Stay informed with free updates
Simply sign up to the War in Ukraine myFT Digest — delivered directly to your inbox.
Russia launched a massive drone and missile attack on Ukraine’s energy facilities on Tuesday, killing several people and…
Author: admin
-
Federal Cabinet ratifies CCP decisions on PIA privatization – RADIO PAKISTAN
- Federal Cabinet ratifies CCP decisions on PIA privatization RADIO PAKISTAN
- Three bids received for privatisation of national carrier PIA Dawn
- Fauji Foundation opts out of PIA bidding so that it may join winning consortium later Profit by…
Continue Reading
-
Salah snatches late winner for Egypt
Mohamed Salah (C) scores to give Egypt a dramatic Africa Cup of Nations victory over Zimbabwe in Agadir. Photo: AFP
…Continue Reading
-
How Vaccine Safety Monitoring Works – Medscape
- How Vaccine Safety Monitoring Works Medscape
- Blog – Cut Off at The Evidence Pass: Don’t Misuse Information From VAERS Bioethics Today
- How a Federal Vaccine Safety Database Became a Magnet for Misinformation Time Magazine
- Inside the FDA’s…
Continue Reading
-
Bet365 boss Denise Coates’s pay package rises to £280m
Archie MitchellBusiness reporter
PA MediaDenise Coates, the founder and chief executive of Bet365, received a pay package of at least £280m in 2025, marking another year as one of Britain’s highest-paid bosses.
Her total earnings jumped by more than two thirds from almost £158m a year earlier, despite profits at the gambling firm tumbling.
Ms Coates was awarded £104m in salary in the year to March 2025, Companies House filings show.
In addition, as a majority shareholder in Bet365, she was entitled to at least half of the £354m dividend payment declared by the firm for the year.
The £280m package means she has earned more than £2bn from Bet365 over the past decade.
Campaign group the High Pay Centre condemned Ms Coates’s pay as too high.
Director Andrew Speke said: “Denise Coates is well-liked in Stoke for being self-made and giving back to her community.
“But the eye-watering sums she earns go far beyond what anyone needs for a life of luxury – and her fortune comes from an industry that has caused real harm to too many people.”
Bet365 has been approached for comment.
Her latest pay deal came as Bet365’s pre-tax profit fell to £339m for the year, from £596m previously. Overall revenue rose by 9%, from £3.7bn a year earlier to £4bn.
Ms Coates founded Bet365 in a portable building in a Stoke-on-Trent car park more than 20 years ago. It is now the biggest private sector employer in the city and offers sports betting, poker, casino games and bingo online to millions of customers worldwide.
She is one of Britain’s richest women and among the world’s highest-paid executives.
After training as an accountant, Ms Coates helped build Bet365 into one of the biggest online gambling companies from her father’s bookmaking business. Her brother, John Coates, is a co-chief executive of the company.
As well as being one of the UK’s best-paid bosses, Ms Coates is reportedly among the country’s biggest taxpayers. Her £104m salary would see her pay tens of millions in income tax and national insurance.
Bet365 also said the company paid £482m of tax in the year to March, up from £364m a year earlier, including tax on dividend payments.
During the year, Bet365 donated £130m to the Denise Coates Foundation, which donates to charities covering education, arts and culture and health.
Continue Reading
-
Libya’s eastern army signs over $4 billion military deal with Pakistan
-
The Libyan National Army agreed a major arms and training deal with Pakistan
-
The contract includes fighter jets, training aircraft, and cooperation programs
-
The deal strengthens Haftar’s forces and boosts Pakistan’s defense…
Continue Reading
-
-
Israel defense minister vows to stay in Gaza, establish outposts – Arab News
- Israel defense minister vows to stay in Gaza, establish outposts Arab News
- Israel will never fully withdraw from Gaza, defence minister says Al Jazeera
- Israel signals long-term Gaza occupation, undermining fragile ceasefire TRT World
- Israeli…
Continue Reading
-
A large-scale comparison of divergent creativity in humans and large language models
Uzzi, B. & Spiro, J. Collaboration and creativity: the small world problem. Am. J. Sociol. 111, 447–504 (2005).
Google Scholar
Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M. & Jones, B. Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342, 468–472 (2013).
Google Scholar
Pomiechowska, B., Bródy, G., Téglás, E. & Kovács, Á. M. Early-emerging combinatorial thought: human infants flexibly combine kind and quantity concepts. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 121, e2315149121 (2024).
Google Scholar
Frank, M. R. et al. Toward understanding the impact of artificial intelligence on labor. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 6531–6539 (2019).
Google Scholar
Grossmann, I. et al. AI and the transformation of social science research. Science 380, 1108–1109 (2023).
Google Scholar
Shirado, H. & Christakis, N. A. Locally noisy autonomous agents improve global human coordination in network experiments. Nature 545, 370–374 (2017).
Google Scholar
Shin, M., Kim, J., van Opheusden, B. & Griffiths, T. L. Superhuman artificial intelligence can improve human decision-making by increasing novelty. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2214840120 (2023).
Google Scholar
Rahman, H. A. The invisible cage: workers’ reactivity to opaque algorithmic evaluations. Adm. Sci. Q. 66, 945–988 (2021).
Google Scholar
Guilford, J. P. The Nature of Human Intelligence (McGraw-Hill, 1967).
Stevenson, C., Smal, I., Baas, M., Grasman, R. & van der Maas, H. Putting GPT-3’s creativity to the (alternative uses) test. In Proc. 13th International Conference on Computational Creativity (ICCC’22) (eds Hedblom, M. M. et al.) 164–168 (Association for Computational Creativity, 2022).
Haase, J. & Hanel, P. H. P. Artificial muses: generative artificial intelligence chatbots have risen to human-level creativity. J. Creat. 33, 100066 (2023).
Google Scholar
Chakrabarty, T., Laban, P., Agarwal, D., Muresan, S. & Wu, C.-S. Art or artifice? Large language models and the false promise of creativity. In Proc. 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Association for Computing Machinery, 2024); https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642731
Tian, Y. et al. MacGyver: are large language models creative problem solvers? In Proc. 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (eds Duh, K. et al.) (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2024); https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.297
Doshi, A. R. & Hauser, O. P. Generative AI enhances individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content. Sci. Adv. 10, eadn5290 (2024).
Google Scholar
Guo, D. et al. DeepSeek-R1 incentivizes reasoning in LLMs through reinforcement learning. Nature 645, 633–638 (2025).
Google Scholar
Jia, N., Luo, X., Fang, Z. & Liao, C. When and how artificial intelligence augments employee creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 67, 5–32 (2024).
Google Scholar
van den Broek, E., Sergeeva, A. & Huysman, M. When the machine meets the expert: an ethnography of developing AI for hiring. MIS Q. 45, 1557–1580 (2021).
Google Scholar
Olson, J. A., Nahas, J., Chmoulevitch, D., Cropper, S. J. & Webb, M. E. Naming unrelated words predicts creativity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2022340118 (2021).
Google Scholar
Bao, L., Cao, J., Gangadharan, L., Huang, D. & Lin, C. Effects of lockdowns in shaping socioeconomic behaviors. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 121, e2405934121 (2024).
Google Scholar
Beketayev, K. & Runco, M. A. Scoring divergent thinking tests by computer with a semantics-based algorithm. Eur. J. Psychol. 12, 210–220 (2016).
Google Scholar
Brophy, D. R. Understanding, measuring, and enhancing individual creative problem-solving efforts. Creat. Res. J. 11, 123–150 (1998).
Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M. The social psychology of creativity: a componential conceptualization. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 45, 357–376 (1983).
Google Scholar
Long, H. & Pang, W. Rater effects in creativity assessment: a mixed methods investigation. Think. Skills Creat. 15, 13–25 (2015).
Google Scholar
Dumas, D., Organisciak, P. & Doherty, M. Measuring divergent thinking originality with human raters and text-mining models: a psychometric comparison of methods. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000319. (2020).
Beaty, R. E., Johnson, D. R., Zeitlen, D. C. & Forthmann, B. Semantic distance and the alternate uses task: recommendations for reliable automated assessment of originality. Creat. Res. J. 34, 245–260 (2022).
Google Scholar
Guilford, J. P. Creativity: yesterday, today and tomorrow. J. Creat. Behav. 1, 3–14 (1967).
Google Scholar
Wallach, M. A. & Kogan, N. A new look at the creativity-intelligence distinction. J. Pers. 33, 348–369 (1965).
Google Scholar
Yang, Y., Youyou, W. & Uzzi, B. Estimating the deep replicability of scientific findings using human and artificial intelligence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 10762–10768 (2020).
Google Scholar
Farquhar, S., Kossen, J., Kuhn, L. & Gal, Y. Detecting hallucinations in large language models using semantic entropy. Nature 630, 625–630 (2024).
Google Scholar
Pividori, M. Chatbots in science: what can ChatGPT do for you? Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02630-z (2024).
Samdarshi, P. et al. Connecting the dots: evaluating abstract reasoning capabilities of LLMs using the New York Times Connections word game. In Proc. 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (eds Al-Onaizan, Y. et al.) (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2024); https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.1182
Todd, G., Merino, T., Earle, S. & Togelius, J. Missed connections: lateral thinking puzzles for large language models. In Proc. 2024 IEEE Conference on Games (CoG) 1–8 (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2024).
Cvrček, V. et al. Comparing web-crawled and traditional corpora. Lang. Resour. Eval. 54, 713–745 (2020).
Google Scholar
Horowitz, J. L. Bootstrap methods in econometrics. Annu. Rev. Econ. 11, 193–224 (2019).
Google Scholar
Efron, B. Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann. Stat. 7, 1–26 (1979).
Google Scholar
Jentzsch, S. & Kersting, K. ChatGPT is fun, but it is not funny! Humor is still challenging large language models. In Proc. 13th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment, & Social Media Analysis (eds Barnes, J. et al.) 325–340 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2023).
Castillo, L., León-Villagrá, P., Chater, N. & Sanborn, A. Explaining the flaws in human random generation as local sampling with momentum. PLoS Comput. Biol. 20, e1011739 (2024).
Google Scholar
Angelike, T. & Musch, J. A comparative evaluation of measures to assess randomness in human-generated sequences. Behav. Res. Methods 56, 7831–7848 (2024).
Google Scholar
Geva, E. & Ryan, E. Linguistic and cognitive correlates of academic skills in first and second languages. Lang. Learn. 43, 5–42 (1993).
Google Scholar
Henrickson, L. & Meroño-Peñuela, A. Prompting meaning: a hermeneutic approach to optimising prompt engineering with ChatGPT. AI Soc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01752-8 (2023).
Giray, L. Prompt engineering with ChatGPT: a guide for academic writers. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 51, 2629–2633 (2023).
Google Scholar
Lin, Z. How to write effective prompts for large language models. Nat. Hum. Behav. 8, 611–615 (2024).
Google Scholar
Aggarwal, A., Lohia, P., Nagar, S., Dey, K. & Saha, D. Black box fairness testing of machine learning models. In Proc. 2019 27th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (Association for Computing Machinery, 2019); https://doi.org/10.1145/3338906.3338937
Chao, P. et al. Jailbreaking black box large language models in twenty queries. In Proc. 2025 IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning (SaTML) 23–42 (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2025).
Lapid, R., Langberg, R., & Sipper, M. Open sesame! Universal black-box jailbreaking of large language models. Appl. Sci. 14, 7150 (2024).
Google Scholar
Chesebrough, C., Chrysikou, E. G., Holyoak, K. J., Zhang, F. & Kounios, J. Conceptual change induced by analogical reasoning sparks aha moments. Creat. Res. J. 35, 499–521 (2023).
Google Scholar
Beaty, R. E. & Kenett, Y. N. Associative thinking at the core of creativity. Trends Cogn. Sci. 27, 671–683 (2023).
Google Scholar
Te’eni, D. et al. Reciprocal human-machine learning: a theory and an instantiation for the case of message classification. Manage. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.03518 (2023).
Yax, N., Anlló, H. & Palminteri, S. Studying and improving reasoning in humans and machines. Commun. Psychol. 2, 51 (2024).
Google Scholar
Strachan, J. W. A. et al. Testing theory of mind in large language models and humans. Nat. Hum. Behav. 8, 1285–1295 (2024).
Google Scholar
Bzdok, D. et al. Data science opportunities of large language models for neuroscience and biomedicine. Neuron 112, 698–717 (2024).
Google Scholar
Padmakumar, V. & He, H. Does writing with language models reduce content diversity? In Proc. International Conference on Representation Learning (Kim, B. et al.) 642–669 (ICLR, 2024).
Anderson, B. R., Shah, J. H. & Kreminski, M. Homogenization effects of large language models on human creative ideation. In Proc. 16th Conference on Creativity and Cognition (Association for Computing Machinery, 2024); https://doi.org/10.1145/3635636.3656204
Mohammadi, B. Creativity has left the chat: the price of debiasing language models. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.05587 (2024).
Groh, M. et al. Deep learning-aided decision support for diagnosis of skin disease across skin tones. Nat. Med. 30, 573–583 (2024).
Google Scholar
Marks, M. A., DeChurch, L. A., Mathieu, J. E., Panzer, F. J. & Alonso, A. Teamwork in multiteam systems. J. Appl. Psychol. 90, 964–971 (2005).
Google Scholar
Vaccaro, M., Almaatouq, A. & Malone, T. When combinations of humans and AI are useful: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nat. Hum. Behav. 8, 2293–2303 (2024).
Google Scholar
Bellemare-Pepin, A. et al. Divergent creativity in humans and large language models. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.13012 (2024).
Chen, H. & Ding, N. Probing the ‘creativity’ of large language models: can models produce divergent semantic association? In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 (eds Bouamor, H. et al.) (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2023); https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.858
Childs, P. et al. The creativity diamond—a framework to aid creativity. J. Intell. 10, 73 (2022).
Google Scholar
Chen, L. et al. TRIZ-GPT: an LLM-augmented method for problem-solving. In Proc. 36th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology (DTM) V006T06A010 (American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2024).
Chen, L. et al. DesignFusion: integrating generative models for conceptual design enrichment. J. Mech. Des. 146, 111703 (2024).
Google Scholar
Hennessey, B. A., Amabile, T. M. & Mueller, J. S. in Encyclopedia of Creativity (Elsevier, 2011); https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-375038-9.00046-7
Cropley, A. In praise of convergent thinking. Creat. Res. J. 18, 391–404 (2006).
Google Scholar
Wang, D. Presentation in self-posted facial images can expose sexual orientation: Implications for research and privacy. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 122, 806–824 (2022).
Google Scholar
Taylor, J. E. T. & Taylor, G. W. Artificial cognition: how experimental psychology can help generate explainable artificial intelligence. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 28, 454–475 (2021).
Google Scholar
Voudouris, K. et al. Direct human–AI comparison in the animal–AI environment. Front. Psychol. 13, 711821 (2022).
Google Scholar
Hitsuwari, J., Ueda, Y., Yun, W. & Nomura, M. Does human–AI collaboration lead to more creative art? Aesthetic evaluation of human-made and AI-generated haiku poetry. Comput. Hum. Behav. 139, 107502 (2022).
Google Scholar
Griffiths, T. L. Understanding human intelligence through human limitations. Trends Cogn. Sci. 24, 873–883 (2020).
Google Scholar
Continue Reading
-
A walkthrough of the Google Workspace Password Manager
Passwd is designed specifically for organizations operating within Google Workspace. Rather than competing as a general consumer password manager, its purpose is narrow, and business-focused: secure credential storage, controlled sharing, and…
Continue Reading
