolutionary group, but isn’t. New World monkeys are more distantly related to Old World monkeys and apes than those two groups are to each other. Someone who consistently hears “monkeys, apes and humans” may reasonably draw wrong conclusions about our evolutionary relationships.

We are therefore in a transition period in how we discuss our place in the primate family tree, both in science and in everyday language. As biology increasingly embraces taxonomy that reflects genuine evolutionary relationships, perhaps it is time for our terminology, and the way we talk about ourselves, to catch up.

Ian Towle does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/18/why-it-might-be-time-to-rethink-the-human-family-tree/

Concerns about students cheating with AI are rife within schools and universities.

Some lecturers have even expressed fears students have been “lobotomised by AI” amid reports AI-detection tools are patchy and far from fool-proof. Last week, New South Wales moved to ban take-home assignments for Year 12 to try to stop AI use in assessments.

At the same time, a major generative AI system has developed a way to “watermark” whether or not a text is AI. Developer Anthropic, has announced the text output of Claude (one of the five big AI tools) will include a hidden label or watermark indicating the text is AI-generated.

Files generated by Claude, including Word and PowerPoint, will also contain an additional watermark hidden in the file itself.

What does this mean for efforts to stamp out cheating?

Read more:
Oral exams are making a comeback to stop AI cheating. But they have their own problems

Why a watermark?

Anthropic took this step after signing up to the European Union’s new AI act. The act requires providers of AI systems that create synthetic audio, video, images or text to identify the outputs as AI-generated.

Other tech companies, such as OpenAI (which runs ChatGPT), have developed a text watermarking tool, but not rolled it out publicly.

The watermarking is not an image superimposed over the text. It is invisibly embedded through the text. Readers will need a “detection mechanism” (yet to be released by Anthropic) to pick up the watermark.

If this sounds too good to be true, that’s because it is.

There are still loopholes

As with AI detection, watermarking can be evaded using other AI tools. The absence of a marker also doesn’t guarantee that AI wasn’t used.

Even Anthropic warns their watermarking cannot tell “whether the text was human-written”. It doesn’t work on small samples of writing. It cannot tell whether AI was used to proofread the work, suggest edits or make improvements. It cannot tell whether a different AI system, such as DeepSeek, wrote the text.

OpenAI has reportedly withheld its text watermarking tool, in part, due to concerns it could negatively impact certain groups, including non-native English speakers.

AI use has been normalised

We know AI use is now extremely common among students. The tools are readily available and free to use.

A 2026 UK survey found 95% of undergraduate students use AI, with 94% using it in their assessments.

Unauthorised AI use is most common in written assessments completed outside of class. Educators have been using AI detection software to try and screen work for cheating.

A July report from software company Turnitin revealed more than 53% of submissions from Australian uni students run through its system used some form of AI.

However, an increasing number of institutions have abandoned this technology amid concerns about accuracy, bias, procedural fairness, and successful legal challenges from students overseas.

What do we need to do instead?

So it would be unwise for teachers or institutions to rely on watermarking or detection tools to guard against cheating. These technologies can provide a sense of false security. But where does that leave us?

Some Australian educators are warning “detection-based approaches to integrity are not the way forward”. This is because the focus is on policing whether AI was used, rather than on what the student has learned.

Or as University of Queensland educational psychology expert Jason Lodge has also argued, we need to:

stop looking for evidence that students are using these tools to cheat and shift our emphasis to looking for evidence that learning has occurred.

What happens now?

Advice on alternatives to the “detect and punish” approach has been steadily growing over the past three years. Some of this is via the higher education regulator. It notes:

• we need to prepare students to engage actively, responsibly and ethically in a society where AI is everywhere

• understanding what students have learned requires different types of assessment that are fair, inclusive and suited to the situation.

Concerns about cheating and AI-use have also resulted in calls to return to in-person assessments. But these aren’t workable for those who study fully online. They also don’t prepare students to engage with AI.

The higher education regulator has also outlined how assessments could change in practice. This includes assessments that are connected and build upon each other throughout a whole degree, increasing in complexity. It also includes at least one “secure” assessment task in every unit or subject across a degree program.

Secure tasks can include oral presentations, in-class tasks and supervised practical demonstrations. They must also include mechanisms that verify the person completing the assessment is the enrolled student.

Mark A. Bassett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/18/does-ai-watermarking-mean-the-party-is-over-for-cheating-students/

People who use cannabis in their 20s and 30s are developing psychosis years earlier than non-users, according to our new study, published today in the journal Biological Psychiatry.

This challenges the idea that delaying cannabis use until your mid-20s – when people believe their brain has finished developing – is a safer option to avoid the risks of psychosis.

Our research found that for people who were susceptible to psychosis, cannabis use in their 30s was associated with an earlier onset of psychosis by 6.3 years.

Cannabis use is becoming increasingly common. More than 2.5 million Australians use prescribed or illicit cannabis each year. It’s also increasing in potency.

But for many users, the psychiatric harms of cannabis are likely to outweigh any medical benefit. In fact, there is little evidence it’s effective for anxiety, depression or insomnia.

What is psychosis?

Psychosis is a spectrum of disorders, characterised by reality distortion. At the core of psychosis is the more severe and chronic form, schizophrenia.

A person with psychosis may experience confusion, mood swings and hallucinations – seeing or hearing something or someone who isn’t there. They may have false beliefs and might not make sense to others while speaking.

Psychosis affects around 0.5% of Australians of Australians. There is a strong genetic component to schizophrenia and psychosis. Environmental factors, including cannabis use, also play a role.

How does cannabis impact psychosis

The most active ingredient of cannabis is delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC. Both prescribed and illicit cannabis usually contain THC, often in high doses. However, prescribed cannabis is also available without THC.

THC works by locking onto the cannabis receptors, which are part of the brain’s endocannabinoid system.

When naturally functioning, the endocannabinoid system helps maintain physiological balance by regulating processes including appetite, immunity, memory, mood, pain, sleep and stress responses.

The cannabis plant evolved to exploit this system by producing the mind-altering compound THC, which acts as a skeleton key for the cannabinoid receptors.

Past research has found people who frequently use cannabis are more likely to experience psychosis and greater harms from psychosis.

In 2011, our research group showed cannabis use was associated with an earlier age of onset of psychosis.

This was widely assumed to mostly affect younger people because of prevailing beliefs about the vulnerability of the developing adolescent brain to cannabis exposure.

What we found

Our new research casts the link between cannabis and earlier psychosis onset in a different, and ultimately more worrying, light.

We examined 149 studies involving more than 71,000 people over the past 15 years. Most involved people with schizophrenia, from Europe, North America and Australia.

We found cannabis use was associated with an earlier age at psychosis onset by 2.5 years on average.

This finding was more severe in later-onset psychosis: cannabis users who developed psychosis in their late 20s had an onset of 4.4 years earlier on average.

This difference increased to more than 6.3 years in people who developed psychosis aged 30 or over.

Interestingly, we found no evidence of earlier onset of psychosis for people who developed it under 20.

Why does this matter?

Earlier onset of psychosis is associated with worse clinical outcomes, greater functional impairment and struggles with self care.

Losing years of healthy life to psychosis in your 20s or 30s means missing years that could have been spent studying, building a career, travelling, starting a family, and developing strong relationships and support networks.

What might be going on?

Across the lifespan, cannabis use is associated with a dramatic decrease in healthy life years due to psychosis.

While our 2011 research suggested exposure of the adolescent brain interfered with crucial pathways, our new research points to the possibility of an additional factor: a cumulative effect of cannabis as a brain toxin.

It’s unclear why we didn’t see the same acceleration of psychosis in people under 20. It could be that genetics plays a larger role in the onset of psychosis in this age group, while cannabis may be a more significant contributor in people in their 20s and 30s.

But more research is needed to understand how cannabis interacts with psychosis, including the biological mechanisms to explain the associations.

What were the limitations?

Our study was a meta-analysis, which involves group-level data. It doesn’t take into account individual characteristics of participants that could influence the results – for example, exposure to traumatic experiences in childhood.

We also used age groups instead of the specific ages of all participants. This might result in a finding that was stronger or weaker than the one we found.

Finally, we couldn’t drill down into the potency of the cannabis products used, or the way cannabis was used (for example, smoking a joint or eating gummies). The potency of products varied between studies.

Users and prescribers need to know the harms

Some 40 years of research has consistently shown an association between cannabis and psychosis.

There is also emerging evidence that cannabis is associated with a range of other psychiatric harms, including anxiety and depression.

But the medicalisation and monetisation of cannabis has hampered knowledge and acceptance about its now well-established harms.

Now Australians can access high-potency cannabis without any appropriate health warning. This might prove to be one of the biggest public health bungles in Australian history.

Our research shows detailed public health warnings are urgently needed to explain the potential psychiatric risks associated with cannabis use across the lifespan.

Read more:
Medicinal cannabis has gone mainstream. But Australia’s struggling to cope

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/18/cannabis-isnt-safer-in-your-20s-and-30s-its-linked-to-an-earlier-onset-of-psychosis/

There is a moment early in David Lean’s 1962 epic Lawrence of Arabia, where T.E. Lawrence (Peter O’Toole) looks into the burning flame of a lit match just prior to his transfer from London to Cairo.

The camera lingers over the orange and yellow flame, before the scene cuts suddenly from a domestic English setting to a sunrise over a vast desert. The colours here are of a similar hue, and through these visual connections we realise we have instantly traversed both time and place.

This strategy of connecting edit points based on visual (and in some cases aural) similarities is known as the “match cut”. The Lawrence of Arabia example is famed for its use of a literal match; the film won the 1963 Academy Award for best editing.

Today, the match cut remains an indispensable tool for editors and filmmakers – one that can shock us, move us, and help draw us into reality-defying fictional worlds.

How it works

The match cut is simply a process in which two images are cut together in the edit, where the transition from one shot to the next is matched across similarity in shape, colour or movement.

Sometimes, this technique is designed to appear seamless, or “invisible”, to suggest continuity between two visual states.

One example would be someone running towards a door, and in the next shot running through the other side. This match cut, on action, uses the form of the person in motion to connect both shots.

A tool for continuity

Like many editing processes, the match cut evolved over time as the language of cinema developed.

Early, crude versions can be traced back to the work of French filmmaker George Méliès, who employed the “stop-trick” process. This involved stopping and restarting the camera to display a sudden change or visual trick.

In his 1903 film A Trip to the Moon, two images are cut together to make it look like the moon is sneering after being penetrated by a bullet-shaped rocket. This early attempt paved the way for more sophisticated and creative approaches.

Inducing shock

In a more overt approach, match cuts can be harsh, poignant or deliberately jarring.

Luis Bunuel’s 1929 short film Un Chien Andalou (An Andalusian Dog) offers one example, where a bright circular moon intersected by a thin cloud is cut to the image of a woman’s eyeball being sliced by a razor.

This cut draws a shocking graphic match between the natural celestial body at night and the young woman’s apparent willing submission to gruesome disfigurement. The forced comparison intensifies our response to both images.

Some match cuts also invite comparison as a way of highlighting the thematic or narrative concerns of a film.

One famous match cut from Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) shows a prehistoric man using a bone as a weapon, which he throws above him. As the bone flies high into the air, editor Ray Lovejoy cuts to an image of a cylindrical space station moving out of frame, as if following the bone’s earlier trajectory.

Through this, Kubrick and Lovejoy draw parallels between the “uncivilised” violence of early man, and preempt the “civilised” violence of the future – embodied in the story by the murderous computer HAL.

This match cut reinforces the perspective of the film, by forcing us to draw an uncomfortable comparison between the cave man’s behaviour and our prospective technology-driven future.

Sound-based match cuts

Sound designers can also use a form of match cut for similar emotional or narrative impact. A specific sound can act as a sonic bridge between two separate scenes, connecting them narratively.

Consider the following transition in Saving Private Ryan (1998). The aged private (Harrison Young) stands in a cemetery by the sea as he begins to recall his war experience. He hears the sound of crashing waves, and this sound remains as the image cuts to the arrival of the allied forces on the beaches of Normandy.

In some cases, a sound in one scene may be closely replicated in the subsequent scene. For instance, in Joe Wright’s film Atonement (2007), the sound of a typewriter cuts to a scene of someone striking a match.

Emotional depth

The match cut is often used to deliver emotional impact. In Alfred Hitchcock’s 1961 film Psycho, Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) collapses to the floor after she is brutally murdered in the shower.

The water circling the drain echoes her loss of consciousness as she slips into death, and the subsequent image of her sightless eye shows us the incredible emotional power of a well-staged match cut.

Beyond basic continuity editing, this technique has evolved as a creative approach to tell stories, foreshadow the future, and provoke the most keen-eyed viewers.

Mark Freeman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/18/the-art-of-the-match-cut-how-filmmakers-make-impossible-transitions-feel-effortless/