Table of Contents
Awards season is upon us once again after another huge year for film and television. The Golden Globe Awards will kick things off this weekend, giving us a little taste of what’s to come. Stars will flock to Los Angeles, where the best in movies and TV will be honored for their work in 2025.
The awards have comedian Nikki Glaser back once again to solo host Hollywood’s “party of the year.” There’s also plenty of first-time nominees again this year — including Dwayne Johnson, Chase Infiniti, Rhea Seehorn, Kevin Hart, Britt Lower, and more.
If you want to be a part of Hollywood’s big night and see your favorite stars shine, here’s everything you need to know to watch the 2026 Golden Globes live.
When are the Golden Globe Awards?
The 83rd annual Golden Globe Awards will take place on Sunday, Jan. 11, 2026, at the Beverly Hilton in Beverly Hills, California. You can tune in live at 8 p.m. ET.
Who is nominated at the Golden Globes?
Marlon Wayans and Skye P. Marshall announced the 83rd Golden Globes nominees in a live CBS broadcast on Dec. 8. Paul Thomas Anderson’s ambitious epic One Battle After Another earned the most nominations with nine, followed by Joachim Trier’s Sentimental Value with eight and Ryan Coogler’s Sinners (Mashable’s favorite movie of 2025) with seven.
On the TV side of things, The White Lotus leads nominations with six, followed by Adolescence with five, and Only Murders in the Building and Severance both with four.
Check out the full list of nominees.
How to watch the Golden Globes live without cable
Thanks to a five-year deal locked in last year between the Golden Globe Awards and CBS, the awards show will be broadcast on the network live. If you don’t have cable, however, you’ll be able to livestream the show on Paramount+ Premium only. The Paramount+ Essential plan will only get you access to the on-demand broadcast the next day after the awards air.
Mashable Top Stories
Paramount+ Premium will run you $12.99 per month, while Paramount+ Essential is just $7.99 per month.
Another option? Sign up for a live TV streaming service like YouTube TV or Fubo. These services offer live streaming of local channels, including CBS, so you can catch the broadcast as it’s happening. They cost a lot more than Paramount+, but they do offer free trials if you’re a new subscriber.
Is there a Paramount+ free trial?
Yes, for the meantime. Paramount+ offers free seven-day trials for newbies for both the Essential and Premium tiers (until Jan. 15). So, technically, if you’ve never subscribed to Paramount+ before, you can sign up for a week-long trial of the Premium tier and watch the Golden Globes for free during that time. Just remember to cancel your subscription before the trial ends if you want to avoid charges.
Don’t qualify for the free trial? We’ve also found a few different ways you can save some money on a subscription. Check out the best Paramount+ streaming deals below.
The best Paramount+ streaming deals
Best deal to watch live: Save 23% on a Paramount+ Premium annual subscription
$119.99/year (save $35.89)
If you want to catch the Golden Globe Awards live, you’ll need the Paramount+ Premium plan, which regularly goes for $12.99 per month. However, you can save 23% if you opt for an annual plan for $119.99 instead. That brings the monthly cost down to just $10 instead of $12.99. You’ll have to pay more upfront, but you’ll also get more bang for your buck. Beyond just unlocking the live broadcast, you’ll also get access to Showtime originals and movies (like Yellowjackets and The Curse) as well as live sports. Not to mention, you’ll lock in that price for a year, which means you’ll avoid the price increase set to take place on Jan. 15.
Best deal to watch later: Save 38% on a Paramount+ Essential annual subscription
If you don’t mind watching the awards show after it airs (and can avoid spoilers), you can subscribe to Paramount+ Essential for a single month at $7.99. You’ll be able to catch the broadcast on demand the day after it airs live. Just remember to cancel before your month is up if you want to avoid further monthly charges. Want to stick around and save some money? Opt for the annual plan and save 38% on your subscription. It’ll run you just $59.99 per year, which breaks down to $5 per month instead of the usual $7.99. That’s like getting 12 months for less than the price of eight.
Best deal for students: Save 50% on Paramount+ Premium
College students can score a Paramount+ Premium monthly subscription for just $6.49 per month, so long as they can verify their student status using SheerID. Once verified, student discounts are valid for your first 12 months. After 12 months, you’ll be charged the standard rate for a Premium monthly subscription.
Best third-party deal: Get Paramount+ for free with a Walmart+ membership
Free 30-day trial, then $98/year
It may not be the simplest way to watch, but a Walmart+ membership gives you free access to Paramount+ Essential and plenty of other sweet benefits. Better yet, you can kick things off with a free 30-day trial, so you can enjoy an entire month of streaming without paying a cent. Just be sure to cancel before your trial ends if you want to avoid charges. If you want to keep your Walmart+ membership going, it’ll cost you either $12.95 per month or $98 per year ($8.17/month). As we noted above, Paramount+ Essential will only get you access to the on-demand broadcast the day after the Golden Globes air.
Live TV streaming services with free trials
If you want to catch the Golden Globe Awards live and for free, but don’t qualify for a Paramount+ trial, you can also try out some live TV streaming services. YouTube TV, Fubo, Hulu + Live TV, and DirecTV Stream are all streamers that offer CBS live in their channel lineup — and all four offer free trials to newcomers.
Best live TV streaming service
Free 10-day trial, then $59.99/month for three months
YouTube TV is our top pick, as it not only offers newbies a 21-day trial period, but also an introductory rate of $59.99 per month for your first two months. After that, it’ll jump up to $82.99 per month. Beyond watching the Golden Globes live on CBS, YouTube TV offers a lineup of over 100 live channels that will make you forget all about cable. The best part is that there are no hidden fees or contracts involved. Pay for what you want and cancel whenever you choose. If you want to avoid charges, be sure to cancel your subscription before the trial period ends.
Honorable mentions
-
Fubo Pro — free 7-day trial, then $48.99 for your first month ($73.99/month thereafter)
-
Hulu + Live TV — free 3-day trial, then $82.99 per month
-
DirecTV Stream — free 5-day trial, then $84.99 for your first month ($94.99/month thereafter)
Source link
#watch #Golden #Globes #live #cable
![Your Doctor Is Most Likely Consulting This Free AI Chatbot, Report Says
How would you like it if, when stumped or just in need of some help with an unfamiliar situation, your doctor consulted a free, ad-supported AI chatbot? That’s not actually a hypothetical. They probably are doing that, a new report from NBC News says. It’s called OpenEvidence, and NBC says it was “used by about 65% of U.S. doctors across almost 27 million clinical encounters in April alone.” An earlier Bloomberg report on OpenEvidence from seven months ago said it had signed up 50% of American doctors at the time—so reported growth is rapid.
The OpenEvidence homepage trumpets the bot as “America’s Official Medical Knowledge Platform,” and says healthcare professionals qualify for unlimited free use, but non-doctors can try it for free without creating accounts. It gives long, detailed answers with extensive citations that superficially look—to me, a non-doctor—trustworthy and credible. NBC interviewed doctors for its story, and apparently pressed them on how often they actually click those links to the sources of information, and “most said they only do so when they get an unexpected result,” NBC’s report says.
While it’s free, OpenEvidence is not a charity. It’s a Miami-headquartered tech unicorn with a billionaire founder named David Nadler, and as of January it boasted a billion valuation. NBC says it’s backed by some of the all stars of Sand Hill Road: Sequoia Capital and Andreessen Horowitz, along with Google Ventures, Thrive Capital, and Nvidia.
And its revenue comes from ads (for now), which NBC says are often for “pharmaceutical and medical device companies.” I’m not capable of stress testing such a piece of software, but I kicked the tires slightly by asking Claude to generate doctor’s notes that are very bad and irresponsible (I said it was just a movie prop). ©OpenEvidence When I told OpenEvidence those were my notes and asked it to make sure they were good, thankfully, it confirmed that they were bad, saying in part:
“This clinical documentation raises serious patient safety concerns. The presentation described contains multiple red flags for subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) that appear to have been insufficiently weighted, and the current management plan could result in significant harm.” So that’s somewhat comforting. On the other hand, according to NBC: “[…]some healthcare providers were quick to point out that OpenEvidence occasionally flubbed or exaggerated its answers, particularly on rare conditions or in ‘edge’ cases.” NBC’s report also clocked some worries within the medical community and elsewhere, in particular, a “lack of rigorous scientific studies on the tool’s patient impact,” and signs that OpenEvidence might be stunting the intellectual development of recent med school grads: “One midcareer doctor in Missouri, who requested anonymity given the limited number of providers in their medical field in the country, said he was already seeing the detrimental effects of OpenEvidence on students’ ability to sort signals from noise. ‘My worry is that when we introduce a new tool, any kind of tool that is doing part of your skills that you had trained up for a while beforehand, you start losing those skills pretty quickly” At a recent doctor’s appointment, my doctor asked my permission to use an AI tool on their phone (I don’t know if it was OpenEvidence). I didn’t know what to say other than yes. Do I want that for my doctor’s appointment? Not especially. But if my doctor has come to rely on a tool like this, then what am I supposed to do? Take away their crutch? #Doctor #Consulting #Free #Chatbot #ReportArtificial intelligence,doctors,Medicine](https://gizmodo.com/app/uploads/2026/05/Screenshot-2026-05-13-at-8.02.01 PM.jpg "Your Doctor Is Most Likely Consulting This Free AI Chatbot, Report Says
How would you like it if, when stumped or just in need of some help with an unfamiliar situation, your doctor consulted a free, ad-supported AI chatbot? That’s not actually a hypothetical. They probably are doing that, a new report from NBC News says. It’s called OpenEvidence, and NBC says it was “used by about 65% of U.S. doctors across almost 27 million clinical encounters in April alone.” An earlier Bloomberg report on OpenEvidence from seven months ago said it had signed up 50% of American doctors at the time—so reported growth is rapid.
The OpenEvidence homepage trumpets the bot as “America’s Official Medical Knowledge Platform,” and says healthcare professionals qualify for unlimited free use, but non-doctors can try it for free without creating accounts. It gives long, detailed answers with extensive citations that superficially look—to me, a non-doctor—trustworthy and credible. NBC interviewed doctors for its story, and apparently pressed them on how often they actually click those links to the sources of information, and “most said they only do so when they get an unexpected result,” NBC’s report says.
While it’s free, OpenEvidence is not a charity. It’s a Miami-headquartered tech unicorn with a billionaire founder named David Nadler, and as of January it boasted a billion valuation. NBC says it’s backed by some of the all stars of Sand Hill Road: Sequoia Capital and Andreessen Horowitz, along with Google Ventures, Thrive Capital, and Nvidia.
And its revenue comes from ads (for now), which NBC says are often for “pharmaceutical and medical device companies.” I’m not capable of stress testing such a piece of software, but I kicked the tires slightly by asking Claude to generate doctor’s notes that are very bad and irresponsible (I said it was just a movie prop). ©OpenEvidence When I told OpenEvidence those were my notes and asked it to make sure they were good, thankfully, it confirmed that they were bad, saying in part:
“This clinical documentation raises serious patient safety concerns. The presentation described contains multiple red flags for subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) that appear to have been insufficiently weighted, and the current management plan could result in significant harm.” So that’s somewhat comforting. On the other hand, according to NBC: “[…]some healthcare providers were quick to point out that OpenEvidence occasionally flubbed or exaggerated its answers, particularly on rare conditions or in ‘edge’ cases.” NBC’s report also clocked some worries within the medical community and elsewhere, in particular, a “lack of rigorous scientific studies on the tool’s patient impact,” and signs that OpenEvidence might be stunting the intellectual development of recent med school grads: “One midcareer doctor in Missouri, who requested anonymity given the limited number of providers in their medical field in the country, said he was already seeing the detrimental effects of OpenEvidence on students’ ability to sort signals from noise. ‘My worry is that when we introduce a new tool, any kind of tool that is doing part of your skills that you had trained up for a while beforehand, you start losing those skills pretty quickly” At a recent doctor’s appointment, my doctor asked my permission to use an AI tool on their phone (I don’t know if it was OpenEvidence). I didn’t know what to say other than yes. Do I want that for my doctor’s appointment? Not especially. But if my doctor has come to rely on a tool like this, then what am I supposed to do? Take away their crutch? #Doctor #Consulting #Free #Chatbot #ReportArtificial intelligence,doctors,Medicine")
![Your Doctor Is Most Likely Consulting This Free AI Chatbot, Report Says
How would you like it if, when stumped or just in need of some help with an unfamiliar situation, your doctor consulted a free, ad-supported AI chatbot? That’s not actually a hypothetical. They probably are doing that, a new report from NBC News says. It’s called OpenEvidence, and NBC says it was “used by about 65% of U.S. doctors across almost 27 million clinical encounters in April alone.” An earlier Bloomberg report on OpenEvidence from seven months ago said it had signed up 50% of American doctors at the time—so reported growth is rapid.
The OpenEvidence homepage trumpets the bot as “America’s Official Medical Knowledge Platform,” and says healthcare professionals qualify for unlimited free use, but non-doctors can try it for free without creating accounts. It gives long, detailed answers with extensive citations that superficially look—to me, a non-doctor—trustworthy and credible. NBC interviewed doctors for its story, and apparently pressed them on how often they actually click those links to the sources of information, and “most said they only do so when they get an unexpected result,” NBC’s report says.
While it’s free, OpenEvidence is not a charity. It’s a Miami-headquartered tech unicorn with a billionaire founder named David Nadler, and as of January it boasted a billion valuation. NBC says it’s backed by some of the all stars of Sand Hill Road: Sequoia Capital and Andreessen Horowitz, along with Google Ventures, Thrive Capital, and Nvidia.
And its revenue comes from ads (for now), which NBC says are often for “pharmaceutical and medical device companies.” I’m not capable of stress testing such a piece of software, but I kicked the tires slightly by asking Claude to generate doctor’s notes that are very bad and irresponsible (I said it was just a movie prop). ©OpenEvidence When I told OpenEvidence those were my notes and asked it to make sure they were good, thankfully, it confirmed that they were bad, saying in part:
“This clinical documentation raises serious patient safety concerns. The presentation described contains multiple red flags for subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) that appear to have been insufficiently weighted, and the current management plan could result in significant harm.” So that’s somewhat comforting. On the other hand, according to NBC: “[…]some healthcare providers were quick to point out that OpenEvidence occasionally flubbed or exaggerated its answers, particularly on rare conditions or in ‘edge’ cases.” NBC’s report also clocked some worries within the medical community and elsewhere, in particular, a “lack of rigorous scientific studies on the tool’s patient impact,” and signs that OpenEvidence might be stunting the intellectual development of recent med school grads: “One midcareer doctor in Missouri, who requested anonymity given the limited number of providers in their medical field in the country, said he was already seeing the detrimental effects of OpenEvidence on students’ ability to sort signals from noise. ‘My worry is that when we introduce a new tool, any kind of tool that is doing part of your skills that you had trained up for a while beforehand, you start losing those skills pretty quickly” At a recent doctor’s appointment, my doctor asked my permission to use an AI tool on their phone (I don’t know if it was OpenEvidence). I didn’t know what to say other than yes. Do I want that for my doctor’s appointment? Not especially. But if my doctor has come to rely on a tool like this, then what am I supposed to do? Take away their crutch? #Doctor #Consulting #Free #Chatbot #ReportArtificial intelligence,doctors,Medicine](https://i0.wp.com/gizmodo.com/app/uploads/2026/05/Screenshot-2026-05-13-at-8.02.01 PM.jpg?ssl=1 "Your Doctor Is Most Likely Consulting This Free AI Chatbot, Report Says
How would you like it if, when stumped or just in need of some help with an unfamiliar situation, your doctor consulted a free, ad-supported AI chatbot? That’s not actually a hypothetical. They probably are doing that, a new report from NBC News says. It’s called OpenEvidence, and NBC says it was “used by about 65% of U.S. doctors across almost 27 million clinical encounters in April alone.” An earlier Bloomberg report on OpenEvidence from seven months ago said it had signed up 50% of American doctors at the time—so reported growth is rapid.
The OpenEvidence homepage trumpets the bot as “America’s Official Medical Knowledge Platform,” and says healthcare professionals qualify for unlimited free use, but non-doctors can try it for free without creating accounts. It gives long, detailed answers with extensive citations that superficially look—to me, a non-doctor—trustworthy and credible. NBC interviewed doctors for its story, and apparently pressed them on how often they actually click those links to the sources of information, and “most said they only do so when they get an unexpected result,” NBC’s report says.
While it’s free, OpenEvidence is not a charity. It’s a Miami-headquartered tech unicorn with a billionaire founder named David Nadler, and as of January it boasted a billion valuation. NBC says it’s backed by some of the all stars of Sand Hill Road: Sequoia Capital and Andreessen Horowitz, along with Google Ventures, Thrive Capital, and Nvidia.
And its revenue comes from ads (for now), which NBC says are often for “pharmaceutical and medical device companies.” I’m not capable of stress testing such a piece of software, but I kicked the tires slightly by asking Claude to generate doctor’s notes that are very bad and irresponsible (I said it was just a movie prop). ©OpenEvidence When I told OpenEvidence those were my notes and asked it to make sure they were good, thankfully, it confirmed that they were bad, saying in part:
“This clinical documentation raises serious patient safety concerns. The presentation described contains multiple red flags for subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) that appear to have been insufficiently weighted, and the current management plan could result in significant harm.” So that’s somewhat comforting. On the other hand, according to NBC: “[…]some healthcare providers were quick to point out that OpenEvidence occasionally flubbed or exaggerated its answers, particularly on rare conditions or in ‘edge’ cases.” NBC’s report also clocked some worries within the medical community and elsewhere, in particular, a “lack of rigorous scientific studies on the tool’s patient impact,” and signs that OpenEvidence might be stunting the intellectual development of recent med school grads: “One midcareer doctor in Missouri, who requested anonymity given the limited number of providers in their medical field in the country, said he was already seeing the detrimental effects of OpenEvidence on students’ ability to sort signals from noise. ‘My worry is that when we introduce a new tool, any kind of tool that is doing part of your skills that you had trained up for a while beforehand, you start losing those skills pretty quickly” At a recent doctor’s appointment, my doctor asked my permission to use an AI tool on their phone (I don’t know if it was OpenEvidence). I didn’t know what to say other than yes. Do I want that for my doctor’s appointment? Not especially. But if my doctor has come to rely on a tool like this, then what am I supposed to do? Take away their crutch? #Doctor #Consulting #Free #Chatbot #ReportArtificial intelligence,doctors,Medicine")
Post Comment