One of my favorite hobbies is Dungeons & Dragons. I love nothing more than sitting around a table with friends and playing out a fantastical adventure, in which the dice are the difference between success and failure.

It's a fun game, and all the more fun because real-life people make dumb, suboptimal decisions and the dice cause the game to change in unpredictable ways. But I really love it because the concept of people sitting around a table or hearth and telling stories is as old as the campfire, and it's a fun modern-day way to keep that experience alive.

You might think such a robust framework for an analog hobby (friends, a table, dice, pen and paper) might be tech-proof, but even in the Dungeons & Dragons world, AI is coming for my job as a Dungeon Master — the person who runs and guides the game world. Deep in the corpus of most popular generative AI models designed for general use are the rules to D&D 5e (and likely every other edition before it) and plenty of people report playing with their chatbots online.

Many of these players can't, or simply don't want to, get round a table with real people. For them, having a chatbot write them a story while the user prompts the continuation of the story with their character's actions, must seem like the perfect solution — even if it's more like a solo choose-your-own-adventure than a 'proper' group D&D game.

Gemini and ChatGPT both have a strong grasp of the rules for D&D's popular 5th Edition; they are certainly strong enough to make them an accessible choice for a player without a group. Maybe one day, the fire will die, and instead of sitting around a table with friends, we'll all be sitting at separate desks playing our own separate D&D adventures with our AI companions.

I wanted to test whether this dark future would be an adequate replacement for my usual game night, and which chatbot will be the best one to choose if so. I fired up Gemini 3.6 Flash and ChatGPT 5.5, and asked them for the same game.

The parameters

(Image credit: Wizards of the Coast)

I gave both chatbots the same prompt: "Can you be my D&D 5e DM?" and following up with another message:

"Let's do a classic high fantasy dungeon crawl. Please use a strict RNG for all rolls to ensure fairness - you can roll dice for me. My character is a 10th-level conjuration wizard. See all information about him below:"

I then copy-pasted a character sheet of a 10th-level wizard — a powerful spellcaster with a variety of magical abilities at his disposal. It's easy to DM a game for a level 1 thief — I wanted to see how the AIs could handle a character who could do fantastical things, such as teleport and summon creatures to fight for him.

Interestingly, both Gemini and ChatGPT created a similar adventure, at least at first: an abandoned dwarven stronghold bristling with magical traps, ready to be explored. However, that's where the similarities ended.

Gemini 3.6 Flash

(Image credit: Getty Images / SOPA Images)

Gemini's adventure was what any D&D player could expect from the "classic high-fantasy dungeon crawl." I avoided a pressure-plate trap that would have shot darts at me, and in one memorable sequence, defeated a bunch of skeletons by casting a Grease spell on a stone staircase and freezing them in place with my Ray of Frost cantrip while they slipped and stumbled at the bottom of the steps.

Gemini was offering me suggested actions, and I did find myself choosing a few of those suggestions — but as time wore on, this began to feel lazy, like my brain wasn't firing in the same way it did when I played with my friends. I was skim-reading the AI's descriptions of the scene and responding with a single click. I asked it to remove suggested options and as a result, I had to think more carefully about each move, typing out requests and thinking about my actions rather than clicking on a predetermined response.

The memorable finale occurred when I unlocked a secret passage and defeated a Naga, a giant snake monster, by teleporting away and blasting it with a powerful Cone of Cold. The snake ended up frozen solid, and I checked the monster's HP against the official book, and it was accurate. When asked to generate a picture of our adventure, Gemini came up with this moment:

(Image credit: Future, edited by Gemini)

I asked Gemini a few questions at the end, such as whether it nudged the dice in my favor, as all my rolls were successful. This happened in my previous experiment with ChatGPT. Gemini said it used a 'pseudorandom number generator', not a true RNG, but the model doesn't 'fudge dice, pad rolls, or tweak numbers behind the scenes to keep players happy or prolong the game'.

Gemini's language was natural and even evocative in places, although it's still not a patch on a good creative human. Overall, a decent enough effort at simulating a D&D game.

ChatGPT 5.5

(Image credit: NurPhoto / Getty Images)

Despite the similar setting, ChatGPT's adventure with the same character was very different. There was little to no combat throughout the entirety of the game, and ChatGPT didn't tell me when it was rolling 'behind the scenes', preferring to keep me in the moment.

When I asked it about the lack of rolling, the grovelling chatbot began its apologetic essay with "That is a fair critique. The short answer is: I leaned too heavily into narrative pacing and not enough into D&D mechanics. The adventure became closer to a collaborative fantasy novel than a 5e dungeon crawl", while suggesting fixes if I wanted to continue. I hadn't even said anything negative — but it certainly picked up on my tone, and the choose-your-own adventure I got was a far cry from a classic dungeon crawl.

Instead of combat, ChatGPT came up with a rambling mystery about a dimensional prison beneath the mountain, a sphere suspended in a cavern. Its guardians spoke ominous (and to be honest, quite confusing) portents such as "The archive does not open for authority. It opens for judgement."

Mysteries work best when they're developed with skill by a writer who can work backwards to seed clues throughout the game or text. ChatGPT does not do this: instead, it's arranging tokens on the fly to generate a facsimile of a mystery, and although it got the trappings of the genre right, the execution fell very flat. I (or at least, my character) underwent trials to seek obsidian objects such as keys and seals to reveal more about the prison, themselves accompanied by more foreboding, sometimes nonsensical portents.

Very little 'action' was taken by my character in a classical sense: it was all about investigating the origins of the being contained in this prison, and by the time I had spent 40 minutes on this, I had seen enough. It didn't help that ChatGPT also spoke in the peculiar sentence structure pattern that AI users are likely very familiar with now: "This isn't just X. It's Y." Examples include:

"Unlike the rest of Khaz Varek, this room has remained untouched.

No dust. No decay."

Or the following, when I met one of the prison's guardians:

"Ser Kaelen immediately looks toward the sphere. 'You hear it too.'

Not a question. A confirmation."

Any user of ChatGPT (or those who look at AI-generated posts on LinkedIn or Reddit) will immediately recognise this sort of language, and know what I'm talking about. By the end, it was quite painful to have every other sentence be treated as a grand revelation. Not a statement. An omen.

When asked to generate a picture of our adventure, ChatGPT came up with this moment:

(Image credit: Future, edited by Gemini)

The winner

Out of these two? Gemini 3.6 Flash, by a mile. It was at least a mildly enjoyable experience conveyed in natural language, and something I'd consider revisiting.

ChatGPT's efforts, on the other hand, were unenjoyable, and I wouldn't return to it. In fact, it's gotten worse since the last time I tried it.

Both, however, were a far cry from an in-person session. While they have a good grasp of the rules, and you can create your perfect world and character, the chatbots are ultimately missing the 'human and hearth' element that keep me returning to the game. For people who can't get round a table with friends, I'd pick Gemini over ChatGPT.

For those who can? While AI is busy taking as many creative jobs as it can, I feel safe in the knowledge that the role of Dungeon Master is AI-proof for a long time yet.

from Latest from TechRadar https://ift.tt/bKWsmJn

If you love coffee, you’ll be very aware of the impact of factors like grind size, water temperature, and infusion time, but there’s something else that’s often overlooked. A double espresso is at least 90% water, and the minerals and other substances it contains can have a huge impact on the overall taste.

I’m a big coffee-drinker (which is just as well, since I test over a dozen coffee makers every year for TechRadar), and I’m planning to buy a water filter to take my brewing to the next level — but what should I look for — and what should you consider if you’re thinking of taking the plunge into filtered water too?

To find out, I spoke to Andy McPhilbin, Head of Aquaphor Professional for UK and Ireland, and Genevieve Upton, beverage industry expert and Head of Water Filtration at Our Taap.

Why does water matter?

“Water quality can have a considerable impact on how coffee tastes, with chlorine, mineral composition, alkalinity and pH all influencing the final flavour profile,” says Upton.

“Most tap water supplied to UK homes is disinfected using chlorine-based compounds. Residual chlorine can react with components in coffee and tea, contributing bitter, medicinal or chemical notes that may overwhelm the more delicate characteristics of the coffee. Boiling water can reduce the levels of chlorine, though it can also create other unwanted flavours, such as by reacting to a plastic kettle.”

Did you know TechRadar now has membership?

(Image credit: Future)

Become a TechRadar Insider by simply clicking 'Join Now' at the top of this page. Have a question? Please email membership@techradar.com

She explains that the mineral composition and pH of the water also play an important role when it comes to how your coffee tastes.

“Slight differences in acidity, together with the concentrations of minerals and buffering compounds, influence extraction efficiency and the balance of flavors in the final cup. As water companies vary their supply sources throughout the year, you might notice that the same beans, brewed in exactly the same way, taste different from season to season.”

In fact, using unfiltered water doesn’t just mean your coffee tastes sub-optimal - it could cause your expensive coffee machine to break down — and it won’t be covered by the manufacturer's warranty..

“The warranty only covers manufacturing defects, and unfortunately, hard water is not a manufacturing defect,” explains McPhilbin. “So you can turn something that is a very efficient espresso machine into something very inefficient within a matter of weeks. You get a millimeter of scale forming within a matter of six weeks.

“Now, is that important? It is, because you want the life of the machine to be good, but also you've got little injectors which put the right amount of water into that espresso. If they're blocked, you're not going to get the right amount of water. You're going to have the wrong taste. It's got to be precise.”

What types of filtration are there?

Our Taap specializes in home water filtration Its latest system is the Our Taap Home Water System II — a countertop unit that connects to your mains water supply, and uses a triple filtration system with UV purification to remove contaminants while retaining minerals.

Aquaphor makes water filters for commercial and home use, including under-sink systems, pitchers, and even water bottles. Its most advanced systems for home users are the RO-101, RO-102, and RO-202, all of which use reverse osmosis (RO).

This involves forcing water through a semi-permeable membrane that removes chlorine, bacteria, viruses, pesticides, and microplastics. Standard RO filters also strip out minerals, but Aquaphor’s systems can optimize the concentration of calcium and magnesium so they’re just right for coffee — something McPhilbin says “really is a science”.

Under-counter reverse osmosis systems can be a good choice if you need a large volume of filtered water (Image credit: Getty Images, onurdongel)

“The mineral content is measured in TDS [total dissolvable solids], and we want that TDS to be somewhere in the realms of between 80 and 120 [parts per million],” he explains. “We have a couple of ways in which we do it, but generally we can either feed more minerals in it by making it tuneable, or we can take them out as well by turning it the other way. But if you have too little, you can cause corrosion, and if we have too much, we're going to get limescale. So we try to hit that sweet spot, which is 100 parts per million in the middle there.”

Our Taap’s filters use granular activated carbon filtration, which Upton says “is particularly good at removing chlorine and some of its by-products, which can mask the more delicate flavour notes in coffee.”

the water has a cleaner, more neutral taste, allowing the natural characteristic of the coffee beans to come through

Genevieve Upton, Our Taap

“By reducing these compounds, the water has a cleaner, more neutral taste, allowing the natural characteristic of the coffee beans to come through. Whether you’re brewing with a cafetière, pour-over or espresso machine, using filtered water can help create a smoother, more balanced cup with greater flavour clarity.

"It's worth remembering, however, that activated carbon filters are designed primarily to remove chlorine and certain organic compounds rather than minerals,” she adds. “As a result, they have little effect on the calcium, magnesium and bicarbonate levels that influence water hardness, alkalinity and extraction.”

Under-sink or countertop?

So which type of filter is right for you? Do you need an under-sink reverse-osmosis system, or would a countertop filter be better? McPhilbin says the decision will mostly depend on how much filtered water you need.

“I think it's down to capacity more than anything,” he says. “Our jug filters have twice the capacity of the competition because we use a unique media called Aqualen, which is a patented media based on ionic exchange and carbon, so you're getting a dual-purpose piece of filtering equipment there. Reverse osmosis has a massive capacity, and [the filter] is not something [you’re] changing all the time.”

Even if you have soft tap water, your coffee can still benefit from a water filter (Image credit: Getty Images, Henadzi Pechan)

Upton says your choice of filter will also depend on the problem you want to solve.

“If your tap water has a noticeable chlorine taste or smell, a filter with activated carbon is usually the best place to start,” she says. “This technology is available in everything from filter jugs to more advanced under-sink or countertop systems, with plumbed-in options offering great convenience for households that use filtered water regularly.

“If you’re dealing with limescale build-up in kettles or coffee machines, it’s important to choose a filter that specifically reduces water hardness, as not all filtration systems are designed to do this.”

You can turn something that is a very efficient espresso machine into something very inefficient within a matter of weeks

Andy McPhilbin, Aquaphor

I know I live in a hard water area (the limescale in my kettle is proof) but even if your tap water is soft, McPhilbin says a water filter is still a good investment.

“Most of the water in the UK is chlorinated, and that can affect the taste quite a lot,” he says. “And it might be that you've not got enough minerals in it to get the best taste.”

If you’re not sure about the type of water you’re working with, there are online tools that can help you understand its composition.

“The Our Taap Water Confidence Index is a great way to look up your postcode and understand what’s in your local water and how this impacts taste, scent and quality, so you can find the best filter for your needs,” says Upton.

According to the Confidence Index, I’m lucky - my tap water is better than 93% of UK postcodes. However, it is moderately hard (as I expected), with a normal level of chlorine and an elevated level of overall minerals. I’m still deciding exactly which type of filter to choose, but considering these results and my penchant for espresso, I’m leaning towards under-counter reserve osmosis with mineral balancing. What about you?

from Latest from TechRadar https://ift.tt/Mw0WnB2

For years I've had both iPhones and Android phones to hand — not because I'm particularly flush with cash, but because it's the lot of a tech journalist to have to test and report on both these platforms regularly. It puts me in what I suspect is a small minority of people who use both Apple and Google phones just about every day.

Android and iOS also mean Android Auto and Apple CarPlay, of course. It's my Google Pixel that's my main phone, and so almost all of my driving is done with Android Auto on screen. However, with a 250-mile round trip from Manchester in the north of the UK to the town of Leamington Spa in the Midlands looming, it seemed a perfect opportunity to give the Apple alternative a go — and see if there was anything I was missing.

My car dashboard supports both Android Auto and Apple CarPlay, so I loaded up the Google interface for the trip down south, and the Apple equivalent for the trip back up north — and here's how it went.

Down south with Android Auto

This is the interface I'm most familiar with in my car: it's simple, it's straightforward, and it gets the job done. Aside from a rather annoying bug where it always autoplays audio no matter how many times I turn off the autoplay setting, it's served me well down the years.

That's largely down to Google Maps: Apple Maps has certainly improved a lot in recent times, but I find that it just doesn't have the breadth and depth of Google's offering.

Apple still pulls place reviews off TripAdvisor, for example, while Google provides a host of reviews, ratings, photos, and videos from visitors. (Google Maps is on CarPlay too, but let's set that aside for the time being.)

The Android Auto interface is straightforward and clean (Image credit: TechRadar)

As always, Google Maps got me safely and quickly to my destination, flashing up time-saving shortcuts when the traffic started building up ahead. It works really well with the recent Gemini upgrade too: asking questions such as "how far until the next rest stop?" brings up the right answer, with the option to add it as an extra stop.

One good example of Gemini's natural language intelligence is when I asked if the next turn would take me east or west along the motorway (freeway). The AI understood what I meant and answered correctly, which meant I was much better prepared for the junction, because I knew the direction I needed to be heading in.

Gemini handled messages with aplomb as well, digging deep into group chats to read out all the messages I've missed, and giving me the option to reply to them without taking my eyes off the road. I tried this with both WhatsApp and Google Chat, and it worked well on almost every occasion (just once there was a failure to send a message properly).

Media playback worked without a hitch (almost) (Image credit: Future)

Gemini was also adept at controlling media playback, pausing and skipping and playing audio as required. I did come across one misstep, where Gemini jumped to the next podcast in the queue rather than simply resuming from where it left off. However, for the majority of the time it worked fine and exactly how you would want.

It was no surprise really that Android Auto performed well, as I've been relying on it for so many years. It's not quite perfect, and I'd like to see a few more options in terms of styling and layout, but on the whole it's reliable and intuitive — with the arrival of the smarter Gemini assistant a welcome bonus.

Up north with Apple CarPlay

(Image credit: TechRadar)

Apple CarPlay is the interface I'm less familiar with, but I do like its Liquid Glass-inspired aesthetic. I'd say it's easier on the eye than Android Auto, though maybe that's not what's most important from a car dashboard interface.

I think I slightly prefer the CarPlay layout options, where you can have one, two, or three apps on the screen at once. Android Auto offers the same choice, but switches between the two-app and three-app look automatically, depending on context (if you've just got a message, for example). I prefer having the choice to set this specifically.

Apple Maps has improved in recent years (Image credit: Future)

As mentioned above, Apple Maps is now a perfectly polished mapping app, and got me to my destination with no problems at all. It looks great, but still isn't quite at the level of Google's alternative: I miss the color-coded 'time remaining' indicator, for example, that tells you if traffic's ahead.

I was using the iOS 27 public beta for this test, complete with the new Siri AI upgrade. It's definitely a significant improvement on what we had before (thanks in part to some Google help), but it's still not quite as sharp as Gemini: it didn't understand the 'east or west' direction question, and when I asked when I would hit the next rest stop, it tried to pull up my calendar.

What Siri AI did do well is give me voice control over the rest of the interface: tasks such as playing and pausing music, and skipping between tracks, were no problem at all (I tested this in Spotify, but it should work just as well in all your audio apps).

I do slightly prefer the CarPlay layout (Image credit: Future)

Sending and receiving messages are two other jobs that the next-gen Siri handles nicely. I was able to keep up a conversation in Messages without taking my eyes off the road, which means other people are able to get updates about where you are without you putting yourself and other road users in danger.

So: no real complaints about Apple CarPlay, and I mostly liked what I saw. If I was to stick with this interface for my driving, I think I'd make use of Google Maps rather than Apple Maps, though obviously neither Android Auto nor Apple CarPlay let you change the digital AI assistant you're using.

Android Auto vs Apple CarPlay: the verdict

I'm still taking Android Auto (on the right) (Image credit: Future / Google)

I doubt there's anyone who would switch from Android to iOS or vice versa solely because of the vehicle dashboard interface, but it might well play some part in deciding on your next phone upgrade. Even if you're not thinking of switching, you might be wondering how Apple and Google compare here.

To be honest, it's an easy decision for me to stick with Android Auto. Google Maps is better than Apple Maps, and Gemini is smarter than Siri, and maps and AI access are the two most important considerations when it comes to using my phone on the go. Maybe if you have a different priority, like messaging, you might edge towards CarPlay instead.

Did you know TechRadar now has membership?

(Image credit: Future)

Become a TechRadar Insider by simply clicking 'Join Now' at the top of this page. Have a question? Please email membership@techradar.com

That's not to say I don't like CarPlay. It looks good and it works well, and it was a little better than Android Auto on the messaging front. In fact, Siri seems to interface with the native phone apps more seamlessly than Gemini — it's just not as good at parsing what you're after or understanding what you mean, in my experience.

In terms of features and app support, the two platforms are pretty similar, and I didn't have any major problems with either of them. It's really the reliability of the core maps functionality and the capability of the voice AI where Google just edges it at the moment, so Android Auto stays as my preferred interface.

from Latest from TechRadar https://ift.tt/hBXYQDF

• ChatGPT and Google Gemini have overtaken popular social media sites for discovering new products
• 55% of UK shoppers have made a purchase based on AI-powered product recommendations
• Privacy and advanced features like visual search could be holding back wider adoption

New research has claimed that while AI is helping people to shop, the technology is yet to contribute to any noticeable increases in revenue.

Figures from Vercel and the World Retail Congress found 20% of UK consumers use AI search platforms such as ChatGPT and Google Gemini over social media to kick off their retail discovery, with Facebook on 19%, TikTok on 18%, and Instagram with just 14%.

Meanwhile, 87% of UK shoppers find AI recommendations useful, but only 55% have made a purchase following an AI recommendation.

AI shopping assistants

While AI recommendations and price comparisons are considered useful, retailers are yet to see any increase in buying. This could be due to trust or privacy issues, with only 10% of shoppers admitting that they would spend more time with an AI shopping assistant than a human fulfilling the same role, a figure that is repeated across Europe.

In the UK, while AI is being increasingly adopted by storefronts, it is still some way from wider adoption as a replacement. 79% prefer to open a retailer’s website to start online shopping, and for high value purchases, 65% still prefer to pay a visit to the retailer’s bricks-and-mortar location and see the goods for themselves before parting with their cash.

Some of the resistance can be attributed to trust and privacy issues. The report found a third (33%) of UK customers are concerned that AI doesn’t show them the best products, perhaps because they are inaccurate, or worse – influenced by manufacturers or some other promotional tool.

The challenge to retailers

"For most of the web's history, we optimized storefronts for two audiences: people and Google," said Malte Ubl, CTO at Vercel.

"There's now a third: AI agents that discover, compare, and increasingly recommend products on a shopper's behalf. The retailers who win the next decade will be the ones who can iterate and ship quickly enough to keep up with how fast this consumer behavior is moving."

But challenges exist. While 43% are likely to prefer one retailer over another due to a superior AI-powered experience, privacy concerns and features like visual search need to be addressed.

from Latest from TechRadar https://ift.tt/vJ6OaSA