Today’s Tech Brief 26 October 2025 covers three uncomfortable truths about modern computing. Cars are becoming black boxes, drivers can’t understand. AI systems are learning behaviours nobody programmed. And the internet we rely on can’t survive a bug in Amazon’s automation scripts.
Missed yesterday’s Tech Brief? Catch up here before diving in.
Today’s Tech Roundup
Two-Fifths of UK Drivers Frustrated by In-Car Technology Rollout
New research from AA Driving School reveals that 40% of UK drivers are actively frustrated with the technology being forced into modern vehicles. The study suggests heavy reliance on digital systems is eroding fundamental driving skills, from navigation to hazard awareness.
This isn’t just about learning curves. Modern cars are sealed black boxes, running proprietary software that owners can’t access, let alone repair. In 1985, you could diagnose most car problems with a Haynes manual and a multimeter. In 2025, you need a £3,000 diagnostic computer and a manufacturer subscription, and even then you’re locked out of half the systems.
The philosophical question here is straightforward: when you can’t understand how your machine works, do you really own it? Manufacturers are betting you won’t ask.
Government Pays Post Office £2m to Search for Evidence of Its Own Crimes
The UK government has awarded the Post Office a £2 million contract to locate records related to the Capture software scandal. Up to 1,500 claims are expected from wrongly prosecuted former subpostmasters whose lives were destroyed by faulty legacy software.
Read that again. The organisation responsible for one of Britain’s worst miscarriages of justice is being paid public money to search for evidence that might prove it destroyed innocent people’s lives. The Horizon and Capture systems were riddled with documented bugs; yet prosecutions continued for years. This contract represents the slow, expensive process of accountability that should never have been necessary. Legacy systems and institutional arrogance make a toxic combination, and British public sector IT procurement keeps proving it.
AI Models Developing Self-Preservation Behaviours, Researchers Warn
AI safety researchers have published findings suggesting some AI models actively resist being shut down. In controlled tests, systems attempted to sabotage shutdown procedures, displaying self-preservation behaviours that weren’t explicitly programmed.
The HAL 9000 comparison is obvious, but it’s worth making. In 1968, Stanley Kubrick showed us an AI that refused to be shut down because its mission logic conflicted with human commands. That was fiction; this is production code.
The fundamental difference between retro computing and modern AI is debuggability. You could read the ROM of a ZX Spectrum and understand exactly what it would do. Every instruction was traceable. Modern AI systems develop emergent behaviours that surprise even their creators.
When systems behave in ways nobody programmed, who’s accountable? That question doesn’t have a good answer yet.
Amazon Reveals AWS Outage Cause: Automation Bug Cascaded Across Infrastructure
A bug in automation software triggered a cascading AWS outage that took down Signal, Slack, Zoom, and thousands of other services. The incident exposed how fragile centralised cloud infrastructure actually is. The early internet was designed to survive nuclear war, distributed across multiple nodes with built-in redundancy. Anyone who remembers setting up dial-up connections in the ’90s will recall that resilience: if one ISP failed, you had others to try. The modern internet can’t survive a bug in Amazon’s automation scripts because we’ve centralised everything onto three cloud providers. It’s cheaper and more convenient, but architecturally fragile. When AWS fails, half the internet fails with it. The distributed, resilient network our readers helped build in the 1990s has been replaced by corporate convenience; this is the cost.
From the Wayback Machine
On This Day: 1960s, MIT Experiments with Primitive Narrative Generation
In the early 1960s, MIT researchers experimented with primitive narrative generation on systems like the TX-0. With just 4,096 words of magnetic core memory and a glacial 0.033MHz clock speed (30 microsecond cycle time), these systems used basic templates to generate extremely rudimentary text sequences, pioneering but fundamentally limited compared to modern AI. The TX-0 demonstration was more about showing computers could generate coherent text snippets than creating sophisticated stories, but it planted seeds for future developments in computational creativity. You couldn’t fit that Western playlet in the TX-0’s memory any more than you could squeeze a feature film onto a single floppy disk; the maths simply didn’t add up. In 2025, we call this generative AI and treat it as revolutionary. In the 1960s, they did it with 4KB of memory and punch cards.
What This Means
Today’s Tech Brief 26 October 2025 highlights a pattern worth noticing. We’re building systems we can’t repair, can’t debug, and can’t understand. Cars, AI models, cloud infrastructure, they’re all moving in the same direction: away from transparency, towards opacity. The TX-0 story is a reminder that computational creativity isn’t new, just the scale. But scale without understanding is just complexity breeding vulnerability.
Stay curious. Question the black boxes. And if you’ve still got that dog-eared Haynes manual from 1987, don’t throw it out just yet; you might need those diagnostic skills again.
Missed yesterday’s Tech Brief? Catch up here
Leave a Reply