A recent study conducted by researchers at the University of Zurich indicates that the compositions of Uranus and Neptune might be less icy than previously assumed.
Uranus could be classified as an ice giant (left) or a rock giant (right), depending on the assumptions of the model. Image credit: Keck Institute for Space Studies / Chuck Carter.
“Uranus and Neptune remain poorly understood, making the designation of ice giants too simplistic,” states Dr. Luca Morf, a student at the University of Zurich.
“Models based on physical data incorporate too many assumptions, while empirical models fall short in complexity.”
“Our approach combines both methodologies to create an interior model that is unbiased, yet physically coherent.”
The research commenced with a stochastic density distribution inside the planets.
Subsequently, the team calculated the gravitational fields of the planets in alignment with observational data to infer their likely compositions.
The process was iterated to achieve the closest alignment between the model and the empirical data.
Employing a new, unbiased yet fully physical framework, scientists have revealed that the internal compositions of the solar system’s ice giants are not restricted to ice alone.
“We initially proposed this concept nearly 15 years ago, and now we possess a numerical framework to substantiate it,” remarked Professor Ravit Held of the University of Zurich.
“This expanded spectrum of internal compositions suggests both planets could be rich in water or minerals.”
The study also sheds light on the enigmatic magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune.
In contrast to Earth’s defined north and south magnetic poles, the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune exhibit greater complexity, featuring multiple poles.
“Our model introduces a so-called ‘ionized water’ layer that generates magnetic dynamos that account for the observed non-dipolar magnetic fields,” noted Professor Held.
“Moreover, we discovered that Uranus’ magnetic field has a more profound origin compared to that of Neptune.”
While the findings are promising, some ambiguities linger.
“A significant challenge is that physicists still have limited understanding of how materials behave under the extreme pressure and temperature conditions in planetary cores, which could influence our conclusions,” Morf added.
Notwithstanding the uncertainties, these new findings open avenues for possible internal composition scenarios, challenging longstanding assumptions and informing future materials science research under planetary conditions.
“Depending on model assumptions, both Uranus and Neptune have the potential to be classified as rock giants or ice giants,” Professor Held remarked.
“At present, the data is insufficient to differentiate between the two, highlighting the necessity for dedicated missions to Uranus and Neptune to uncover their true natures.”
A paper detailing this research was published in this week’s journal Astronomy and Astrophysics.
_____
Luca Morf and Ravit Held, 2025. Ice or rock? Convection or stability? New interior models for Uranus and Neptune. A&A 704, A183; doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556911
The anaconda is among the largest surviving snake species in the world. Typically, its length ranges from 4 to 5 meters, although exceptional cases can reach up to 7 meters. A recent study conducted by paleontologists on giant anaconda fossils from South America suggests that these tropical reptiles achieved their maximum size approximately 12.4 million years ago and have maintained their large dimensions continuously since then.
Green anaconda (Eunectes murinus). Image credit: MKAMPIS / CC BY-SA 4.0.
“Current snakes display a broad spectrum of body lengths, averaging about 1 meter, with sizes ranging from 10 centimeters for the smallest leptotyphloid thread snakes to roughly 7 meters for anacondas.” Eunectes Andrés Alfonso Rojas, a PhD student at the University of Cambridge, and his colleagues state:
“Within the Eunectes genus, the green anaconda (Eunectes murinus) is the largest species, averaging 4 to 5 meters in length, with maximum recorded lengths of 6 to 7.2 meters.”
“Limited fossil findings from Brazil, Colombia, Peru, and Venezuela suggest that the evolutionary timeline of anacondas dates back to the mid-to-late Miocene.”
“However, our understanding of the body size of early anacondas, which coexisted with massive crocodilians, turtles, ungulates, and xenartranians, remains scarce.”
In their research, the authors examined 183 fossilized anaconda spines representing at least 32 snakes discovered in the state of Falcón, Venezuela.
By integrating these measurements with fossil data from various South American locations, they concluded that ancient anacondas measured 4 to 5 meters in length, similar to today’s anacondas.
“While other species, including giant crocodiles and colossal turtles, have become extinct since the Miocene—likely due to declining global temperatures and reduced habitats—giant anacondas have persisted. They demonstrate remarkable adaptability,” noted Alfonso Rojas.
“The analysis of fossils indicates that anacondas’ body size evolved significantly soon after their emergence in tropical South America around 12.4 million years ago, and this size has remained consistent ever since.”
The researchers cross-verified their estimates using an alternative method known as ancestral state reconstruction, employing snake family trees to estimate the length of giant anacondas and related modern species like tree boas and rainbow boas.
This method corroborates the notion that when anacondas first appeared in the Miocene, their average size was 4 to 5 meters.
Anacondas inhabit swamps, marshes, and substantial rivers, such as the Amazon. During the Miocene, northern South America resembled the contemporary Amazon region, allowing anacondas to thrive in wider areas than seen today.
Nonetheless, the current environment still offers ample food sources, including capybaras and fish, and suitable habitats that support the continued growth of modern anacondas.
As snakes are particularly sensitive to temperature changes, it was previously believed that anacondas might have grown even larger during earlier warm periods.
“This finding is unexpected, as ancient anacondas were thought to have reached lengths of 7 to 8 meters,” remarked Alfonso Rojas.
“However, we found no evidence supporting the existence of larger snakes during the Miocene, even when global temperatures were higher.”
These findings were published recently in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology.
_____
Andres F. Alfonso-Rojas et al. Early origins of gigantism in anacondas (Serpentes: Eunectes) revealed by the fossil record. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology published online on December 1, 2025. doi: 10.1080/02724634.2025.2572967
In response to significant backlash from writers, arts, and media organizations, the Albanon government has definitively stated that tech companies will not be allowed to freely access creative content for training artificial intelligence models.
Attorney General Michel Rolland is expected to announce this decision on Monday, effectively rejecting a contentious proposal from the Ministry of Justice. productivity committee, which had support from technology companies.
“Australian creatives are not just top-tier; they are essential to the fabric of Australian culture, and we need to ensure they have robust legal protections,” said Mr. Rowland.
The commission faced outrage in August when its interim report on data usage in the digital economy suggested exemptions from copyright law, effectively granting tech companies free access to content for AI training.
Sign up: AU breaking news email
Recently, Scott Farquhar, co-founder of Atlassian and chairman of the Australian Technology Council, told the National Press Club that revising existing restrictions could “unlock billions in foreign investment for Australia”.
The proposal triggered a strong backlash from creators, including Indigenous rapper Adam Briggs, who testified in September that allowing companies to utilize local content without fair remuneration would make it “hard to put the genie back in the bottle.”
Australian author Anna Funder argued that large-scale AI systems rely on “massive unauthorized appropriation of every available book, artwork, and performance that can be digitized.”
The same inquiry uncovered that the Productivity Commission did not engage with the creative community or assess the potential effects of its recommendations before releasing its report. This led Green Party senator Sarah Hanson-Young to state that the agency had “miscalculated the importance of the creative industries.”
The Australian Council of Trade Unions also cautioned against the proposal, asserting it would lead to “widespread theft” of creative works.
Higher government ministers were disrespectful, although a so-called “text and data mining” exemption may still be considered, Rowland’s statement marks the first time it has been specifically ruled out.
“While artificial intelligence offers vast opportunities for Australia and its economy, it’s crucial that Australian creators also reap the benefits,” she asserted.
The Attorney General plans to gather the government’s Copyright and AI Reference Group on Monday and Tuesday to explore alternative measures to address the challenges posed by advancing technology.
This includes discussions on whether a new paid licensing framework under copyright law should replace the current voluntary system.
Briggs says he will be replaced by AI: AI doesn’t know ‘what a lounge room in Shepparton smells like’ – video
The Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA), one of the organizations advocating against the exemption, praised the announcement as “a substantial step forward.”
“This represents a win for creativity and Australian culture, including Indigenous culture, but more importantly, it’s a victory for common sense. The current copyright licensing system is effective,” stated ARIA CEO Annabel Hurd.
“Intellectual property law is fundamental to the creative economy, digital economy, and tech industry. It is the foundation that technology companies rely on to protect and monetize their products, driving innovation.”
Hurd emphasized that further measures are necessary to safeguard artists, including ensuring AI adheres to licensing rules.
“Artists have the right to determine how their work is utilized and to share in the value that it generates,” she stated.
“Safeguarding those frameworks is how we secure Australia’s creative sovereignty and maintain our cultural vitality.”
Media companies also expressed their support for the decision.
A spokesperson for Guardian Australia stated that this represents “a significant step towards affirming that Australia’s copyrighted content warrants protection and compensation.”
“Australian media, publishers, and creators all voiced strong opposition to the TDM (text and data mining) exception, asserting it would permit large-scale theft of the work of Australian journalists and creators, undermining Australia’s national interests,” the spokesperson added.
They also indicated that the Guardian seeks to establish a fair licensing system that supports genuine value exchange.
News Corp Australasia executive chairman Michael Miller remarked that the government made the “correct decision” to exclude the exemption.
“By protecting creators’ rights to control access, usage terms, and remuneration, we reinforce the efficacy of our nation’s copyright laws, ensuring favorable market outcomes,” he affirmed.
Last year presented significant challenges for Acadia Healthcare, one of the nation’s leading providers of mental health services.
A New York Times investigation in September revealed that multiple federal agencies were looking into accusations of Acadia unlawfully detaining patients in mental health hospitals. This led to a sharp decline in Acadia’s stock value and rattled investors.
Despite these troubles, Acadia’s CEO, Christopher Hunter, benefitted from the situation. As indicated in the recent financial report, he received a $1.8 million bonus from the board to deal with the “unprecedented government inquiries.” This bonus was on top of his regular compensation, exceeding $7 million in 2024.
Other top executives at Acadia, including the CFO and Legal Advisor, also received substantial bonuses, with the COO promised a bonus as well. These bonuses were given to prevent key leaders from leaving before the investigation was concluded, according to Acadia.
The board of directors at Acadia believed that retaining the current leadership team was in the best interest of the company, its patients, and communities. They emphasized the use of peer market data for evaluating performance and benchmarking.
The Times investigation uncovered that Acadia had been holding patients against their will to maximize insurance payments. This practice had started before Hunter took over as CEO in April 2022 but continued under his leadership.
Following the allegations, Acadia stated that they would vehemently deny fraud and cooperate with the investigation. Hunter assured investors that the claims of holding patients longer than necessary were false and contradicted their commitment to patient care.
After the investigation was initiated, Acadia disclosed that various government agencies, including the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission, were investigating the matter. Additionally, shareholders filed a class action lawsuit against the company, accusing them of withholding information from investors.
Issues were also uncovered in other areas of Acadia, such as a methadone clinic overbilling the government for services not rendered. Inadequate staffing levels at one of the company’s women’s facilities led to tragic incidents, as reported by The Times.
Since September, Acadia’s market value has plummeted by approximately $5 billion, now valued at around $2 billion.
Hunter’s compensation is tied to Acadia’s stock performance, but the company’s stock decline in 2024 caused him to miss his targets. Critics, like Sarah Anderson from the Institute of Policy Research, argue that linking compensation to stock prices can incentivize risky behavior and undermine performance.
oThe NE drone is lifted into the sky in a shopping centre outside Dublin, then another shopping centre. They rise to 70 feet (21 meters), tilted forward and zipped in different directions, each carrying a paper bag.
On sleepy mornings in the Irish capital, takeoffs became stable every few minutes, with few people exchanging the constant flow of aircraft.
“No one looks up – no one looks up,” says Bobby Healy, director and founder of Dublin’s startup Mannaaero.
People should probably be aware that drones are part of an effort to realize the ambitions shared by Amazon, Google Sister Company Wing, California Startup Zipline: Instant and Autonomous Home Delivery. Healy and his big tech rivals hope that drone distribution will change courses in Ireland’s retail industry and will soon be transformed into the UK this year.
Drones have already had a huge impact, from photography to light shows, humanitarian missions to wars in Ukraine. The promise is clear. Skip the Earth’s crowds. But companies now have to persuade investors and the public. Previous Wing trials in Australia faced public opposition.
“In the suburbs, those delivery drivers are broken models,” says Bobby Healy, founder of Manna Aero. Photo: Patrick Bolger/Guardian
Amazon operates in Texas, Arizona and Italy, and is seeking permission to fly drones from British warehouses, but Wings are already operating in several countries. However, Manaero seems right in the mix. We flew 200,000 delivery services in Blancherstown, outside Dublin, and Helsinki, Finland. Working with Just Eat and Doordash helps to expand and attract businesses such as restaurants, tool stores, and bookstores.
In Manna’s app, the Guardian orders two coffees to be borrowed and delivered to the rented house. Spots on the horizon gradually resolve to a quadcopter as you gazed through the skyline of Dublin’s suburban. It approaches the garden, hoveres temporarily, then drops a paper bag onto the biodegradable strings. The drone flies off and leaves behind two warm, unpainted coffees.
The coffee arrived 16 minutes after I ordered it from the app, including preparation time. This is compared to the preparation time and minimum 11 minutes for those who offer the same thing on an e-bike.
Importantly, drones do not need to be hanging around humans. This means lowering energy, says Healy. Each aircraft makes about 80 deliveries a day, he says — more than twice what delivery drivers and riders generally do. In addition to that, Drone “pilots” can oversee up to 20 aircraft at a time, Healy adds.
Autonomous drones mean fewer people need it. “Pilots” can oversee up to 20 aircraft at a time, says Manna CEO. Photo: Patrick Bolger/Guardian
Autonomous drone
The drone is autonomous from the point that is given a loaded and lifted from the base. Six minutes later, on average, the drone arrived home and floated over the garden. The only intervention from the pilot is for the video to flick its back on the base to see if people or vehicles are exempt from the ground.
“In the suburbs, those delivery drivers are broken models,” Healy says. “There’s no way to do that with delivery drivers and make them profitable.”
Dubliner’s Healy describes himself as a “technical person.” He left school at the age of 17 to make video games and then started and sold six businesses. Recently, we have sold Cartrawler, which operates a vehicle rental service on the airline’s website. He founded Mana in 2018. Because he wanted to create “measurable impacts across the planet,” he took on the challenge of bringing the coder to create an autonomous drone.
The drones were designed by the Manna teams in Monmouth, Wales and Dublin and featured aerospace-grade parts, mainly made in China. Each weight is 23kg (51lb) (including up to 4kg of cargo), and is the weight that can fly in the US.
The Mana drone can carry cargo weighing up to 4 kg, and is sufficient to carry four 15-inch pizzas. Photo: Patrick Bolger/Guardian
Despite being “weight more difficult than weight”, it’s easy enough to carry four 15 inch pizzas for your family or transport some books. Delivery of one of Finland’s 24 toilet rolls had to be halved as they all didn’t fit. “It must have been an emergency,” Healy said.
The drone has eight motors, but in the event of a disaster you can easily fly to four. There is also a built-in parachute, which has been used only once on 200,000 flights over four years, and European aerospace regulators have audited the company’s technology.
The drone works from a slung base with several shipping containers and 5 meters square fitted landLanding zone. Mana employees in the container prepare orders, charge the batteries that are replaced after each flight, and oversee the drops in a 2.1 mile (3.4 km) circle.
Expansion plan
Mana’s catchment covers 150,000 people in Blanchardstown. By the end of the year, the company expects to cover approximately 1 million people across Dublin. It is most of the city outside the centre, and for now there are fewer shorter distances and fewer drop gardens, excludes mana. (While rooftop delivery in the city centre holds promises, there seems to be an unlikely idea of delivery to a flat on the fourth floor.) By the end of the year, Healy hopes to reach a rate of 2 million flights per year.
Mana has flew 200,000 delivery services in Blanchardstown, on the outskirts of Dublin and Helsinki, Finland. Photo: Patrick Bolger/Guardian
According to Healy, UK launches are supported by regulations, but if EU drone standards are adopted on April 1, they will “undetectedly” open the door in 2026 this year. Instead, businesses pay a fee.
Mana still has many obstacles. Currently, each flight is profitable, but the expansion costs are still high for companies that add losses. So far, it has been featured as an investor with Patrick Collison, founder of Coca-Cola and fintech company Stripe, wearing shoes worth 60 million euros in venture capital money.
Healy also knows that some people will acknowledge the idea of instant retail satisfaction. Although birds know they’ll move away, the company may have to solve the problem of avoiding rival operator aircraft in the future.
However, Healy is creepy about the future of drone delivery.
“It would allow for a completely different form of commerce than what we have today,” he says. “Small business people beating the Giants. If they can get everything going in three minutes, they have Amazon Slayer.”
Sir Keir Starmer does not create visions. But last Monday, he broke a lifelong habit. Speech at University College London. It was about AI, which he sees as “the defining opportunity of our generation.” He declared that Britain was “the land of Babbage, Loveless and Turing” and, of course, “the country that birthed the modern computer and the World Wide Web.” Please mark my words. Britain will become one of the great AI superpowers. ”
It's kind of exciting. Within days of taking office, the Prime Minister invited Matt Clifford, a clever engineer from Central Casting, to think about “how to seize the opportunity in AI''. Clifford scored 50 points. AI Opportunity Action Plan Starmer fully accepted this, saying he would “take full responsibility for the British state”. He also named Clifford AI Opportunity Advisor Supervise the implementation of the plan and report directly to him. It's only a matter of time until then solar We call him “Britain's AI emperor.”
Clifford's appointment is both predictable and puzzling. That was to be expected, as he had been hanging around government for a while: Rishi Sunak, for example, hosted the AI Safety Summit and approached him to set up the UK Safety Summit. AI safety unit. It's puzzling because he's already made so much money in technology. External Interests Register This will be a fairly long scroll. Several media and technology executives said to financial times They were concerned that Clifford, who had founded a successful investment firm with offices around the world, was being given too much influence over AI policy.
Damian Collins, a former Conservative technology secretary, said Clifford was “clearly a very capable person” but said he was “concerned about the balance of interests represented and how they are represented.” “It will be done,” he said. If Mr Starmer really believes that AI is a game-changing technology, it is strange that his chief adviser would be so involved in such an important game.
Collins was referring to a particularly hot topic. It is a routine copyright violation by tech companies that train AI models on the creative works of others without permission, approval, or payment. The latest revelations about this practice come from new, unredacted documents. US lawsuit This shows that the training dataset for Meta's Llama AI includes a huge database of pirated books collected from the internet.
Recommendation 24 of the plan calls for reform of the UK text and data mining regime. And the argument that “the current uncertainty around intellectual property (IP) is hindering innovation and undermining our broader ambitions for growth in AI and the creative industries” is a strong argument for many in these industries. made people furious. “There is no 'uncertainty' in the UK text and data mining regime,” he said. Creative Rights in the AI Coalition. “UK copyright law does not allow text or data mining for commercial purposes without a license. The only uncertainty is who will use Britain's creative crown as training material without permission and who will That's how you got it.”
Much of Clifford's plan seems sensible (albeit expensive). For example, building a national computing infrastructure for AI. Improving university research capabilities. Train tens of thousands of new AI professionals. Promote public-private partnerships to maximize the UK's interests in 'frontier' AI. Ensure strong technical and ethical standards to oversee the development and deployment of AI.
All of this is a refreshing change from the empty fuss about 'Global Britain' of the Johnson-Snak-Truss era. The plan's stated ambition to position the UK as an “AI maker rather than an AI taker” is that the UK has real potential in this area but lacks the resources to realize that potential. This suggests a candid recognition. But making that happen means we have to face two troubling truths.
The first is that this powerful technology is controlled by a small number of giant companies, none of which are based in the UK. Their power lies not only in their capital and human resources, but also in the vast physical infrastructure of data centers they own and manage. This means that any nation wishing to operate in this field must get along with them.
The UK Government needs to do a lot in this regard. The current attitude towards business is the snobbish attitude exhibited by Technology Secretary Peter Kyle, who said the Government needed to take a 'Government is' attitude.feeling humble” and uses a “national strategy” when dealing with technology giants, rather than using the threat of new legislation to influence developments in areas such as frontier artificial intelligence. In other words, the UK should treat these organizations as nation-states. Clearly, Kyle doesn't realize that appeasement is the art of being nice to the alligator in the hopes that it will eat you in the end.
Another troubling truth is that even though AI is powerful, economists like Nobel Prize winners Daron Acemoglu The general economic impact, at least in the short term, is believed to be significantly smaller than technology evangelists believe. Even worse, Economist Robert Gordon once pointed out thatgeneral-purpose technologies take a long time to have a significant impact. The message to the Prime Minister is clear. Becoming an “AI superpower” may take at least several election cycles.
In the wake of Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg’s pledge to team up with Donald Trump to pressure countries he deems as “censoring” content, efforts to enhance online safety have been emphasized. A government official has cautioned that Britain’s new law addressing hate speech is firm and non-negotiable.
Technology Secretary Peter Kyle, in an interview with observer, expressed optimism that recent legislation aimed at safeguarding online platforms for children and vulnerable individuals would attract major tech companies to the UK, supporting economic expansion without compromising safety measures.
As Keir Starmer prepares to unveil a significant tech initiative positioning the UK as an ideal hub for AI technology advancement, the government is under scrutiny from Elon Musk, a vocal Trump loyalist.
Technology Secretary Peter Kyle is dedicated to positioning the UK as a frontrunner in the AI revolution. Photo: Linda Nylind/The Guardian
Mark Zuckerberg’s recent decision to lift restrictions on topics like immigration and gender on meta platforms has stirred controversy. He emphasized collaboration with President Trump to combat governmental attacks on American businesses and increased censorship worldwide.
Despite not mentioning the UK specifically, Zuckerberg criticized the growing institutionalized censorship in Europe, hinting at potential clashes with the UK’s online safety law.
Peter Kyle, who is set to reveal the government’s AI strategy alongside Keir Starmer, acknowledged the overlap between Zuckerberg’s free speech dilemmas and his own considerations as an MP.
However, Kyle assured that he would not compromise on the integrity of the UK’s online safety laws, emphasizing the non-negotiable protection of children and vulnerable individuals.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has raised concerns about European online censorship policies. Photo: David Zarubowski/AP
Amid discussions with tech conglomerates and the unveiling of an AI Action Plan, the UK government aims to leverage its reputation for online safety and innovation. The plan emphasizes attracting tech investments by positioning the UK as a less regulated and more conducive environment for technological advancements.
As big tech leaders engage with President Trump nearing the inauguration, meta is changing its fact-checking approach to a “community notes” system similar to Company X, owned by Musk.
Elon Musk’s vocal criticisms of the UK government, particularly targeting Keir Starmer, have sparked controversy within the Labor Party and raised concerns about safety. Despite disagreements, the government remains committed to enacting robust measures against harmful online content.
While open to discussions with innovators and investors like Musk, Peter Kyle remains steadfast in prioritizing the advancement of technology to benefit British society both now and in the future.
Google and Microsoft each contributed $1 million to President Donald Trump’s Inaugural Fund, along with companies like Amazon, Meta, OpenAI, and Uber.
“Google is supporting the 2025 Inauguration with a live stream on YouTube and a direct link to the homepage. We are also donating to the inaugural committee,” said Google Government Affairs & Public Policy global head Karan Bhatia in a statement to the Guardian on Thursday.
Google made the donation on Monday, as reported by CNBC. Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda mentioned that the company had previously donated to the Inauguration Fund and hosted a livestream of the inauguration.
Microsoft confirmed its $1 million donation to President Trump’s inaugural fund in a statement to Bloomberg on Thursday. The company had also donated to Trump’s 2017 inauguration and Joe Biden’s 2021 inauguration.
Many other major companies made significant donations to President Trump’s inaugural fund last month, including Toyota, Uber, Amazon, Meta, and OpenAI.
These donations helped raise funds for President Trump’s inaugural committee, which received a $170 million donation. This appears to be an attempt by tech giants to gain favor with President Trump for his second term in office.
President Trump’s relationship with big tech companies has been contentious, but as his inauguration approaches, there seems to be a shift in tone from both parties.
Google CEO Sundar Pichai criticized the January 6 riot and praised President Trump’s victory. President Trump also noted a change in attitude towards him from various tech companies.
Mark Zuckerberg of Meta Inc. announced changes in the company’s approach to fact-checking and censorship, aiming to reduce censorship and recommend more political content across their platforms.
Experts believe that contributing to Trump’s inauguration is a way for tech companies to gain support from the new administration and avoid being targeted by President Trump in the future.
IImagine someone driving a high-end sports car to a pub. £1.5 million Koenigsegg Regerapark and saunter out of your car to pick one at random. They come to the pub where you’re drinking, start walking around the patrons, slip their hands into their visible pockets, and smile at you as they pull out your wallet and empty it of cash and cards.
Not-so-sophisticated pickpockets will stop if you ask out loud, “What the hell are you doing?” “We apologize for the inconvenience,” says Suri. “It’s an opt-out system, dude.”
It sounds ridiculous. But this appears to be the approach the government is pursuing to appease AI companies. A consultation meeting will be held soon, Financial Times coverageThis will allow AI companies to scrape content from individuals and organizations unless they explicitly opt out of having their data used.
The AI revolution is both rapid and comprehensive. Even if you’re not one of them, 200 million people If you log on to ChatGPT every week or dabble in generative AI competitors like Claude or Gemini, you’ve undoubtedly interacted with an AI system, knowingly or not. But to keep the AI fire from burning out, we need two constantly replenishing sources. One is energy. This is why AI companies are getting into the nuclear power plant acquisition business. And the other thing is data.
Data is essential to AI systems because it helps them recreate how we interact. If the AI has any “knowledge”, which is highly disputed given that it is actually a fancy pattern matching machine, it comes from the data used to train it. .
In some studies, large-scale language models such as ChatGPT Training data is missing By 2026, that appetite will be huge. But without that data, the AI revolution could stall. Tech companies know this, which is why they license content from left, right, and center. But it has created friction, and an unofficial mantra has continued in the sector over the past decade.move fast and break things” causes no friction.
This is why they are already trying to steer us towards an opt-out approach to copyright, rather than an opt-in regime, where everything we type, post and share is locked in until we say no. It is destined to become AI training data by default. Companies must ask us to use their data. We can already see how companies are nudging us towards this reality. This week, X began notifying users of changes to its terms of service that will allow all posts to be used for the following purposes: train grokElon Musk’s AI model designed to compete with ChatGPT. Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, then made similar changes, resulting in the widespread urban legend of “Goodbye Meta AI,” which purportedly invalidates legal agreements.
It’s clear why AI companies want an opt-out system. If you ask most people if they want to use something in the books they write, the music they produce, or the posts and photos they share on social networks to train an AI, they’ll probably say no. And the gears of the AI revolution will turn off. Why the government would want to enable such a change to the concept of copyright ownership that has existed to date. over 300 yearsis stipulated by law. 100 or moreit’s not so obvious. But like many things, it seems to come down to money.
The government faces lobbying from big tech companies suggesting this is a requirement for the country to be considered as a place to invest in AI innovation and share the spoils. A lobbying document prepared by Google suggests support for its approach to an opt-out copyright regime.guarantee uk In the future, it could become a competitive arena for developing and training AI models. ”So the government’s discussion of how to frame the issue, with opt-out options already on the table as a countermeasure, is a major victory for big tech lobbyists.
With so much money flowing into the tech industry and high levels of investment going into AI projects, Keir Starmer understandably doesn’t want to miss out on the potential benefits. It would be remiss of the Government not to consider how to appease the tech companies developing world-changing technology and help turn the UK into an AI powerhouse.
But this is not the answer. To be clear, the copyright system in question in the UK means that companies effectively own every post we make, every book we write, every book we create. This means it will be possible to add nicknames to songs and to our data without being penalized. That requires us to sign up to every individual service and say, “No, we don’t want you to chop up our data and spit out a poor composite image of us.” The number can number in the hundreds, from large technology companies to small research institutes.
Lest we forget, OpenAI – now Over $150 billion – The company plans to abandon its original nonprofit principles and become a for-profit company. Rather than relying on the charity of the general public, we have enough funds in our coffers to pay for our training data. Surely such companies can afford to line their pockets, not ours. So please let go.
ohOn August 24, when the Russian tech tycoon’s private jet landed at Le Bourget airport northeast of Paris, officers from the French judicial police were waiting for him. He was duly arrested and taken in for questioning. Four days later, he was indicted on 12 charges, including distribution of child exploitation material and complicity in drug trafficking, banned from leaving France, placed under “judicial supervision,” and required to report to the gendarmes twice a week until further notice.
The tycoon in question, Pavel Durov, is a tech entrepreneur who collects nationalities the way he collects airline miles. His Nationality Durov is French and was generously donated by French President Emmanuel Macron in 2021. Durov also appears to be a fitness fanatic with a strict daily routine: “After a recorded eight hours of sleep, Financial Times According to the report, “Without exception, he starts his days with 200 push-ups, 100 sit-ups and an ice bath. He doesn’t drink alcohol, smoke, eat sugar or meat, and takes time to meditate.” When he’s not engaged in these demanding activities, he’s also found time to be a sperm donor, father over 100 children, and rival Elon Musk as a free speech extremist.
Durov’s media profiles recall Churchill’s famous description of Russia as “an enigma wrapped in an enigma.” Durov left Russia after the Facebook clone he co-founded with his brother Nikolai in 2006 brought him into conflict with the Kremlin. He eventually emigrated to the United Arab Emirates, where he launched Telegram, a private social media platform that is as mysterious as its founder.
Telegram has around 950 million regular users. It is also a messaging system like WhatsApp, but allows groups up to 200,000 people, whereas WhatsApp has a limit of 1,024, so in that sense it is also a broadcasting system like X. One-to-one communication is only end-to-end encrypted if the user selects the “Secret Chat” option, but since many internet users do not change the default settings, in effect, According to one security expert“The vast majority of Telegram one-to-one conversations, and literally all group chats, are likely viewable on Telegram’s servers.”
Given that, it’s puzzling why there are so many bad actors on the platform. After all, rats generally hate sunlight. One critic says:“Telegram is the closest thing to a widespread dark web. Nearly a billion ordinary people are in contact with criminals, hackers, terrorists and child abusers. Despite the lack of technical security and privacy, the platform is a honeypot for people operating in the shadows.” And the reason they stay may be because Durov doesn’t believe in content moderation. In fact, he sometimes boasts about how lean he is running his operation. Like Musk, he doesn’t believe in expensive moderation teams. And it is believed that one of the reasons France prosecuted him is the way his company refused to cooperate with law enforcement agencies investigating criminal activity on the platform.
Telegram’s finances are also shrouded in mystery. Financial Times A detailed look at the company’s 2023 business plan reveals a loss of $173 million for that year. The company’s business model is vague, consisting of basic advertising, subscriptions, and (wait for it!) Toncoin cryptocurrency. There was talk of an IPO before Durov’s arrest, but that now seems like a pipe dream.
But all this is just noise obscuring the landmark importance of Durov’s arrest in a broader context. For the past 30 years, the democratic world has been gloomy about two challenges posed by technology and its corporate-controlled world. The first is the immunity given to tech tycoons by Article 230 of the Constitution. The Communications Decency Act of 1996,This absolved them from responsibility for the content displayed on their ,platform.,The second concern was the conflict between local laws and ,global technology that transcends borders.
Now, just as Durov’s plane landed in Le Bourget, a U.S. district court judge Landmark ruling This signals that the free ride given to companies by Section 230 may be coming to an end. French law officials have also signaled to tech moguls that while they may think they rule the world, France controls its own airspace. That’s why Musk might have to think twice about flying over Europe in the future. Long live France!
What I’m Reading
Hold that thought Those who think think A lovely, quirky essay by Joseph Epstein. London Review of Books On the art of difficult thinking.
Authority read The dangers of state powerA transcript of a wonderful interview that Yasha Maunk conducted with the late, great anthropologist James C. Scott.
Do you have an opinion on any issue raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of 250 words or less for consideration for publication, please email it to observer.letters@observer.co.uk
vinegarFlip digital capitalists over and you find technological determinists: people who believe technology drives history. These individuals view themselves as agents of what Joseph Schumpeter famously called “creative destruction.” They take pleasure in “moving fast and breaking things,” a phrase once used by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, until their representatives convince them that this approach is not ideal, not only because it means taxpayers will bear the consequences.
Technological determinism is, in fact, an ideology that influences your thoughts even when you’re not consciously aware of it. It thrives on a narrative that argues: Technical necessity Whether we agree or not, this narrative suggests that new innovations will continue to emerge. LM Sacasas explains “Every claim of inevitability serves a purpose, and narratives of technological inevitability serve as a convenient shield for tech companies to achieve their desired outcomes, minimize opposition, and persuade consumers that they are embracing a future that may not be desirable but is deemed necessary.”
However, for this narrative of inevitability to resonate with the general public and result in widespread adoption of the technology, politicians must eventually endorse it as well. This scenario is currently observable with AI, although the long-term implications remain unclear. Yet, some indications are troubling, like the cringe-worthy video incidents involving Rishi Sunak’s fawning over the world’s wealthiest individual, Elon Musk, and Tony Blair’s recent heartfelt conversation aired on TV with Demis Hassabis, the well-known co-founder of Google DeepMind.
It’s refreshing to encounter an article that explores the clash between deterministic myths and democratic realities, as seen in “Resisting Technological Inevitability: Google Wing Delivery Drones and the Battle for Our Skies.” Noteworthy academic papers soon to be published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, a reputable journal. Written by Anna Zenz from the University of Western Australia’s School of Law and Julia Powles from the Technology & Policy Lab, the paper recounts the narrative of how major tech firms attempted to dominate a new market with a promising technology – delivery drones – without considering the societal repercussions. It reflects how a proactive, resourceful, and determined public successfully thwarted this corporate agenda.
The company in question is Wing, a subsidiary of Google’s parent company Alphabet. Their objective is to develop delivery drones to facilitate the transportation of various goods, including emergency medical aid, creating a new commercial industry that enables broad access to the skies. This is evident in Australia, which hosts Google’s largest drone operation in terms of deliveries and customer outreach. It is endorsed by both state and federal governments, with the federal government taking the lead.
Zenz and Powles argue that by persuading Australian politicians to allow the testing of an Aerial Deliveroo-like service (under the guise of an “experimental” initiative), Google heavily relied on the myth of inevitability. Officials who already believed in the inevitability of delivery drones saw the potential benefits of embracing this trend and offered their support, either passively or actively. The company then leveraged the perception of inevitability to obtain “community acceptance,” manipulating the public into silence or passive tolerance by claiming that delivery drones were an inevitable progression.
One of the test sites for this project was Bonython, a Canberra suburb where the trial commenced in July 2018. However, the project faced immediate challenges. Numerous residents were perturbed and bewildered by the sudden appearance of drones in their neighborhood. They expressed outrage over the drones’ impact on their community, local wildlife, and the environment, citing issues like unplanned landings, dropped cargo, drones flying near traffic, and birds attacking and disrupting the drones.
While many communities might have simply grumbled and overlooked these issues, Bonython took a different approach. A group of proactive residents, including a retired aviation law expert, established a dedicated online presence, distributed newsletters, conducted door-to-door outreach, engaged with politicians, contacted media outlets, and submitted information requests to local authorities.
Their efforts paid off eventually. In August 2023, Wing quietly announced the termination of operations in the Canberra region. This decision not only marked the end of the project but also triggered a congressional inquiry into drone delivery systems, scrutinizing various aspects such as pilot training, economic implications, regulatory oversight, and environmental impacts of drone delivery. This investigation shed light on the blind acceptance of the myth of inevitability among public officials, prompting critical questions that regulators and governments should consistently pose when tech companies champion “innovation” and “progress.”
Echoing Marshall McLuhan’s sentiments in a different context, it’s crucial to acknowledge that “there is absolutely no inevitability if there is a willingness to reflect on unfolding events.” Public resistance against the myth of inevitability should always be encouraged.
The Thinker’s Work There are fascinating essays in New Statesman about John Gray’s exploration of Friedrich Hayek, one of the 20th century’s most enigmatic thinkers.
Turn the page Feeling pessimistic? Check out what Henry Oliver has to say in this insightful essay.
A whole new world Science fiction writer Karl Schroeder shares some provocative blog posts contemplating the future.
IIn 1956, a man TK “Ken” WhitakerAn Irish civil servant by training as an economist, he was appointed Permanent Secretary to the Treasury in Dublin at the relatively young age of 39. From his vantage point as the head of the national treasury, the outlook was bleak. The Republic of Ireland was in deep economic and social crisis. It had no natural resources, little industry, and was in deep depression. Inflation and unemployment were high. Ireland’s main export was young people, who fled by the thousands each year in search of work and a better life. The proud dream of Irish independence produced an impoverished nation of priests on the verge of collapse.
Mr. Whitaker quickly assembled a team of young officials to critically analyze the country’s economic failures and devise a series of policies to remedy them. As a result, a report titled “First Plan for Economic Expansion” was published in November 1958, and subsequently Sean Lemas He was elected Taoiseach (Prime Minister) in 1959 and became Ireland’s survival strategy.
At its heart were several important proposals. Ireland will have to embrace the idea of free trade. That would mean boosting competition and ending the protectionism that had been a feature of Irish economic policy under Lemas’s predecessor Airmon de Valera (whose economic philosophy was once described as “non-British”). But most importantly, the strategy requires that Ireland must welcome foreign capital in the future, which essentially means being nice to national companies, giving multinationals generous tax breaks, giving them help finding land to build on, and generally being responsive to their needs.
Whittaker’s strategy was bold, but it worked. (Of course, joining the European Economic Community in 1973 didn’t hurt either.) The republic moved from a state of deep socio-economic problems to an apparent paradigm of neoliberal prosperity. I have transformed. Foreign companies (mainly American companies) flooded in. German crane manufacturer Liebherr was an early entrant. In 1980, he was followed by Apple, and then came pharmaceutical companies. (Perhaps Viagra is manufactured in Ireland, once the holy land of Catholicism.) Then along came the big technology companies, many of which now have their European headquarters in Dublin.
If any of these behemoths had any doubts about coming to the Emerald Isle, two things would have reassured them. The first is Brexit. These companies had to join the EU. The second was how the republican government rushed to the rescue of one of its compatriots, Apple. When the European Commission concluded in 2016 that the company had been unfairly granted €13 billion in tax exemptions by Irish authorities, Apple not only successfully appealed this decision in 2020 but also had a similar ruling in 2020. was lowered. The republican government did it.. Think about it for a moment. A small country is refusing to accept her 13 billion euro payment. (Incidentally, the Commission has appealed this decision, and it appears Apple may still have to pay an additional €1.2 billion in interest. This money is currently held in an escrow fund with the Irish government.)
But the subconscious message to corporate bosses was: “If you run into trouble with the EU, we will support you.” This message may have reached Beijing as well. In any case, it is interesting to learn It comes just as the US and EU are considering cracking down on TikTok (whose owner ByteDance, coincidentally, is based in Dublin), and the Irish government is considering cracking down on popular e-commerce app Temu and other companies. It says that it welcomes Chinese-funded companies. Shein, and tech company Huawei.
I might regret this for the rest of my life, but for now, isn’t that all the treble? Only up to a certain point. On the one hand, the influx of foreign capital into Ireland was transformative. Tax revenue from resident high-tech companies is, on paper, making the country richer. The government is paying out of its ear. surplus
Meanwhile, Ireland faces some difficult problems. For example, corporate wealth has done to Dublin what Silicon Valley did to San Francisco, turning a once livable city into a highly unaffordable metropolis. There is a huge lack of affordable housing. A related homelessness crisis: around 12,000 people are in emergency accommodation, with an average monthly rent of €1,468. Add to that a creaky public health service (along with lavish and expensive private health services).
There is a paradox here. Mr. Whitaker’s strategy is to build enough affordable housing to build all the affordable housing the country needs, to fund a world-class public health system, and to build a mass transit system that frees up the nation’s capital. It brought in tax revenue and created a society that was clearly richer than his wildest dreams. Traffic congestion, electrification of everything, etc. Nevertheless, it is ruled by a coalition government that appears unable to look ahead to the next election. Perhaps it is true that we are getting the government we deserve.
Two exhibition booths stood out at the Staking Summit in Istanbul, a conference attended by hundreds of individuals involved in staking practices in the cryptocurrency ecosystem. They belonged to Tencent and Huawei. In a backdrop dominated by people in their 20s wearing trendy corporate hoodies and handing out well-designed merchandise, China’s two tech giants feel a little out of place under the more formal corporate flag. It looked like there was.
Next to them were engineers, marketers, and business developers deeply into staking, where individuals pledge crypto assets like Ethereum to protocols in exchange for a return. The borrowed assets are then used to verify transactions within the blockchain, which implements a “proof-of-stake” method.
Over the past year, several Chinese tech giants, including Alibaba, Tencent, and Huawei, have appeared at crypto events around the world. Hoping to carve market share in the nascent Web3 space, they appear at these events with a more low-profile presence, either as official sponsors or simply as participants.
The Chinese tech giant’s participation in crypto falls somewhere at the intersection of Web 2 and Web 3, thanks to a widespread ban on crypto trading and initial coin offerings in its home country. In the most common case, these technology companies are selling their computing resources to his Web3 startups in a manner not too different from how they have sold cloud services to more established technology industry companies. Masu.
Cloud costs for companies building or leveraging decentralized networks are still understood to be negligible. While it’s not uncommon for Web2 “midsize” companies to spend $1 million or more on cloud computing, companies that qualify as Web3 midsize may only spend in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars, the speakers said. said several participants at the meeting. said the event.
However, the limited ticket size does not prevent Chinese cloud providers from venturing into cryptocurrencies. Chinese companies, the underdogs in the global cloud market, have less brand recognition, especially in the West, and are far more proactive and flexible with their customers. Therefore, companies must compete by offering cheaper or better services.
In addition to providing cloud infrastructure, Chinese companies are moving into areas outside of their core products, exposing them to competition from crypto-native companies. This includes building blockchain for enterprises. Most Chinese tech companies have stayed away from the public blockchain space, where tokens play a key role, due to the country’s cryptocurrency crackdown.
Some players also offer node-as-a-service business. A blockchain is a decentralized database that stores and encrypts transaction data and runs on distributed nodes.However, these nodes are expensive and complex to maintain, making companies like Huawei Provide node hosting services for developersis an attractive solution for companies that want to build decentralized applications but lack the technical sophistication to do so in-house.
Tencent and Alibaba were the first Chinese technology giants to enter the Web3 space and have also worked on high-profile projects to improve their reputation in the industry.
For example, Tencent has partnered with public blockchains such as Sui and Avalanche, as well as Ethereum scaling solution Scroll.
Meanwhile, Alibaba partnered with Aptos, a blockchain developed by a former Meta employee, to make its name known in the world of Web3. In a joint announcement today, Alibaba Cloud and Aptos Foundation announced that they will jointly host a hackathon using the Move programming language in the Asia Pacific region.
So far, Web3 is barely making inroads into the revenue of China’s technology giants, but these companies recognize the potential of a rapidly growing industry and are willing to take advantage of significant market swings and financial system collapse. Even in the face of it, we understand that we cannot afford to miss this opportunity. Major companies such as FTX.
It is becoming increasingly clear that two parallel AI universes are forming between the United States and China. While the US has produced notable players such as her OpenAI and Anthropic, China has its own emerging candidates. One of these basic model developers, Zhipu AI, announced Today, the company announced that it has raised a total of 2.5 billion yuan ($340 million) so far this year.
This announcement came at a sensitive time. This week, the Biden administration imposed additional restrictions on Nvidia AI chip exports to China, further hampering rivals’ ability to train large-scale language models. In anticipation of Washington’s semiconductor ban, China’s deep-pocketed AI companies are stockpiling semiconductors, spending hundreds of millions of dollars on these coveted chips.
To stay in this expensive AI race, Zhipu is keeping itself well-funded by raising money from local investors. The $340 million investment was made from a renminbi-denominated fund, marking a shift from a two-decade trend in which US dollar funds were the preferred funding source until geopolitical tensions created a technology gap.
In August, President Joe Biden signed the agreement. presidential order Excludes U.S. investments in key Chinese technology areas including AI, semiconductors, and quantum computing. Although aimed at curbing China’s military buildup, the order also had a negative impact on China-focused U.S. venture capital, which currently avoids investing in sensitive areas. Some companies, such as Sequoia Capital China and GGV Capital, which were renamed Hongshan, are looking for solutions to continue operating in the market by spinning off their China divisions.
HonShan invested in Zhipu along with other prominent VCs such as Shunwei Capital and Hillhouse Capital, as well as state funds managed by Legend Capital.
The AI startup has also raised funding from an impressive roster of Chinese internet giants, bringing together even its biggest rivals like Alibaba and Tencent, which rarely co-invest. The lineup includes Ant Group, Alibaba, Tencent, Xiaomi, Meituan, Kingsoft, TAL Education Group, and Boss Zhipin.
Zhipu recently open sourced a bilingual (Chinese and English) conversational AI model. Chat GLM-6Bhas been trained with 6 billion parameters and claims to be able to: Run inference on a single consumer graphics card. We also have an open source foundational model, GLM-130B, trained with 130 billion parameters.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
