Kieran Hegarty, RMIT University; Anthony McCosker, Swinburne University of Technology; Jenny Kennedy, RMIT University; Julian Thomas, RMIT University, and Sharon Parkinson, Swinburne University of Technology

In the short time since OpenAI launched ChatGPT in November 2022, generative artificial intelligence (AI) products have become increasingly ubiquitous and advanced.

These machines aren’t limited to text – they can now generate photos, videos and audio in a way that’s blurring the line between what’s real and what’s not. They’ve also been woven into tools and services many people already use, such as Google Search.

But who is – and isn’t – using this technology in Australia?

Our national survey, released today, provides some answers. The data is the first of its kind. It shows that while almost half of Australians have used generative AI, uptake is uneven across the country. This raises the risk of a new “AI divide” which threatens to deepen existing social and economic inequalities.

A growing divide

The “digital divide” refers to the gap between people or groups who have access to, can afford and make effective use of digital technologies and the internet, and those who cannot. These divides can compound other inequalities, cutting people off from vital services and opportunities.

Because these gaps shape how people engage with new tools, there’s a risk the same patterns will emerge around AI adoption and use.

Concerns about an AI divide – raised by bodies such as the United Nations – are no longer speculative.

International evidence is starting to illustrate a divide in capabilities between and within countries, and across industries.

Who we heard from

Every two years, we use the Australian Internet Usage Survey to find out who uses the internet in Australia, what benefits they get from it, and what barriers exist to using it effectively.

We use these data to develop the Australian Digital Inclusion Index – a long-standing measure of digital inclusion in Australia.

In 2024, more than 5,500 adults across all Australian states and territories responded to questions about whether and how they are using generative AI. This includes a large national sample of First Nations communities, people living in remote and regional locations and those who have never used the internet before.

Other surveys have tracked attitudes towards AI and its use.

But our study is different: it embeds questions about generative AI use inside a long-standing, nationally representative study of digital inclusion that already measures access, affordability and digital ability. These are the core ingredients people need to benefit from being online.

We’re not just asking “who’s trying AI?”. We’re also connecting the use of the technology to the broader conditions that enable or constrain people’s digital lives.

Importantly, unlike other studies of AI use in Australia collected via online surveys, our sample also includes people who don’t use the internet, or who may face barriers to filling out a survey online.

Australia’s AI divide is already taking shape

We found 45.6% of Australians have recently used a generative AI tool. This is slightly higher than rates of use identified in a 2024 Australian study (39%). Looking internationally, it is also slightly higher than usage by adults in the United Kingdom (41%), as identified in a 2024 study by the country’s media regulator.

Among Australian users, text generation is common (82.6%), followed by image generation (41.5%) and code generation (19.9%). But usage isn’t uniform across the population.

For example, younger Australians are more likely to use the technology than their elders. More than two-thirds (69.1%) of 18- to 34-year-olds recently used one of the many available generative AI tools, compared with less than 1 in 6 (15.5%) 65- to 74-year-olds.

Students are also heavy users (78.9%). People with a bachelor’s degree (62.2%) are much more likely to use the technology than those who did not complete high school (20.6%). Those who left school in Year 10 (4.2%) are among the lowest users.

Professionals (67.9%) and managers (52.2%) are also far more likely to use these tools than machinery operators (26.7%) or labourers (31.8%). This suggests use is strongly linked to occupational roles and work contexts.

Among the people who use AI, only 8.6% engage with a chatbot to seek connection. But this figure rises with remoteness. Generative AI users in remote areas are more than twice as likely (19%) as metropolitan users (7.7%) to use AI chatbots for conversation.

Some 13.6% of users are paying for premium or subscription generative AI tools, with 18 to 34-year-olds most likely to pay (17.5%), followed by 45 to 54-year-olds (13.3%).

Also, people who speak a language other than English at home report significantly higher use (58.1%) than English-only speakers (40.5%). This may be associated with improvements in the capabilities of these tools for translation or accessing information in multiple languages.

Bridging the divide

This emerging AI divide presents several risks if it calcifies, including disparities in learning and work, and increased exposure for certain people to scams and misinformation.

There are also risks stemming from overreliance on AI for important decisions, and navigating harms related to persuasive AI companions.

The biggest challenge will be how to support AI literacy and skills across all groups. This isn’t just about job readiness or productivity. People with lower digital literacy and skills may miss out on AI’s benefits and face a higher risk of being misled by deepfakes and AI-powered scams.

These developments can easily dent the confidence of people with lower levels of digital literacy and skills. Concern about harms can see people with limited confidence further withdraw from AI use, restricting their access to important services and opportunities.

Monitoring these patterns over time and responding with practical support will help ensure the benefits of AI are shared widely – not only by the most connected and confident.

Kieran Hegarty, Research Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making & Society, RMIT University; Anthony McCosker, Professor of Media and Communication, Director, Social Innovation Research Institute, Swinburne University of Technology; Jenny Kennedy, Associate Professor, Media and Communications, RMIT University; Julian Thomas, Distinguished Professor of Media and Communications; Director, ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society, RMIT University, and Sharon Parkinson, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Urban Transitions, Swinburne University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Coalition’s primary vote slumped four points to a record low 24% in the latest Newspoll, while One Nation was up four points to a record high 15%. One Nation also surged to 15% in an Essential poll.

The national Newspoll, conducted October 27–30 from a sample of 1,265 voters, gave Labor a 57–43% lead over the Coalition, unchanged from the previous Newspoll in early October.

Primary votes were 36% for Labor (down one point), 24% for the Coalition (down four points), 15% for One Nation (up four points), 11% for the Greens (down one point) and 14% for all others (up two points).

Analyst Kevin Bonham said the poll set or matched a few records:

• the worst Coalition primary vote ever in a public national poll
• a tie for the highest One Nation vote in a national poll, matching last week’s Essential poll
• the lowest combined vote for Labor and the Coalition in Newspoll history.

The Coalition’s previous worst primary vote was 27% in a mid-September Newspoll.

In the new Newspoll, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s net approval was down four points to -5, with 51% of voters dissatisfied with his performance and 46% satisfied.

Opposition leader Sussan Ley’s net approval slumped 13 points to -33; she has dropped 24 points since August.

Albanese led Ley by 54–27% as better prime minister, compared to 52–30% in early October.

This is the graph of Albanese’s net approval in Newspoll with a trend line. Labor easily won the 2025 election, despite his ratings being negative at the time.

Australia may be on a trajectory where One Nation overtakes the Coalition to become the main right-wing party. Far-right parties have already overtaken centre-right parties in some European countries.

In the United Kingdom, the Election Maps UK poll aggregate has the far-right Reform party leading with 30.5%, followed by Labour at 19.1%, the Conservatives at 17.5%, the Liberal Democrats at 13.4% and the Greens at 12.6%. With the UK’s first-past-the-post voting system, Reform would win a majority of House of Commons seats on this polling.

Even if One Nation overtakes the Coalition in Australia, the Australian Labor Party has a far higher primary vote than UK Labour. I expect Coalition preferences would favour One Nation, but as long as the combined vote for Labor, the Greens and left-leaning others holds up, One Nation wouldn’t win an Australian election.

Essential poll: One Nation surges to 15%

The national Essential poll, conducted October 22–26 from a sample of 1,041 voters, gave Labor a 50–44% lead over the Coalition by respondent preferences, including undecided voters. Labor’s lead was 51–44% in late September.

Primary votes were 36% for Labor (up one point), 26% for the Coalition (down one point), 15% for One Nation (up two points), 9% for the Greens (down two points), 8% for all others (up one point) and 6% undecided (steady).

By 2025 election preference flows, Labor would lead the Coalition by a more than 55–45% margin.

Albanese’s net approval was up three points in the Essential poll to +1, with 45% of respondents approving of his performance and 44% disapproving. Ley’s net approval was down two points to -11.

On Albanese’s October 20 meeting with US President Donald Trump in Washington, 37% thought it was good for Australia’s long-term interests, 18% bad and 26% said it would have no real impact.

On the direction the Liberals should take to provide an alternative government, 48% of total respondents said they should adopt more progressive positions, 24% more conservative positions and 28% thought they should maintain their current positions. Among only Coalition voters, 49% were in favour of more progressive positions, compared to 29% for more conservative.

Ley was thought best to lead the Liberals by 13% of total respondents, followed by Andrew Hastie and Jacinta Price at 10% each, with 42% unsure. Among only Coalition voters, Ley had 22%, Hastie 20% and Price 13%.

Overall, respondents supported Australia’s target to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 by a 44–27% margin. Among only Coalition voters, this support shrank to 38%, with 35% opposed.

Labor has big lead in NSW DemosAU poll

A New South Wales state poll by DemosAU and Premier National, conducted October 17–22 from a sample of 1,016 voters, gave Labor a 59–41% lead over the Coalition (compared to Labor’s lead of 54.3–45.7% at the March 2023 election).

Primary votes were 37% for Labor, 30% for the Coalition, 13% for the Greens and 20% for all others.

The next NSW election will be in March 2027. Before the May federal election, Labor had been struggling in the NSW polls, but the party has surged since then.

Labor Premier Chris Minns led the Liberals’ Mark Speakman by 44–25% as preferred premier in the poll. Cost of living was rated the most important issue by 36% of respondents, followed by housing affordability on 25%.

Upper house voting intentions were 30% for Labor, 21% for the Coalition, 15% for One Nation, 13% for the Greens, 5% for Family First and 3% each for Animal Justice and Legalise Cannabis.

Half of the 42 upper house seats will be up for election in 2027, using statewide proportional representation with preferences.

Polls of upper house voting intentions are rare in Australia and typically understate major party support. It’s unrealistic for the combined vote for the Coalition and Labor in the upper house to be 16 points below the lower house figure.

Queensland DemosAU poll has solid LNP lead

A Queensland state poll by DemosAU and Premier National, conducted October 13–20 from a sample of 1,006 respondents, gave the Liberal National Party (LNP) a 54–46% lead over Labor, a one-point gain for Labor since a July DemosAU poll.

Primary votes were 37% for the LNP (down three points), 29% for Labor (up one point), 14% for One Nation (up two points), 12% for the Greens (down one point) and 8% for all others (up one point).

LNP Premier David Crisafulli led Labor’s Steven Miles as preferred premier by a 44–32% margin.

On the biggest issue facing Queensland, 30% said lack of affordable housing, 27% cost of living and 20% crime. On the performance of the government on key issues, the LNP had net ratings of -36 on housing and -38 on cost of living, but a much better rating on crime (-2).

A recent Resolve Queensland poll had primary votes that implied a narrow Labor lead after preferences. This DemosAU poll is far better for the LNP.

Midterm elections in Argentina and Trump’s ratings slide

In Argentina’s midterm elections on October 26, far-right President Javier Milei’s Liberty Advances party made decisive gains in both chambers of the legislature, though it still remains short of a majority. I covered these elections for The Poll Bludger.

In the United States, Trump’s net approval rating in analyst Nate Silver’s aggregate of US national polls has dropped to -11.8 (with 54.6% of Americans disapproving of his performance, compared to 42.9% approving). This is down 4.2 points since October 20.

Trump’s falling approval ratings could be linked to the ongoing government shutdown in the US, which began on October 1 and is now poised to become the longest in US history, breaking the 35-day record set during Trump’s first term.

Voters will head to the polls on Tuesday in the US in several key elections, including the governorship in Virginia and New Jersey and the mayoral race in New York City. Democratic front-runner Zohran Mamdani has led independent candidate and former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in the New York City race, though the polls have tightened in recent days.

I will follow the election results for The Poll Bludger.

Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

In the run up to the launch of the latest series of The Kardashians, her new legal drama All’s Fair and the celebrations for her 45th birthday, Kim Kardashian made a very different kind of headline. She revealed that she had been diagnosed with a brain aneurysm.

Kardashian revealed her diagnosis in a teaser for The Kardashians Season 7, which includes footage of her undergoing an MRI scan believed to have identified the condition. So far, no details have been released about the type, size or location of the aneurysm, or whether it required treatment. It’s therefore unclear whether the finding represents a serious health threat or an incidental discovery; something that’s becoming increasingly common as more people undergo full-body scans or imaging for other reasons.

An aneurysm is a widening or bulging of any artery in the body. It most commonly occurs in the aorta (the body’s main artery), as well as in arteries of the limbs, neck and brain. When the swelling affects arteries in the brain, it is known as a cerebral aneurysm.

Brain aneurysms can have devastating effects. The nerve cells in the brain are not designed to come into direct contact with blood. To protect them, the brain has a natural defence system called the blood brain barrier, which carefully regulates what can and cannot pass from the bloodstream into brain tissue.

The largest risk factor of developing a brain aneurysm is being female. These aneurysms are around 60% more common in women than in men, and this increases further after menopause. Oestrogen helps to keep blood vessels flexible; when its levels fall after menopause, blood vessels become more vulnerable to damage.

A family history of aneurysms also increases risk. Someone who has two first-degree relatives – that’s parents, children or siblings – who have experienced a ruptured aneurysm has an 11% higher chance of developing one themselves. This is because genetic factors influence the structure and strength of blood vessel walls, making some people more vulnerable to weakness and damage.

This genetic link is also seen in several connective-tissue disorders which change the structure and function of artery walls, increasing the likelihood of an aneurysm. These include Ehlers Danlos syndrome, which causes overly stretchy skin and joints and weakens connective tissues, including those in blood vessels; Marfan syndrome, which often leads to long limbs, flexible joints and a higher risk of heart and blood vessel problems; Loeys Dietz syndrome, a rare condition that causes arteries to twist and widen; and Neurofibromatosis type 1, which causes non-cancerous growths along nerves and can weaken blood vessel walls.

Lifestyle factors can also play a role in increasing aneurysm risk. Current and former smoking are both strongly linked to weakened blood vessels. Quitting smoking reduces the risk, but it does not completely remove it when compared with those who have never smoked. High cholesterol can also damage blood vessels and raise the likelihood of an aneurysm.

In Kardashian’s case, she has mentioned stress as a contributing factor. Although stress itself does not directly cause aneurysms, it can increase blood pressure. Persistent high blood pressure, whether brought on by emotional stress or underlying health issues such as certain types of kidney disease, can weaken and damage blood vessel walls, making aneurysms more likely to develop.

Recreational drug use can also contribute to aneurysm risk, although there is no suggestion that this is relevant in Kardashian’s case. Cocaine raises blood pressure while narrowing blood vessels in the brain. These combined effects push pressure within the brain’s arteries even higher, increasing the chance of aneurysm formation and rupture. Amphetamine and methamphetamine have similar effects, altering blood vessel diameter, raising blood pressure and driving inflammation that weakens vessel walls. These processes contribute to aneurysm formation and an increased rate of progression and rupture.

When an aneurysm does form, its effects depend largely on where it develops and whether it ruptures, which can make symptoms unpredictable and sometimes difficult to recognise.

Ruptured cerebral aneurysms often begin with a small leak of blood that causes a sudden, severe headache, often described as “the worst headache of my life” or a thunderclap headache. This may serve as a warning sign of a larger rupture that could occur hours, days or even weeks later. Other symptoms can include uncoordinated movements, nausea, vomiting and sudden changes in consciousness.

Unruptured cerebral aneurysms tend to cause a wider range of symptoms because the effects depend on where the aneurysm is developing. Nerves responsible for vision, balance, hearing, swallowing and speech all run close to major blood vessels in the brain, so even a small change in pressure can have noticeable effects.

Vision problems are common, presenting as double or partial loss of sight. Eye pain or difficulty moving the eyes due to muscle weakness, a stiff neck and ringing in the ears may also occur. Less common symptoms include neck pain and difficulty swallowing.

Because these symptoms overlap with many other conditions, diagnosing an aneurysm can be challenging. Unruptured aneurysms often grow slowly and may not cause symptoms until they reach a certain size, while ruptured aneurysms appear suddenly and require emergency treatment.

Once discovered, aneurysms are measured and categorised. The smaller the aneurysm, the lower the risk of rupture. Those with a diameter under 7mm are least likely to rupture, those between 7mm and 12mm are considered medium, 12mm to 25mm are large, and anything over 25mm is classed as giant. The size and location of the aneurysm are key factors in determining its risk. Aneurysms on arteries at the base of the brain carry a higher chance of rupture.

Treatment depends on individual circumstances, and not all aneurysms require intervention. In fact, many people live healthily with small aneurysms without ever realising they have them. There are growing detection rates as imaging becomes more common and less invasive, and AI is also being used to improve accuracy. Small, symptom-free aneurysms are often monitored with regular imaging scans, especially in people with few additional risk factors. Treating underlying conditions such as high blood pressure can reduce the risk of rupture.

Those cerebral aneurysms that rupture or are at high risk of rupture require surgical intervention. The two most common procedures are clipping and endovascular repair. Clipping is a more invasive operation that involves opening the skull to access the aneurysm directly, and it is better suited to certain aneurysm locations.

Endovascular repair is less invasive and involves inserting a catheter through a blood vessel in the leg, guiding it into place and delivering a coil that prevents blood from entering the aneurysm. These coils are usually made of platinum and measure between half the width of a human hair to twice the width.

Because aneurysms are often silent until they reach a critical point, any sudden or unexplained neurological symptoms should always be assessed by a medical professional.

Adam Taylor, Professor of Anatomy, Lancaster University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.