Over half of all insider cyber attacks in UK schools are now being carried out by students, according to new findings from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

Alert

A new alert issued by the UK’s data protection regulator has highlighted a “worrying trend” in school cyber breaches, with children as young as seven found to be responsible for serious personal data breaches. The ICO’s analysis of 215 insider cyber incidents reported by education settings between January 2022 and August 2024 found that 57 per cent were caused by students, often exploiting weak security practices and misconfigured systems to gain access.

What’s Happening?

The new findings focus on what the ICO terms the “insider threat”, i.e. a cyber security breach originating from someone inside an organisation, rather than from external attackers. According to the ICO, it seems that in schools and colleges, that threat increasingly means the students themselves.

Logging In Rather Than Hacking In

While traditional hacking is often associated with remote cyber criminals, many of the breaches reported to the ICO involved students who were already inside the school network, whether physically or via a shared device. In most cases, these students didn’t need to ‘hack in’. Instead, they simply logged in using staff credentials they had guessed, found written down, or seen used in shared spaces. For example, the ICO’s investigation found that 30 per cent of the insider breaches involved students using stolen or guessed login details. Of those, 97 per cent were directly attributed to students.

Examples

Examples released by the ICO include Year 11 pupils using freely available hacking tools to access a secondary school’s student records database. In another case, a college student used a staff login to view, amend, or delete personal data belonging to more than 9,000 individuals, including students, applicants and staff. The data accessed included names, home addresses, school records, health data, safeguarding notes and emergency contact details.

Who And Why?

According to the National Crime Agency (NCA), around 1 in 5 children aged 10 to 16 have engaged in some form of illegal online activity. Many young people involved in school-based cyber breaches are tech-savvy teenagers, often motivated by curiosity, dares, rivalry or a desire to test their skills.

Heather Toomey, Principal Cyber Specialist at the ICO, warned: “What starts out as a dare, a challenge, a bit of fun in a school setting can ultimately lead to children taking part in damaging attacks on organisations or critical infrastructure.”

The ICO’s own report found that a number of student attackers were already members of online hacking forums, with some describing their interest in IT or cyber security as a motivation.

There are also concerns that peer pressure and notoriety may be playing a role. Also, with hacking tools readily available online and a growing culture of ‘cyber experimentation’ among teenagers, the barrier to entry has dropped significantly. In one shocking example, the youngest child referred to the NCA’s Cyber Choices programme (a diversion scheme for young people at risk of cyber crime) was just seven years old!

How Poor Cyber Practices Are Making Things Worse

While students are behind a growing number of these attacks, the ICO says that weak school security practices are often to blame for giving them the opportunity. For example, of the incidents it analysed:

– 23 per cent were due to poor data protection practices, such as staff leaving devices unattended or students being allowed to use staff machines.

– 20 per cent were caused by staff sending data to personal devices.

– 17 per cent were the result of incorrect system access rights, such as misconfigured permissions on platforms like SharePoint.

– Only 5 per cent involved more technically advanced attacks aimed at bypassing security or network controls.

This appears to paint a picture of education settings where basic cyber hygiene is not being consistently enforced, and where curiosity-driven students often find it all too easy to gain access.

In many cases looked at by the ICO, passwords were left written down or reused across multiple systems (password sharing). Also, systems were often inadequately segregated, with students able to access staff portals or administrative databases. Another issue was devices being left unlocked or unattended, giving unauthorised users the chance to view or export sensitive data.

Real-World Impacts

Although students may have been doing this for fun, the fallout from such incidents can be really serious. For example, breaches involving children’s personal data may trigger safeguarding risks, parental complaints, and mandatory reporting to regulators like the ICO and Action Fraud. They can also cause disruption to school operations and damage trust in digital education tools.

A breach involving sensitive pastoral care records or health data could lead to emotional distress for pupils and families. Although the ICO has not confirmed whether any of the reported incidents have resulted in enforcement action, it has made it clear that schools need to raise their game security-wise.

More broadly, the findings raise concerns that early, unchecked behaviour at school could lay the groundwork for more serious criminal activity later on. For example, children who get away with low-level school hacking may be more likely to go on to commit cyber crime in adulthood. In recent years, UK-based teenagers have been arrested in connection with high-profile attacks on major organisations including TfL, M&S and MGM Casinos.

What Can Be Done?

The ICO is urging schools to recognise the insider threat as a real and growing risk, and to take a more proactive approach to cyber security. That includes tightening access controls, improving staff training, and removing unnecessary opportunities for student access to staff systems.

“It’s important that we understand the next generation’s interests and motivations in the online world,” said Heather Toomey. “Schools must act to reduce these risks and ensure children remain on the right side of the law.”

The regulator recommends that GDPR and cyber training be refreshed regularly, especially for staff who handle sensitive pupil data. Schools are also encouraged to report breaches to the ICO promptly so that they can receive tailored guidance and support.

For parents, the message is to talk regularly with children about what they do online and how their actions may have legal and ethical consequences. The NCA’s Cyber Choices programme provides online resources for parents, educators, and young people to help channel cyber skills in positive directions.

It’s also worth noting that Ofsted and the Department for Education have both included cyber security and digital safeguarding as part of broader school leadership responsibilities, particularly for academy trusts and local authority-maintained schools managing large datasets across multiple sites.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The scale of these incidents appears to show deeper vulnerabilities in how education settings are managing access, accountability and digital safety. For example, although students may be the ones exploiting the gaps, it seems that the failures often begin with poor digital discipline among staff, misconfigured systems, and weak enforcement of policies that should be basic practice by now. This is, therefore, not just a safeguarding issue but a clear organisational risk, one that could just as easily apply to businesses that underestimate their own internal threat landscape.

For UK companies, especially those working with younger audiences or educational institutions, there’s a broader lesson here. If school systems with limited budgets and complex user bases are proving this easy to exploit, similar risks may be lurking within corporate networks where insider access is also widespread and often poorly monitored. With teenagers already engaging in low-level attacks on schools, and some progressing to more serious breaches in the private sector, early prevention and education have to be part of a wider national cyber strategy.

The ICO’s focus on education, awareness and remediation (rather than punishment) is also notable here. It suggests a recognition that many of these cases are not driven by malice, but by gaps in understanding, supervision and technical control. That said, the legal and reputational consequences of these breaches remain significant, and the longer schools delay action, the harder it will be to rebuild trust.

This appears to be an issue in which everyone has a role to play for prevention. For example, for schools, this means reviewing device access, credential management, and staff training as a matter of urgency. For parents, it means having clearer conversations with children about digital responsibility. Also, for policymakers and industry, it means recognising that today’s teenage hobbyist could become tomorrow’s insider threat, unless there are effective interventions, better systems and stronger support in place to redirect those skills.

A research team in Shenzhen has built a working “cassette tape” that stores files as synthetic DNA on a polyester‑nylon tape, with a theoretical capacity that could dwarf today’s magnetic cartridges.

Who Built It, And What Is It?

Scientists led by Professor Xingyu Jiang at Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech), with collaborators including Shanghai Jiao Tong University in China, have designed a compact tape and an automated drive that writes, protects, indexes and retrieves DNA‑encoded files. Their peer‑reviewed paper in Science Advances describes a barcoded membrane tape with hundreds of thousands of addressable partitions, an on‑tape chemical process to encapsulate DNA for long life, and a drive that handles file addressing, recovery and redeposition.

In tests, the team deposited 156.6 kilobytes across four image fragments and successfully reconstructed the full image. The system achieved up to 1,570 partitions per second and created more than 545,000 addressable partitions per 1,000 metres of tape.

Why?

With global data creation expected to reach hundreds of zettabytes by the end of the decade, traditional storage technologies are starting to fall behind in terms of density, durability and efficiency. DNA, on the other hand, offers enormous potential, able to store vast amounts of information in a very small space, with the ability to remain stable for hundreds of years without electricity. This makes it particularly suited to long-term cold storage of archival data.

Not A New Idea

It should be noted here that DNA storage itself is not new. For example, Microsoft and the University of Washington demonstrated the first automated DNA write‑and‑read system in 2019. Startups such as Catalog have also explored ways to make the process faster and more affordable.

What’s So Different About This System?

What sets the SUSTech team’s work apart is the physical format and indexing system, i.e. a roll of membrane tape with barcodes acting as folders and file locations, plus a compact drive that can retrieve and rewrite specific partitions automatically. The idea is to turn DNA storage into something that functions more like a conventional tape library.

How The “Cassette” Works

The tape is actually made from a polyester‑nylon composite. Researchers print black hydrophobic bars and white hydrophilic spaces that form barcodes using a Code‑128 pattern. These barcodes are read by the device’s optical system and used to locate individual files.

To store data, synthetic DNA strands are deposited onto selected partitions and bound using DNA “handles” that have been chemically attached to the tape. A metal-organic protective coating is then applied using zinc ions and 2‑methylimidazole. This Zeolitic Imidazolate Framework (ZIF) protects the DNA but can be removed in seconds when the file is needed. The DNA is then released, amplified and sequenced.

According to the team, the system currently supports around 74.7 gigabytes of actual data per kilometre, with a theoretical capacity of over 360 petabytes per kilometre if losses are eliminated.

Capacity Is Huge, But Speed Isn’t There Yet

While the capacity potential is impressive, it seems that performance remains slow. For example, in one demonstration, it took two and a half hours to recover four image files. The researchers believe this could be reduced to 47 minutes with improved parallel processing, but that still lags far behind existing tape technologies.

For comparison, an LTO‑9 cartridge can store up to 45 terabytes of compressed data and transfer it at hundreds of megabytes per second. By contrast, current DNA tape tests managed only around 75 gigabytes per kilometre, with recovery times measured in hours. This confirms the system is still at the research stage and not ready for large-scale deployment.

Density and Shelf Life Are Key Benefits

What makes the cassette system particularly promising is its density and long shelf life. DNA can retain data for centuries when protected, and the ZIF coating developed by the team allows that protection to be switched on and off quickly.

In accelerated ageing tests, the coated tape remained readable after six weeks at 70°C in humid conditions, whereas uncoated samples failed. The barcode indexing system also allows for targeted access and replacement of individual partitions without affecting the rest of the tape.

How It Compares To Other DNA Storage Approaches

Most current DNA storage approaches use particles, microfluidic chips or benchtop sequencers to handle file storage and retrieval. By contrast, the SUSTech system aims for scalability and automation. It converts a flat surface into a rollable medium, uses a mechanical head to dip partitions into reagents, and enables physical file management using barcodes.

However, the trade‑off here is speed. DNA reading and writing still depend on slow chemical and sequencing steps. Also, synthesis costs remain high, making the technology uncompetitive with tape for frequently accessed data.

Three Key Features

All things considered, three features of this system really stand out. These are:

1. Its high addressability. In other words, the system can store lots of separate files very close together on the tape (500,000 partitions per kilometre), and it can quickly find and access any specific file (1,570 files accessed per second).

2. The ability to erase and redeposit data on a single partition, replacing over 99 per cent of previous content.

3. The rapid ZIF-based protection system, which allows for stable long-term storage and quick decapsulation when needed, i.e. the protective layer can be quickly removed to access the data.

Who Will Use It?

If developed further, the system could be valuable for deep-archive use, where data must be stored securely for long periods without frequent access. For example, sectors such as media, finance, research and government already manage large volumes of rarely accessed data and could benefit from lower storage footprints and energy usage.

However, UK organisations also face strict data governance requirements. For example, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) states: “Holding personal data for too long can be as much a risk as not holding it long enough.” This means that any transition to ultra-dense media must still support data deletion, access control, and documented retention schedules.

Guidance

The ICO’s guidance is clear in this case, i.e. : “You must regularly review the data you are holding, and delete anything you no longer need.” These rules apply regardless of the storage format.

For UK businesses, that means DNA storage must still meet all the requirements of GDPR. Organisations must be able to demonstrate that personal data is held only for as long as necessary, can be retrieved when required, and can be permanently erased when it is no longer needed.

Key Numbers (With Context)

The research team behind the new system estimates a theoretical storage capacity of 362 petabytes per kilometre, which would equal around 375 petabytes on a cartridge the same size as current LTO‑9 media. To put this in context, a petabyte is about 1 million gigabytes, which is roughly equivalent to 250,000 HD movies, or 500 billion pages of standard text.

However, in practice, the system currently delivers just 74.7 gigabytes per kilometre, with slow recovery speeds. The difference between theoretical potential and real-world performance remains significant.

What Next?

Obvious next steps, therefore, include improving the input bandwidth of the system, i.e. ways to write more DNA in parallel, and integrating DNA synthesis directly onto the tape. Other teams are also reportedly working on cheaper synthesis methods and faster access technologies.

Rather than replacing tape, the cassette model from Shenzhen may, therefore, serve as a longer-term complement, packaged in a familiar form, but offering much greater density over time.

Challenges

As with all emerging storage technologies, there are some key challenges. Speed remains the biggest issue, with write and read operations still taking minutes or hours. Costs are also high, and reliable large-scale synthesis is still pretty much out of reach.

Safety and supply chain concerns will also need addressing, given the use of chemicals and lab‑grade processes. Crucially, there are some essential governance and compliance issues to take note of. As the ICO guidance makes clear, any future DNA-based system must allow for secure access, reliable deletion, and transparent oversight, regardless of how much data it can store.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Although this DNA cassette system is clearly not yet ready for commercial rollout, the core concept appears to demonstrate a clear step forward in how molecular storage could one day function at scale. The ability to automate writing, protect data on tape, and target individual partitions for retrieval or replacement is a notable change from lab-bound DNA experiments and towards integrated, physical storage devices.

For businesses in the UK and beyond, the long-term potential lies in highly durable, ultra-dense archives that demand little energy and minimal physical space. Sectors with growing compliance and retention requirements, such as financial services, life sciences and government records, will be watching closely. However, the cost of synthesis, the slow speed of read and write operations, and the reliance on specialised reagents and hardware mean that DNA media is still some way from practical deployment.

From a governance perspective, no format is exempt from data protection duties. The ICO’s guidance is unambiguous on that point. Any move towards alternative media, including DNA, must still support secure access, effective data minimisation, and provable erasure in line with UK GDPR. For organisations weighing up future options, the cassette format may prove useful, but only if it integrates cleanly with legal and operational frameworks already in place.

In short, for now, this is a promising development with strong technical foundations and clear use case potential in cold storage. What happens next will depend on how quickly the underlying processes can be refined and how well the technology can be aligned with real-world business needs.

OpenAI has secured Microsoft’s support to convert its for-profit arm into a Public Benefit Corporation, with the nonprofit parent retaining control and taking a stake worth more than $100 billion.

What Has Actually Happened?

OpenAI and Microsoft say they’ve signed a non-binding memorandum of understanding (MOU) for “the next phase” of their partnership. The agreement essentially lays the groundwork for OpenAI to recapitalise its for-profit division as a Delaware-based Public Benefit Corporation (PBC), with final terms still subject to approval by regulators in California and Delaware.

Finalising

In a joint statement, the two companies confirmed they are “actively working to finalise contractual terms in a definitive agreement”, while reaffirming a shared focus on “delivering the best AI tools for everyone, grounded in our shared commitment to safety.”

OpenAI board chair Bret Taylor explained the nonprofit would continue to control the organisation and, under the new structure, receive a direct equity stake in the PBC “that would exceed $100 billion.” If approved, this would make the OpenAI nonprofit one of the most well-resourced philanthropic entities in the world.

Why Move To A Public Benefit Corporation?

Public Benefit Corporations are a legal category of for-profit companies in Delaware that are required to pursue a stated public mission and balance it against shareholder returns. For example, for OpenAI, the appeal may lie in it being able to raise capital from traditional investors without abandoning the public-interest commitments baked into its original nonprofit charter.

OpenAI says the recapitalisation will allow it to raise the funds needed to advance its mission (developing artificial general intelligence, known as AGI, that benefits humanity) while also increasing the nonprofit’s financial capacity to support community-focused initiatives.

For example, OpenAI has already launched a $50 million grant fund aimed at boosting AI literacy, local innovation and economic opportunity, and says the new structure will unlock the ability to do much more.

How This Differs From Altman’s Earlier Model

Looking back to when Altman took over as CEO, OpenAI created a “capped-profit” structure in 2019. That model allowed for external investment but placed a ceiling on returns, with any surplus redirected to the nonprofit. It was a novel attempt to balance innovation and social purpose, but one that has since come under strain as the company’s ambitions (and valuations) have soared.

This new move effectively replaces the capped-profit structure with a standard equity-based PBC model. In other words, while the nonprofit retains control and receives a substantial stake, it no longer sets a formal cap on investor returns. This should allow increased flexibility while maintaining a clear mission through governance.

Another View

That all appears fine, however a more cynical observer might see OpenAI’s move as a calculated step to unlock vast commercial gains while preserving a veneer of altruism. For example, by converting its for‑profit arm into a Public Benefit Corporation, OpenAI can raise unlimited investment, offer conventional equity, and potentially go public, free from the constraints of its earlier capped‑profit model. The nonprofit’s newly announced $100 billion stake, while impressive, could be viewed by some as a way to reframe a profit‑driven shift as a philanthropic victory.

Critics might also argue the change allows OpenAI to loosen its reliance on Microsoft without damaging the partnership, giving it room to grow across multiple cloud providers. At the same time, positioning the nonprofit as a powerful oversight body may help deflect regulatory scrutiny and safety concerns. In this light, the transition could be seen not so much as a governance breakthrough, but more as a reputational strategy, designed to balance investor demands, scale ambitions and public trust without truly relinquishing control.

Why Microsoft Is Supporting It

Microsoft’s strategic interest is pretty obvious. It has invested billions in OpenAI since 2019 and integrated its models across Azure, Microsoft 365 and Copilot. At the same time, OpenAI’s growing infrastructure needs and commercial scale are pushing it beyond what a single partner, or a limited-profit structure, can support.

Backing the transition to a PBC lets Microsoft preserve its commercial relationship with OpenAI while accommodating the startup’s need for expansion. Under existing agreements, Microsoft still gets preferred access to OpenAI’s technology and remains the primary cloud provider. But that relationship is no longer exclusive.

For example, earlier this year, OpenAI reportedly agreed to spend $300 billion with Oracle Cloud over five years from 2027. It also signed a deal with SoftBank for its Stargate data centre project, making it clear that future growth depends on a multi-cloud strategy.

Capital, Scale And Market Power

The most striking figure in the announcement is the $100 billion+ valuation attached to the nonprofit’s stake. While not independently verified, the figure implies a significant step-up in OpenAI’s market value and sends a clear message to future investors that the new entity will be structured for major fundraising, possibly including an IPO.

For businesses, the shift could mean faster product rollouts, greater scale, and more robust service levels. A clearer corporate structure may also make OpenAI a more straightforward partner for UK organisations, particularly in the public sector or regulated industries where governance and transparency matter.

What It Means For Microsoft

With this deal, Microsoft retains strong commercial and technical ties but avoids being dragged into future boardroom drama. The events of late 2023, when OpenAI’s nonprofit board briefly removed and then reinstated Altman, highlighted the governance tensions in the previous setup.

By endorsing the PBC model, therefore, Microsoft helps stabilise the structure without needing to formally take control. It still benefits from deep integration of OpenAI models into its ecosystem, including for UK enterprise clients using Azure AI.

For example, Microsoft has already embedded OpenAI models into key products like Teams, Word and Excel. The new structure ensures those integrations can continue at pace while OpenAI pursues its wider commercial ambitions.

Competitors

OpenAI’s rivals are unlikely to stay quiet about this deal. For example, Anthropic, backed by Amazon and Google, has operated as a Public Benefit Corporation since 2023 and has positioned itself as the safety-first alternative. Meta continues to champion open models, and Elon Musk’s xAI has made governance part of its pitch.

With OpenAI now adopting a more standard commercial structure, scrutiny will likely turn to how it balances mission and profit in practice. Advocacy groups such as Encode and The Midas Project have already raised concerns that the transition risks diluting the company’s nonprofit ideals.

Critics argue that such a large financial shift, paired with increased commercial freedom, could incentivise risky behaviours unless safeguards are put in place.

Challenges, Risks And Legal Hurdles

While the MOU with Microsoft clears a major obstacle, the transition still depends on regulatory approval. OpenAI says it is working with the Attorneys General of California and Delaware to ensure compliance with corporate and charitable law. That process could take months and may come with conditions or oversight requirements.

OpenAI has also faced legal pressure from former partners. For example, Elon Musk’s lawsuit against the company argues that it has strayed from its original nonprofit mission, with Microsoft’s influence and recent capital plans cited as evidence.

Also, former employees and AI researchers have warned that governance alone may not be enough to ensure safety, particularly if OpenAI moves faster than regulators can respond. For example, OpenAI’s governance review committee, created in 2024 after the board crisis, has yet to publish its findings. How this ties into the new PBC structure remains unclear.

What Businesses Should Watch

For UK companies, several things are likely to really matter here. For example, the recapitalisation could accelerate development of enterprise tools built on OpenAI’s foundation models. Also, the nonprofit’s philanthropic arm may expand its UK grant funding, particularly in education and local innovation. Businesses will also want clarity on how OpenAI’s safety commitments are maintained and enforced under the new structure.

Most of all, OpenAI’s move suggests that the AI industry may be entering a new phase, i.e. one where growth, governance and public interest must be balanced at unprecedented scale. This transition may not be the final step, but it could help determine how AI leadership evolves and what role UK organisations are able to play.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

OpenAI’s decision to push ahead with this structural change appears to be aimed at unlocking new sources of investment and long-term commercial growth while maintaining public trust in its mission. The Public Benefit Corporation model offers a legal route to do both at once, though whether that balance holds in practice will depend on how governance is applied and enforced. The nonprofit’s stake, reportedly worth more than $100 billion, is designed to show that public interest will still have a seat at the table, but that does not guarantee influence if financial pressures take priority.

For Microsoft, the arrangement allows it to protect its existing technical integrations and product roadmap without getting dragged into OpenAI’s internal politics. It also avoids the risk of losing access if OpenAI were to move away from Azure entirely. At the same time, it now must accept that OpenAI will work with other cloud providers, potentially reducing Microsoft’s control over where and how OpenAI’s most advanced models are deployed.

For UK businesses, the practical outcome could be positive in the short term. More capital and more scale should mean faster rollouts, better support, and a more stable supply of cutting-edge models across a growing number of platforms. For regulated industries and public bodies, a clearer governance framework may help address procurement concerns about transparency and safety. However, businesses will need to stay alert to how these commitments are upheld and what contractual guarantees actually make it into commercial terms.

Critics may argue that this is less about safeguarding humanity and more about enabling a lucrative move to public markets. That may or may not prove true, but for now the deal reflects the reality that AI development is already operating on a scale where traditional structures and funding models no longer apply. The coming months will reveal whether OpenAI can keep its mission and its commercial future aligned, and how closely regulators and investors are prepared to hold it to that promise.

Microsoft has warned of slower Azure cloud services after key undersea internet cables in the Red Sea were cut, forcing traffic to be rerouted and causing delays across parts of Asia and the Middle East.

The damage, near Jeddah in Saudi Arabia, affected the SMW4 and IMEWE cable systems, which are two major routes linking Europe and Asia. Microsoft said traffic outside the Middle East is unaffected, but users in India, Pakistan and the UAE are facing slower speeds, especially at peak times.

The cause remains unclear, though regional tensions have fuelled concerns about sabotage. For example, in February, Yemen’s Houthi rebels were accused of planning attacks on similar infrastructure, though they denied involvement.

Microsoft has now diverted traffic through alternate paths, but repairing the damage may take weeks and cost up to £1 million per incident. Limited repair crews and the strategic importance of the Red Sea make the region especially vulnerable.

To reduce risk, businesses should review their cloud provider’s resilience, diversify service routes where possible, and ensure key systems can tolerate temporary delays.

ExxonMobil has unveiled a new form of synthetic graphite designed to extend electric vehicle battery life by up to 30 per cent, in a move that could reshape the EV materials supply chain.

A Major Energy Player With a New Direction

ExxonMobil is best known as one of the world’s largest oil and gas companies, with operations spanning upstream exploration, refining, petrochemicals and energy logistics. However, in recent years, the company has increasingly turned its attention to low-carbon technologies, focusing on areas where it believes it holds a competitive advantage, such as carbon capture, hydrogen, and chemical-based solutions.

While it has often avoided wind and solar projects, citing a lack of in-house capability, ExxonMobil has consistently invested in R&D in the materials space. This latest development, presented by CEO Darren Woods at the University of Texas at Austin’s Energy Symposium, represents a significant step into the EV battery supply chain.

What Is This New Graphite, and Why Does It Matter?

The material is a newly engineered synthetic form of graphite, used in the anode of lithium-ion batteries, that the company claims can extend battery lifespan, improve charging speeds, and increase vehicle range.

“The carbon molecule structures we’ve developed show real promise for faster charging and longer-lasting batteries,” said Woods during the announcement. “This is a revolutionary step change in battery performance.”

Synthetic graphite is already a critical ingredient in EV batteries, accounting for more than 90 per cent of commercial anode material. However, existing production methods are energy-intensive, supply chains are stretched, and natural graphite sourcing is geographically constrained, with over 60 per cent of global supply currently coming from China.

ExxonMobil says its new form of graphite is designed for consistency and high performance, and can be manufactured using carbon-rich feedstocks derived from existing refining processes. This means the company can use its current infrastructure to produce the material at scale, reducing reliance on mining operations and imported feedstocks.

From Oil Barrels to Battery Materials

The move into battery materials may seem like a departure from ExxonMobil’s traditional focus, but the company actually has quite a long-standing history in the battery space. For example, it co-invented the lithium-ion battery in the 1970s and developed the plastic separator films used in early rechargeable versions.

Now, with the acquisition of Superior Graphite’s US production assets and technology, ExxonMobil is laying the groundwork for a large-scale synthetic graphite business. According to the company’s blog, the acquisition will allow it to build a “robust, American-based supply chain” for synthetic graphite.

“We’re expanding into the advanced synthetic graphite business, and we’re doing it with a name that’s been in the game for over a century,” said the company in a September statement.

Who Could Use This Graphite, and Why Now?

The synthetic graphite is being trialled by multiple unnamed EV manufacturers, although details remain under wraps at present. Industry analysts say it could be especially valuable for high-performance EVs, commercial electric fleets, and energy storage systems (BESS) that require longer cycle lives and more stable charging patterns.

By 2030, demand for battery-grade graphite is projected to exceed 4 million metric tonnes annually (Benchmark Mineral Intelligence). With growing concerns about China’s dominance in graphite processing, Western governments and manufacturers are actively seeking alternative, scalable sources.

For EV makers, better anode materials could reduce the cost per kilowatt-hour of batteries, improve durability, and reduce consumer anxiety around battery degradation.

For consumers, the promise of longer-lasting, faster-charging batteries could mean fewer replacements, longer warranties, and better range per charge, which are all critical factors in encouraging wider EV adoption.

The Implications for ExxonMobil and Its Competitors

Although ExxonMobil has stated it does not intend to become a battery maker, the strategic move into anode materials positions it as a key supplier to one of the fastest-growing industries in the world. The company has said it expects to start commercial production of the graphite by 2029.

This puts ExxonMobil in direct competition with a range of players including Chinese graphite suppliers, Korean battery component firms, and materials companies like SGL Carbon and Syrah Resources. While some rivals focus on natural graphite mined in Africa or South America, ExxonMobil’s emphasis on synthetic production could appeal to buyers looking for stable, traceable, and lower-emissions supply chains.

It could also provide the company with a new source of revenue as demand for petrol and diesel continues to decline in line with electrification targets across Europe, the UK, and North America.

“This isn’t a step in; it’s a full-scale launch with power and purpose,” the company said. “When our product enters the market, we expect it will deliver faster charging and longer life than existing graphite materials today.”

Sustainability Claims Under Scrutiny

ExxonMobil argues that synthetic graphite offers significant sustainability benefits compared to traditional mining. For example, its internal estimates suggest the process could be less energy-intensive, more land-efficient, and have higher throughput than natural alternatives.

However, the environmental impact of producing synthetic graphite at scale remains a subject of debate. Critics point to the use of fossil-based feedstocks, the carbon footprint of high-temperature furnaces, and the lack of independent life cycle analysis to support the company’s claims.

Some experts have welcomed the technical breakthrough but say the environmental claims still need to be independently verified. While synthetic graphite can offer improved purity and performance compared to natural sources, producing it typically involves energy-intensive processes and high-temperature furnaces. Without a full lifecycle assessment, it’s unclear whether ExxonMobil’s version offers a lower carbon footprint overall.

Some environmental groups have also expressed concern that the announcement could serve as a reputational tool, allowing the company to appear aligned with energy transition goals while continuing high levels of oil and gas production. ExxonMobil has faced ongoing criticism over its lobbying record and past delays in embracing renewable energy.

Barriers and Uncertainties Ahead

Despite the positive headlines, several hurdles remain. For example, the synthetic graphite market is highly competitive, and pricing pressure from natural sources remains a factor. Regulatory alignment, especially for battery materials used in vehicles sold in the EU and UK, may require third-party certification and data disclosure.

ExxonMobil also acknowledged risks around market timing and tax incentives. In a recent comment about its hydrogen and ammonia plans, Woods warned that changing government policy could create uncertainty for long-term investment.

“We can’t do it on charity,” he said, referring to the limited duration of US tax credits under recent legislation.

Even so, the company appears to be betting that its scale, technical experience, and control of the supply chain will allow it to succeed where others have struggled.

What Does This Mean For Your Organisation?

What happens next depends on how effectively ExxonMobil can scale up production and prove the performance gains it is promising. If the material lives up to expectations, it could give battery manufacturers and vehicle makers access to a more stable, domestic supply of high-performance anode material, especially in markets looking to reduce dependence on China. That includes the UK, where securing critical minerals and battery components has become a growing concern for both government and industry. A reliable source of synthetic graphite with lower volatility and consistent quality could support EV production, battery research, and even domestic energy storage projects.

For UK firms involved in automotive manufacturing, advanced materials, or clean energy systems, this may open up opportunities for new partnerships or supply arrangements, particularly if ExxonMobil’s product proves compatible with emerging battery chemistries. At the same time, UK businesses developing their own alternatives will likely face growing competition from larger, vertically integrated players able to produce materials at scale and integrate them into existing logistics and refining networks.

ExxonMobil’s move appears to signal that legacy energy companies are looking for viable routes into clean tech supply chains without abandoning their core expertise. Whether this is seen as genuine innovation or simply an extension of fossil-based operations will depend on the transparency of the data that follows. If the environmental claims can be substantiated and the product delivers on cost and performance, it may set a new standard for what synthetic graphite can do. If not, the gap between energy transition rhetoric and reality may widen even further.

Either way, the development adds some momentum to an increasingly strategic part of the EV supply chain. For governments, manufacturers, and consumers alike, a more competitive graphite market could bring welcome improvements in performance, pricing, and resilience. However, it will also bring new questions about sustainability, transparency, and where the true value in the battery industry really lies.

ChatGPT provides an extremely powerful way to study, get an interactive ‘mentor’ and improve your learning abilities in many other ways too. By leveraging the ‘Study Mode’, you can accelerate your training to the next level and best of all, it’s so easy to use.

[Note – To Watch This Video without glitches/interruptions, It may be best to download it first]

We’ve all done it — you’re working away, close a browser tab by mistake, and instantly regret it.

Good news: most browsers let you reopen it in seconds. On Windows, just press Ctrl + Shift + T; on a Mac, use Cmd + Shift + T. Your last closed tab will reappear, and you can repeat the shortcut to bring back several tabs.

Many browsers also keep a full history, so you can find a site later if needed. This simple trick avoids frustration and keeps you moving.

Sainsbury’s has begun testing facial recognition technology in selected stores to identify repeat offenders and reduce shoplifting, triggering a wave of privacy concerns from civil liberties groups.

Surveillance Trial Rolling Out in London and Bath

The supermarket chain confirmed that an eight-week pilot programme is underway at a small number of stores in London and Bath. The facial recognition cameras are supplied by Facewatch, a UK-based security technology firm that already provides similar services to a range of retailers.

The system captures the biometric data of individuals who are already on a watchlist for suspected theft or abuse. If someone flagged on this list enters a participating store, an alert is sent to staff in real time. Sainsbury’s says the trial is being used only at locations with a high incidence of repeat offending.

The trial began in late August and is expected to run through to October. Depending on results, it could be expanded to more branches across the UK. Facewatch claims its technology can help retailers cut shoplifting and abuse by deterring known offenders and giving staff more time to intervene safely.

Why Sainsbury’s Is Doing This Now

Retail crime has surged in recent years, with the British Retail Consortium (BRC) estimating the total cost to the sector at £1.76 billion in 2023, including £1.04 billion in customer theft alone. Also, physical assaults and abuse of shop workers have also been rising sharply, prompting calls for tougher enforcement and more robust security measures.

Sainsbury’s said in a statement: “We’re constantly looking at new ways to keep our colleagues and customers safe. We’re currently trialling facial recognition in a small number of stores where there is a high level of crime.”

Signage About It

The company emphasised that the technology is not being used for general customer surveillance or profiling, and that signage is in place at affected locations to notify shoppers that facial recognition is in use.

Powered by Facewatch (Controversially)

The system being used by Sainsbury’s is provided by Facewatch, a private facial recognition firm founded in 2010. Facewatch says it operates within UK GDPR and the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and only stores data on those individuals who have been involved in past incidents, as reported by retailers.

Its technology compares live CCTV footage to images held in its centralised database of “subjects of interest.” If there is a match, an alert is sent to store staff with a still-image and time-stamped location data.

While Facewatch has been used by independent retailers, petrol stations and other supermarket chains including Southern Co-op and Budgens, it has not previously been adopted by any of the UK’s four major supermarket brands at this scale.

It seems that the company has drawn some criticism from privacy campaigners for operating a privately managed watchlist system that can share biometric alerts between businesses, with concerns raised about accuracy, accountability, and the lack of independent oversight.

The move by Sainsbury’s essentially takes facial recognition further into the retail mainstream and puts the technology under new levels of public and regulatory scrutiny. It also raises the stakes for how and where this kind of surveillance may be used next across the sector.

Privacy Groups Push Back

Civil liberties organisations were quick to voice concerns. For example, Big Brother Watch, a UK privacy campaign group, accused Sainsbury’s of introducing “unnecessary and Orwellian” surveillance under the guise of crime prevention.

“Facial recognition surveillance is extreme, and Sainsbury’s customers should not be subjected to identity checks to buy milk,” said Madeleine Stone, Senior Advocacy Officer at Big Brother Watch. “This sets a dangerous precedent not just for retail, but for everyday public life.”

The group also raised concerns about transparency and consent, arguing that biometric surveillance in shops blurs the line between policing and commerce. It warned that the use of facial recognition could result in misidentifications, discrimination, and the over-policing of vulnerable groups.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has previously cautioned organisations using facial recognition to ensure legal compliance and necessity. It has not commented directly on the Sainsbury’s trial but is likely to monitor developments closely.

Facewatch’s Role in Expanding Everyday Surveillance

Sainsbury’s pilot sits within a broader shift where facial recognition is moving from niche deployments to visible use in everyday retail settings. Southern Co‑op has used Facewatch across dozens of branches since 2020, while independent convenience stores and some symbol groups have reported measurable reductions in repeat theft when using similar watchlist alerts. In one Morrisons Daily site, the store owner told trade press that incidents dropped by as much as ninety per cent after installation, though these results are self‑reported rather than independently audited.

Other Big Chains Are Already Testing the Waters

Other large grocers have been testing live facial recognition in recent months. For example, Asda ran a trial across five Greater Manchester stores, drawing thousands of complaints and sustained criticism from privacy groups, which shows how quickly public reaction can become a material factor in rollouts. Iceland has also been named by campaigners as exploring use, although details remain limited. These parallel efforts are relevant to Sainsbury’s because they indicate how public tolerance, operational benefits, and regulatory scrutiny interact in real retail environments.

Concerns About Accuracy and Misidentification

Concerns about accuracy and fairness remain central to the debate about the use of this kind of technology. For example, privacy group Big Brother Watch argues that commercial watchlists risk misidentifying innocent shoppers because entries are often created by retailers rather than police and can be shared between participating businesses. The group says this creates a risk of people being wrongly flagged and excluded. There have been reported misidentifications, including a case where a customer was barred after a Facewatch alert, which Facewatch later acknowledged was an error. These cases are shaping campaigners’ calls for stricter safeguards and clearer lines of accountability.

Legal Uncertainty Around Commercial Use

The policy landscape adds another layer. For example, the UK has no dedicated statute that comprehensively governs private sector facial recognition in public‑facing spaces, so retailers largely rely on data protection law, necessity and proportionality tests, and DPIAs to justify deployments. The ICO has previously investigated Facewatch and related deployments and, according to evidence submitted to Parliament, identified multiple areas where policies needed to better balance legitimate interests with people’s rights. This context frames what retailers must document and evidence when running pilots like Sainsbury’s.

How the Trial Is Being Measured

Operationally, Sainsbury’s says the Facewatch system is configured to alert staff only when a person on a pre‑defined watchlist is detected, focused on individuals linked to violence, aggression, or theft. Faces that do not match are deleted immediately, and signage at trial stores informs customers that facial recognition is in use. The supermarket has also stressed that the pilot is limited to locations with high levels of repeat offending, and that it is intended to support staff safety rather than to monitor ordinary shoppers.

Retail Crime Data Is Driving Urgency

Evaluation will centre on measurable changes in repeat theft and abuse, staff perceptions of safety, and any displacement effects, for example incidents shifting to nearby stores. The British Retail Consortium reports retail theft at crisis levels, with more than twenty million incidents in 2023 to 2024 and an estimated £2.2 billion lost to shoplifting, which explains why large chains are testing additional controls alongside guards, body‑worn cameras, and product protection. These sector‑wide figures provide the baseline against which any impact from facial recognition will be assessed.

Public Reaction Will Influence Industry Direction

It’s likely that public response will also form part of the assessment. Big Brother Watch has labelled the Sainsbury’s pilot “deeply disproportionate and chilling,” arguing that biometric scanning in supermarkets treats shoppers as suspects and risks normalising identity checks for everyday purchases. Trade unions have tended to frame the question through the lens of staff safety, calling for evidence‑led approaches that reduce violence and abuse at work. Therefore, how these competing views evolve during the pilot will influence whether other national chains follow Sainsbury’s lead.

Regulatory Input Could Shape What Comes Next

Also, any regulatory feedback could shape the design of future deployments. For example, if the ICO receives complaints during the trial, it may seek clarifications on data retention, watchlist criteria, redress routes for mistaken identity, and transparency notices. Previous facial recognition pilots in retail and other sectors have drawn attention to these governance questions, so documenting them clearly is likely to be as important as any headline reduction in theft.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The outcome of this trial will matter not only for Sainsbury’s but for any UK business operating in high-footfall environments where theft, abuse, or anti-social behaviour is on the rise. If facial recognition is shown to reduce repeat offending without undermining customer trust, other sectors may begin exploring similar systems, from retail and hospitality to logistics and healthcare. However, that will depend on clear governance, strong safeguards, and public confidence in how the technology is being used.

For technology providers, the stakes are also high. For example, Facewatch’s credibility as a supplier of compliant, proportionate, and accurate surveillance tools may hinge on how this pilot is received by regulators and rights groups. If the ICO intervenes or public backlash intensifies, it could limit how far these systems can expand. Businesses adopting facial recognition will need to be ready to justify every aspect of its deployment, from necessity and proportionality to data handling and redress.

For consumers and communities, the case raises fresh questions about what kind of monitoring is acceptable in everyday spaces, and where the boundaries lie between legitimate protection and excessive surveillance. The lack of specific legislation leaves a vacuum where privacy, ethics, and commercial interest are all pulling in different directions. Without clear national rules, it may fall to individual retailers, campaigners, and regulators to shape how far this goes.

As the pilot continues, attention will turn to how Sainsbury’s measures success and handles concerns. Whether this becomes a new layer of shopfloor security or a short-lived experiment will depend on what the results show, how they are interpreted, and whether wider industry and political appetite supports rolling it out further.

A three-month evaluation of Microsoft’s M365 Copilot AI assistant in a key UK department found mixed results and few measurable efficiency gains.

Mixed Results From Promising Tech

The UK Department for Business and Trade (DBT) has published the results of a detailed trial of Microsoft’s M365 Copilot AI assistant, revealing no definitive evidence that the tool leads to higher productivity. Despite users reporting moderate satisfaction and perceived time savings, the trial concluded that the AI often performed inconsistently across tasks, and in some cases, reduced output quality.

The trial, which ran from October to December 2024, involved 1,000 Copilot licences distributed across the department, with roughly 300 participants consenting to monitored usage. The pilot aimed to assess the AI’s real-world impact on common digital tasks using Microsoft 365 apps such as Word, Outlook, Teams, Excel and PowerPoint.

Microsoft markets Copilot as an AI productivity enhancer that can summarise meetings, draft emails, generate slides, analyse data, and more. However, the DBT report suggests the real-world impact was far more nuanced than the promotional material might suggest.

Where Copilot Worked And Where It Didn’t

The government study found that users were most satisfied when using Copilot to perform simpler, text-based tasks, e.g., summarising meetings, writing emails, and condensing written communications.

In the trial, these tasks consistently showed time savings and improved clarity when compared with work from non-Copilot users. Email writing was slightly faster and judged higher in quality and accuracy.

However, performance in more complex tasks was notably weaker. For example, data analysis in Excel and visual content creation in PowerPoint suffered, with AI-generated outputs often requiring correction or falling short of expectations. PowerPoint slide creation was seven minutes faster on average, but to a lower standard of quality. In Excel, AI users took longer and produced less accurate results than their non-AI counterparts.

The report concluded: “We did not find robust evidence to suggest that time savings are leading to improved productivity. However, this was not a key aim of the evaluation, and therefore, limited data was collected to identify if time savings have led to productivity gains.”

Light Usage of Copilot

The study also revealed relatively light usage patterns. According to the M365 Copilot dashboard, the average user triggered just 1.14 Copilot actions per working day across the 63-day pilot.

Word, Outlook and Teams saw the highest engagement, but more specialised tools such as Excel, PowerPoint, Loop and OneNote saw very low uptake, i.e., less than 7 percent of users activated Copilot in Excel or PowerPoint on any given day. Loop and OneNote usage was negligible.

These numbers raise questions about whether the value justifies the cost. For example, UK commercial Copilot licences currently range from £4.90 to £18.10 per user per month. For large departments or enterprises, these costs could escalate rapidly, especially if many users engage with the tool only sporadically.

User Attitudes and AI Limitations

While 72 percent of participants were “satisfied or very satisfied” with Copilot, it seems that qualitative interviews suggested that much of this enthusiasm came from the novelty or perceived time saved on repetitive admin tasks. In some cases, staff used their saved time to take training courses or enjoy longer breaks, rather than focusing on higher-value work.

Interestingly, a significant number of participants (22 percent) reported witnessing hallucinations (AI-generated inaccuracies or fabrications). Another 11 percent were unsure, highlighting the still-fragile trust in GenAI tools in professional settings.

Adoption also varied across teams, often influenced by management attitudes. Some line managers actively encouraged use, while others created a “frosty” culture around AI assistance, which in turn impacted engagement.

Microsoft and Its Competitors

For Microsoft, the report is clearly a mixed result. The company has heavily invested in integrating Copilot across its core product suite and has made productivity gains a central part of its pitch. But in the DBT trial, the return on investment appears questionable.

Critics say that the AI’s strengths in low-complexity tasks are well documented, but the promise of broad-based productivity enhancement still feels premature.

A recent MIT survey cited in the DBT report found that 95 percent of companies investing in generative AI tools (including M365 Copilot) had little tangible benefit to show for it. With corporate spending on GenAI already topping $40 billion, pressure is growing for vendors to demonstrate real ROI.

The findings may also embolden competitors such as Google, Zoho, or even open-source productivity platforms. For now, Copilot’s core strength appears to lie in routine, text-heavy admin support. In more complex tasks requiring judgement or accuracy, it remains inconsistent.

As DBT continues to analyse the environmental and cost impacts of Copilot, Microsoft may need to further refine how its AI interacts with different apps and workflows, or risk a broader slowdown in enterprise adoption.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The DBT trial showed that M365 Copilot could save time on routine admin, but may not provide any meaningful productivity gains across a department. For UK businesses considering using the tool (or using it already), this raises some serious questions about cost-effectiveness, especially where licences are purchased at scale but only lightly used. With Microsoft positioning Copilot as a flagship product, the pressure to deliver clear, measurable value will only grow.

Usage data from the trial suggests that even in a controlled, well-supported environment, AI tools are far from being embedded into daily workflows. Inconsistent performance in more complex tasks, combined with ongoing concerns about hallucinations, points to a maturity gap that will be difficult to ignore. Competitors offering simpler or more focused AI products may now find space to challenge Microsoft’s all-in-one approach, particularly in areas where users need speed and accuracy over generalised support.

WordPress used WordCamp US 2025 in Portland to debut ‘Telex’, an experimental AI tool that turns plain English prompts into downloadable website blocks, making it faster and easier to build custom WordPress features without coding.

What Telex Is And Why It Matters

Telex is a prototype that generates custom Gutenberg blocks (the modular sections that make up WordPress pages) from a typed prompt, then packages the result as a downloadable .zip. The .zip file can then be uploaded as a plugin to a WordPress site or tested in WordPress Playground. In his keynote, WordPress co-founder and Automattic CEO Matt Mullenweg described it as “V0 or Lovable, but specifically for WordPress,” referencing the rise of prompt-based “vibe coding” tools (vibe coding is using AI to generate code from natural language prompts). He showed how a developer used it to create a simple marketing animation, underscoring the aim to lower the barrier to building bespoke site elements.

The service is currently available at telex.automattic.ai and is marked as experimental, to show users that it’s still a work in progress. Early testers have reported that there have been projects that failed outright or needed manual fixes before working properly, which is consistent with the current prototype label. “At the core of it, there is a seed of something, which is so enabling,” Mullenweg said, while also acknowledging concerns about the hype cycle around AI.

Who Is Behind It?

Telex follows WordPress’s formation of a formal AI Team in May 2025, which was set up to coordinate AI features across the ecosystem using a plugin-first approach. The initial team includes contributors from Automattic, Google, and 10up, the apparent brief being to “accelerate and coordinate artificial intelligence projects” in line with WordPress values. This is the governance backdrop for Telex and other experiments.

How It Works In Practice

The idea of how Telex is used is simple, i.e. users describe the block they want (for example, a hero section with animated text and a call to action) and Telex generates code that the user can install as a plugin. WordPress Playground, which runs full WordPress instances in the browser, provides a safe place to try outputs without touching a live site. For many users, especially small teams, this should reduce the set-up overhead of traditional development and encourage and speed up layout or interaction ideas.

What’s So Special About Telex (Compared With Other AI Builders)?

There are, of course, plenty of AI website builders that generate whole sites in one go, including Wix’s AI Website Builder and Squarespace’s Blueprint AI. However, Telex is different because it targets WordPress’s modular architecture and outputs discrete Gutenberg blocks that can slot into existing sites, themes, and workflows. For teams invested in WordPress, that is a more natural fit than moving to a closed, hosted builder. Wix and Squarespace are pitching all-in-one creation and hosting, often with paid plans and platform lock-in, whereas Telex sticks to WordPress’s open approach and lets users host sites wherever they choose.

Benefits Businesses Might Notice

If Telex matures, the immediate benefit is likely to be time saved due to speed. For example, routine front-end building blocks such as hero sections, testimonial carousels, or animated counters could be generated in just minutes, then refined by a developer rather than built from scratch. Since the output is a standard plugin zip, teams can check the code, keep track of changes, and remove it easily if needed, which suits organisations that follow strict approval processes.

For non-technical teams that still prefer WordPress, Telex simplifies things. WordPress powers 43.4 percent of all websites (according to W3Techs , so any step that makes customisation easier is likely to have an outsized impact. If prompt-to-block works well, agencies could prototype options live with clients, then hand over code that slots into existing repos and CI pipelines.

Playground is also useful because it allows developers to test Telex-generated blocks in a browser without needing a live site. They can install the plugin, check it works as expected, and export the result as a .zip file when ready.

Where It Fits In The Competitive Landscape

WordPress remains the most widely used content management system. Other platforms such as Wix and Squarespace have recently introduced AI features that build entire sites in minutes, aimed at first-time users and small businesses.

Telex takes a different approach. Instead of generating whole websites, it focuses on creating individual WordPress blocks that can be added to existing themes and layouts. It stays within the open WordPress system and gives users the freedom to host their websites anywhere, which is often a priority for businesses that want more control over their data and setup.

This could help WordPress hold onto small businesses that might otherwise switch to closed, hosted platforms. If Telex proves reliable, it may also speed up work for agencies and internal teams who already build with WordPress.

There may also be knock-on effects across the WordPress ecosystem. If businesses can generate standard blocks themselves, this could reduce demand for some paid plugins and themes. At the same time, it could create new opportunities for agencies to offer reviewed prompt templates, support services, or curated collections of AI-generated blocks for clients in regulated industries.

Key Challenges And Early Criticism

It seems that Telex has already faced some questions about reliability, e.g. there have been reports that several early test projects failed or needed extra work before they could run properly. For now, it’s likely that businesses will still need developers to review, test, and secure any blocks before using them on a live site. How well Telex handles different themes, and whether it supports accessibility and good performance by default, will make a big difference to how useful it becomes.

There’s also the wider legal backdrop. For example, WordPress and Automattic (the company behind WordPress.com and a major contributor to the platform) have spent the past year in a legal dispute with hosting provider WP Engine. That case led to a court-ordered injunction in December 2024 and remains ongoing. Although it has nothing to do with Telex, the dispute has raised concerns about how decisions are made in the WordPress ecosystem and who holds the influence. At WordCamp, Mullenweg said only that the case was moving through the legal system.

Security is another area that will need close attention because like any AI tool that writes code, Telex can produce weak or incomplete results if the prompts are unclear. As WordPress runs in so many different environments, even small errors can lead to problems. WordPress Playground (the browser-based version of WordPress used for safe testing) may help lower the risk during development, but once in production, businesses will still need to carry out proper checks, just as they would with any third-party plugin.

What It Could Mean For WordPress

Telex is part of WordPress’s ongoing move to introduce AI in a way that’s open and easy to test. The AI Team set up in May 2025 has said it will use a plugin-first approach, meaning features like Telex will be released separately at first, not baked into WordPress Core. If Telex becomes more widely used, it could start to shape WordPress development practices, training materials, and support tools.

It could also lead to more conversational features in WordPress itself, such as tools that help users build blocks by describing what they want in plain English. Mullenweg made clear that this ties directly into WordPress’s long-standing goal of making publishing accessible to everyone. “We’ve taken things that were difficult to do, that required knowledge of coding or anything else, and made it accessible to people,” he said.

If AI can continue that trend without lowering code quality or reducing choice, Telex could help keep more creators on the WordPress platform rather than losing them to simpler, hosted services.

What About Business Users of WordPress?

For small and medium-sized UK businesses already using WordPress, Telex could speed up common tasks such as adding new sections to a homepage, updating layouts, or testing different calls to action. Also, marketing teams could test ideas quickly and agencies could deliver small custom features faster and at lower cost. Developers could spend less time writing basic layout code and more time on integrations, security, and performance.

For companies in regulated sectors, the fact that Telex generates installable plugins, not hosted code or external widgets, is also important because it makes it easier to track changes, review code, and remove features if needed, which fits well with internal approval processes.

Hosted platforms like Wix and Squarespace now offer strong AI tools for beginners, but they also limit flexibility and hosting choices. Telex offers an alternative that works within WordPress and still gives users full control over where and how their site is hosted.

For developers, Telex essentially changes the way some work gets done but doesn’t remove the need for human input (it still needs the AI prompts). Early feedback shows that AI-generated blocks often still need testing and refinement and, therefore, agencies with strong technical teams may be best advised to combine effective prompting with proper review, offering clients speed without sacrificing quality.

How To Try It Safely Today

Telex is still experimental, and the safest way to try it is through WordPress Playground (a browser-based version of WordPress for safe testing). This lets developers test blocks directly in the browser, without affecting any live sites. For now, users may want to keep the scope simple, such as generating a hero section or a testimonial layout, and then review the code before installing it on a development site. That will give teams a chance to see how Telex works while keeping control over what goes into production.

Where Things Stand for Now

Telex is still in its early stages, and some outputs may not yet be reliable enough for complex sites. However, the tool sits within a wider AI development effort at WordPress, supported by a new AI Team and a plugin-first approach. For now, therefore, Telex appears to offer a way for developers and businesses to explore how prompt-based tools could be used inside existing WordPress workflows, without relying on external platforms or hosted AI builders.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Telex essentially gives users a faster way to create modular WordPress features using natural language prompts. By generating standard plugin files that can be tested, reviewed, and installed like any other block, it offers a practical route to exploring AI-assisted development without changing platform or setup.

For UK businesses already using WordPress, this could simplify everyday site updates and reduce the time spent on routine layout tasks. It may also allow smaller teams to create and test new features without relying on external developers, provided there is still a review process in place to catch errors or security issues. Larger organisations, especially those in regulated sectors, are likely to value the ability to track changes and control what gets deployed.

Telex also points to wider changes across the WordPress ecosystem. Agencies may begin using it to accelerate early design work, freeing up developer time for more complex builds. At the same time, plugin developers may face new pressure to show the added value of their products if standard blocks become easier to generate on demand.

The real test will be how well Telex performs in production environments, across different themes and hosting setups. Its usefulness will depend not just on speed but on consistency, security, and whether it can meet accessibility standards. For now, it gives WordPress users a way to experiment with AI-driven development using familiar tools, while keeping full control over hosting and site management.