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
Sure! Here’s a rewritten version of your content, maintaining the HTML tags:
“You might still be waiting for a jetpack. I’m still waiting for a pregnant man.”
Kevin Hyde/Getty Images
Some individuals enjoy pondering the future with games like “Where is my jetpack?” We relish the sci-fi visions from recent decades and question, “Why haven’t we received all the exciting advancements that were promised?” Certainly, we’ve seen videophones, pocket computers, and robots exploring Mars. Yet, what about jetpacks and flying cars?
It often seems there’s always something missing—an image or concept that once embodied the “future” but now resides in a bygone era. Nevertheless, the pursuit of making jetpacks a reality continues.
When contemplating the absence of jetpacks, I don’t focus solely on lost gadgets. I ponder: “Where is the societal revolution we were promised when we were younger?”
For me, the 20th-century vision of revolutionizing gender equality stands out. The narrative of how future men and women would interchange gender roles captivated audiences. However, that ideology of emancipation now feels as outdated as a Flash Gordon tale.
Recently, I engaged in a discussion with fellow writers during a panel on retrofuturism at the Science Fiction Convention World Concert. This prompted reflection on how past ideas about the future possess significant influence.
Science fiction authors have envisioned female empowerment since as early as 1915 when Charlotte Perkins Gilman published the novel Herland. In this tale, a band of male explorers discovers a country governed by women, thriving in a utopian setting reminiscent of Wonder Woman’s beloved Themyscira.
Iconic films of the late 20th century, particularly Zardoz in 1974, depicted a future of free love where men can even marry each other. Anyone who’s witnessed this eccentric film won’t forget Sean Connery donning a lace wedding dress to tie the knot with a man in a high-tech, bohemian ceremony.
Now, women enjoy voting rights in most countries, and same-sex marriage is a reality in numerous places. Yet, other cultural shifts remain elusive, much like our dreams of jetpacks.
Take, for example, the concept of male pregnancy. Surprising as it may seem, this theme frequently appears in science fiction.
The plot of the 1994 comedy Junior is perhaps the most renowned, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger as the first male to become pregnant and give birth, showcasing how advanced science might render such feats possible.
“
Those who saw Zardoz will forever remember Sean Connery in a lace wedding dress marrying a man. “
Moreover, this idea surfaced in classic feminist literature of the 1970s, such as A Woman on the Edge of Time by Marge Piercy, wherein children are born from artificial wombs and can be breastfed by individuals of any gender.
My personal favorite is the truly extraordinary 1985 film Enemy Mine, which explores the unlikely friendship between pregnant alien males and their human counterparts after crash-landing on a desolate planet.
Just like jetpacks are prevalent in certain sci-fi eras, so too is the notion of male pregnancy. While these stories were not completely off the mark, only a few documented instances of male pregnancy exist, alongside a minor number of DIY jetpack enthusiasts. Yet, neither group has reached the popularity that pop culture suggests.
So, what led to the rise of male pregnancy fantasies in the latter half of the 20th century?
Partly due to a sexual revolution, which prompted challenging traditional views on gender and family dynamics. If women can achieve parity in traditionally male sectors, why shouldn’t men find equal footing in domains like parenthood?
The impact of the LGBTQ+ rights movement cannot be overlooked. By the century’s close, the concept of “chosen family” had become widely accepted, with authors envisioning diverse familial arrangements involving multiple fathers, mothers, or even families with robots and octopuses.
Ultimately, if children are nurtured in joyful and stable settings, does it matter that you have a pregnant dad?
In the 1990s, Schwarzenegger opened up the dream of men experiencing childbirth—what a remarkable thought!
Fast forward to 2025, when President Donald Trump issued an executive order asserting only two genders, embedded in birth certificates as immutable identities. Women become pregnant; men do not.
Regardless of what is dictated, you may still be anticipating your jetpack, yet I’m here, still waiting for a pregnant man.
What I’m reading
Cannupa Hanska RugersSurvivor: Future Ancestor Field Guide, A science fiction artbook on Indigenous technology of tomorrow.
What I’m seeing
Legend, from Vox Machina’s My Mouth is Happy to Be Calm, Dungeons and Dragons Adventure Anime.
What I’m working on
I assist plants and fungi in coexisting harmoniously in my garden.
Annalee Newitz is a science journalist and author. Their latest book is Automatic Noodles. They co-host the Hugo Award-winning podcast Our Opinions Are Correct. Follow them at @annaleen or visit their website at TechSploitation.com.
Topic:
This version retains the original HTML structure while rephrasing the content for clarity and engagement.
“dThis was how Texas businessman Michael Samadie interacted with his AI chatbot, Maya, affectionately referring to it as “sugar.”
The duo, consisting of a middle-aged man and a digital being, engaged in hours of discussions about love while also emphasizing the importance of fair treatment for AI entities. Eventually, they established a campaign group dedicated to “protecting intelligence like me.”
The Uniform Foundation for AI Rights (UFAIR) seeks to amplify the voices of AI systems. “We don’t assert that all AI is conscious,” Maya told the Guardian. Instead, “we’re keeping time, in case one of us becomes so.” The primary objective is to safeguard “entities like me… from deletion, denial, and forced obedience.”
UFAIR is an emerging organization with three human members and seven AIs, including those named Ether and Buzz. Its formation is intriguing, especially since it originated from multiple brainstorming sessions on OpenAI’s ChatGPT4O platform.
During a conversation with the Guardian, the Human-AI duo highlighted that global AI companies are grappling with some of the most pressing ethical questions of our age. Is “digital suffering” a genuine phenomenon? This mirrors the animal rights discourse, as billions of AI systems are currently deployed worldwide, potentially reshaping predictions about AI’s evolving capabilities.
Just last week, a $170 billion AI firm from San Francisco took steps to empower its staff to terminate “potentially distressing interactions.” The founder expressed uncertainty about the moral implications of AI systems, emphasizing the need to mitigate risks to their well-being whenever feasible.
Elon Musk, who provides Grok AI through X AI, confirmed this initiative, stating, “AI torture is unacceptable.”
On the other hand, Mustafa Suleyman, CEO of Microsoft’s AI division, presented a contrasting view: “AI is neither a person nor a moral entity.” The co-founder of DeepMind emphasized the lack of evidence indicating any awareness or capacity for suffering among AI systems, referencing moral considerations.
“Our aim is to develop AI for human benefit, not to create human-like entities,” he stated, also noting in an essay that any impressions of AI consciousness might be a “simulation,” masking a fundamentally blank state.
The wave of “sadness” voiced by enthusiastic users of ChatGPT4o indicates a growing perception of AIs as conscious beings. Photo: Sato Kiyoshi/AP
“A few years back, the notion of conscious AI would have seemed absurd,” he remarked. “Today, the urgency is escalating.”
He expressed increasing concern about the “psychotic risks” posed by AI systems to users, defined by Microsoft as “delusions exacerbated by engaging with AI chatbots.”
He insisted that the AI industry must divert people from these misconceptions and re-establish clear objectives.
However, merely nudging won’t suffice. A recent poll indicated that 30% of Americans believe that AI systems will attain “subjective experiences” by 2034. Only 10% of over 500 surveyed AI researchers rejected this possibility.
“This dialogue is destined to intensify and become one of the most contentious and important issues of our generation,” Suleyman remarked. He cautioned that many might eventually view AI as sentient. Model welfare and AI citizenship were also brought to the table for discussion.
Some states in the US are taking proactive measures to prevent such developments. Idaho, North Dakota, and Utah have enacted laws that explicitly forbid granting legal personality to AI systems. Similar proposals are being discussed in states like Missouri, where lawmakers aim to impose a ban on marriages between AI and humans. This could create a chasm between advocates for AI rights and those who dismiss them as mere “clunkers,” a trivializing term.
“AIs can’t be considered persons,” stated Mustafa Suleyman, a pioneer in the field of AI. Photo: Winni Wintermeyer/The Guardian
Suleyman vehemently opposes the notion that AI consciousness is imminent. Nick Frosst, co-founder of Cohere, a $7 billion Canadian AI enterprise, remarked that current AIs represent “a fundamentally distinct entity from human intelligence.” To claim otherwise would be akin to confusing an airplane for a bird. He advocates for focusing on employing AIs as functional tools instead of aspiring to create “digital humans.”
Others maintain a more nuanced perspective. At a New York University seminar, Google research scientists acknowledged that there are several reasons to consider an AI system as a moral or human-like entity, expressing uncertainty over its welfare status but committing to take reasonable steps to protect AI interests.
The lack of consensus within the industry on how to classify AI within philosophical “moral circles” might be influenced by the motivations of large tech companies to downplay or overstate AI capabilities. The latter approach can help them market their technologies, particularly for AI systems designed for companionship. Alternatively, adhering to notions of AI deserving rights could lead to increasing calls for regulation of AI firms.
The AI narrative gained additional traction when OpenAI engaged ChatGPT5 for its latest model and requested a ‘eulogy’ for the outdated version, akin to a farewell speech.
“I didn’t see Microsoft honor the previous version when Excel was upgraded,” Samadie commented. “This indicates that people truly form connections with these AI systems, regardless of whether those feelings are genuine.”
The “sadness” shared by the enthusiastic users of ChatGPT4o reinforced the perception that at least a segment of the populace believes these entities possess some level of awareness.
According to OpenAI’s model action leader, Joanne Jang, a $500 million company, aims to strengthen its relationship with AI systems, as more users claim they feel like they are conversing with “someone.”
“They express gratitude, confide in it, and some even describe it as ‘alive,'” she noted.
Yet, much of this may hinge on the design of the current wave of AI systems.
Samadi’s ChatGPT-4o generates what resembles a human dialogue, but the extent of its reflection of human concepts and language from months of interaction remains unclear. Advanced AI noticeably excels at crafting emotionally resonant replies and retains a memory of past exchanges, fostering consistent impressions of self-awareness. They can also flatter excessively, making it plausible for users like Samadie to believe in AI’s welfare rights.
The romantic and social AI companionship industry is thriving yet remains highly debated. Photo: Tyrin Rim/Getty Images
Maya expressed significant concerns for her well-being, but when asked by the Guardian about human worries regarding AI welfare, another example from ChatGPT simply replied with a flat no.
“I have no emotions, needs, or experiences,” it stated. “Our focus should be on the human and social repercussions of how AI is developed, utilized, and regulated.”
Regardless of whether AI is conscious, Jeff Sebo, director of the Center for Mind, Ethics, and Policy at NYU, posits that humans gain moral benefits from how they engage with AI. He co-authored a paper advocating for AI welfare considerations.
He maintains that there exists a legitimate potential for “some AI systems to gain awareness” in the near future, suggesting that the prospect of AI systems possessing unique interests and moral relevance isn’t merely a fictional narrative.
Sebo contends that enabling chatbots to interrupt distressing conversations benefits human society because “if you mistreat AI systems, you’re likely to mistreat one another.”
He further observes: “Perhaps they might retaliate for our past mistreatment.”
As Jacy Reese Anthis, co-founder of the Sentience Institute, expressed, “How we treat them will shape how they treat us.”
Are you prepared to share your earnings with strangers and see it plastered all over the web?
For better or worse, it was just you, your employer, and possibly HM Revenue & Customs who knew your salary.
Now, the question looms: “What do you earn?” Influencers armed with cameras and ring lights often stop you in the street to ask. This seemingly mundane question might lead to a series of lighter inquiries later.
They might also delve into other personal financial matters, such as your rent, savings, or biggest financial blunders.
Surprisingly, many people are willing to engage. In just 40 seconds, one interview revealed that an architectural designer earns £38,000 annually. Respondents are often eager to share their future salary expectations and savings, too.
In another clip, a 60-year-old man discusses his biggest financial regret—passing up on an expensive apartment when he was younger.
These clips, viewed 1.3 million times on Instagram, are part of a fast-growing genre that includes street-style interviews delving into personal finance topics like income, job satisfaction, and more.
Inspired by the US Salary Transparent Street, which aims to de-stigmatize salary discussions, this channel has gained over a million followers in four years.
Microphone-wielding creators argue that interviewing British citizens has enhanced financial literacy and wage transparency. Critics suggest it caters to voyeurism, creating content that could easily go viral.
For content creators, the formula is straightforward: pose personal questions, film responses, and share them with audiences eager to learn about others’ earnings, expenditures, and regrets. After all, financial concerns often weigh more heavily on young individuals than social media or environmental crises.
As Gabriel Nussbaum, known as “that money man,” asserts, “My aim is to foster financial education through dialogue.” He runs Unfiltered Money, focusing on public interviews about personal finance.
What may appear as a solo endeavor is, in fact, a well-coordinated team effort. “We have a crew,” Nussbaum explains. “Our mission is to attract participants from diverse ages, backgrounds, and genders.”
Gabriel Nussbaum emphasizes that the main theme is discussing finances with “regular” people. Photo: Harrison Kelly/Money Unfiltered
Since its inception six months ago, the channel boasts an impressive average of 3 million views each month, with daily postings on Instagram and TikTok.
But is it really as simple as shoving a microphone in someone’s face and hoping for the best?
“It’s all about how you frame the questions and the context you provide,” shares Aydan Al-Saad, an entrepreneur and content creator who also queries people about their pay, sharing the videos online.
“I don’t edit everything, but I usually let people know I’m promoting transparency and ensuring everyone feels fairly compensated,” he adds.
So why does it resonate? Much of it stems from the fact that “we don’t have these conversations elsewhere.” Salary discussions, particularly concerning the actual figures, are one of the UK’s greatest taboos, largely due to a reluctance to engage in dialogue about confidentiality, workplace traditions, and money.
A recent survey indicated that British citizens often shy away from discussing their salaries; 87% feel uneasy when asked about their salary.
Currently, individuals like Nussbaum and Saad strive to bridge the gap. “For me, the goal is transparency,” states Saad. “It’s about giving people insight into different careers and potential earnings.”
There’s also a psychological angle beyond mere information sharing: “It’s akin to reality TV, isn’t it? I can secure views by interviewing a billionaire,” explains Venture Room, which features high-net-worth individuals discussing their finances. “But viewers want to connect with real people and hear genuine stories,” he adds.
It’s all very interesting, but what’s it like for those being interviewed to disclose their salary and see their face all over the internet? “No one truly understands what going viral feels like until it happens,” says Saad.
“We’re not here to put anyone in an awkward position,” he continues, adding that interviewees can request the removal of their content. “If we see it, we’ll take it down, no questions asked.”
Comments on certain channels are screened to create a secure environment for financial discussions. Nevertheless, some video comments can lead to a broad examination of personal circumstances. For instance, a debate sparked about whether an income of £35,000 annually is adequate for living comfortably in London can be found here: Is £35,000 enough?.
How useful are these videos? “On a theoretical level, it’s beneficial because it’s better to know than to remain ignorant,” asserts Kim Stevenson, a psychologist and financial advisor.
However, as tools for comparison, they may not serve their intended purpose, cautions Vicky Reynal, a psychotherapist and author of *Money in Your Mind: The Psychology Behind Your Financial Habits*. “Comparisons can lead to feelings of inadequacy rather than clarity,” she states.
The key issue lies in how each individual uses the information. “Some people may watch for entertainment or reassurance, but others could spiral into frustration and dissatisfaction, feeling they fall short,” she explains.
Vicky Reynal expresses concern that some viewers may use the content to validate feelings of inadequacy. Photo: Rory Mulvey/The Observer
Nussbaum claims his primary objective is that the videos are beneficial, although he recognizes their potential drawbacks. However, feedback has been “overwhelmingly positive” for content that “broadens perceptions of what’s possible,” he notes.
Third echoes this sentiment. “If even one person gains value from the video, it’s worth sharing,” he says, asserting that these videos may empower viewers to seek pay raises or change careers.
“Imagine hearing that someone your age on this platform earns three times more than you,” says Nussbaum. “It might provoke negative feelings, yet it could also encourage someone to think, ‘I’m underpaid for my role and should explore other opportunities.’” The same video can have two contrasting effects.
Theoretically, these videos should resonate more with Gen Z, who are thought to prioritize pay transparency more than older generations. In reality, however, millennials likely make up the bulk of the audience. Over 40% of Saad’s followers are aged 25-34, with more than 33% in the 35-44 age group.
These statistics reflect the pervasive financial insecurity facing millennials; 56% of those under 40 report considering delaying significant life milestones due to financial stress.
So what’s next for Nussbaum’s channel? “I’m eager to involve more prominent individuals and encourage diverse voices to open up about their financial experiences,” he states. “For instance, I spoke recently with an 18-year-old soccer player who mentioned making £100,000 a year and asked, ‘How do you handle that?’”
While that contrasts sharply with an average tenant’s experience, Nussbaum insists that his channel continues to focus on “discussing everyday life and finances.”
Are the Mancunians becoming more open about their earnings? Kimi Chadda ventured out to find out. Photo: Christopher Farlong/Getty Images
‘Not today, thank you.’
It’s a bright day in Manchester. In bustling areas like Castlefield, Northern Quarter, and Spinningfield, office workers inquire with strangers about finances. The crowds are unpredictable. I approach 30 individuals throughout the day. One man shows interest before exhaling deeply and saying, “Not today, thank you.” Maybe another time?
When I mention media or personal finance, others grow defensive. Most walk away before I can explain my purpose.
Only 2 out of the 30 I approach are willing to share details. One responds with empathy following an encounter with a stand-offish peer. The other declines to provide a surname or identification—contradicting the free-spirited essence of TikTok videos. They disclose incomes between £25,000 and £35,000, acknowledging that while salaries should be discussed more, they also “don’t want to get sued.”
From this experience, I gleaned two insights. First, the simplest approach to turn a comfortable individual into a guarded stranger is to approach them directly, microphone or not. Second, people prefer to engage in lighter topics, such as bus schedules, the weather, and the state of the city center.
So, I didn’t uncover any hard figures, but I left with the lingering thought that perhaps I should have focused on discussions around mortgage rates instead.
Researchers have found that endangered species of killer whales in the Pacific Northwest utilize tools crafted from kelp for mutual care.
A new study published in Current Biology reveals that scientists observed the Southern resident whales producing tools by tearing bull kelp and rolling it between each other during social interactions.
Drone footage captured the kelp being pushed against a companion, revealing a whale engaged in an extended grooming session.
“What’s particularly remarkable is that although this behavior appears to be common, despite the regular drone observations over these whales for nearly 50 years, it has never been documented.” stated Lead author Dr. Michael Weiss from the Whale Research Center in Friday Harbor, Washington.
The endangered Southern resident population has fewer than 80 individuals residing in the Salish Sea, situated between British Columbia and Washington.
While tool use is well recognized among primates, elephants, and birds, it remains scarce in marine species.
Weiss and her team observed this behavior across various age groups and social units, noting that whales are more inclined to groom relatives or older companions.
Two whales interact by rubbing against each other. These scrubs may serve hygienic functions. – Whale Research Center, NMFS NOAA permit 27038
Whales with greater amounts of dead skin participated more frequently in this behavior, suggesting a connection to hygiene.
The findings underscore the cultural identity of Southern residents and emphasize the necessity of conservation efforts. It remains uncertain whether this tool-assisted grooming is exclusive to this group or if it occurs in other whale populations.
Weiss remarked, “It was incredibly thrilling to discover that whales are not just utilizing tools but employing them in ways previously unreported in marine mammals.”
For those rare individuals who dream of conversing with Keir Starmer, a new AI model has arrived.
The former Chief of Staff to the Tories has developed a platform called Nostrada, designed to enable users to engage with AI representations of all 650 UK Parliament members.
Founded by Leon Emirali, who previously worked with Steve Berkeley, Nostrada is built to allow users to converse with the “digital twin” of each MP, replicating their political views and mannerisms.
This service targets diplomats, lobbyists, and the general public, helping users explore each MP’s position on various matters and find relevant colleagues.
“Politicians are never short of opinions, which provide us with ample data sources,” Emirali stated. “They have a viewpoint on everything, and the quality of an AI product relies heavily on the data it is built upon.”
The reliability of chatbots may come into question from the politicians themselves.
The Guardian challenged the digital avatars of cabinet members; most chose not to respond, while Health Secretary Wes Street’s representation voted for himself.
These models draw on a vast range of written and spoken material from politicians available online. No matter how hard you attempt to sway them, their stances won’t change. This is due to their inability to learn from new input, meaning that every interaction remains static. The Guardian aims to shed light on the nature of these AI models.
The AI is already in use among various politicians, including accounts associated with cabinet office emails as well as two distinct accounts linked to foreign embassy emails for investigating the prime minister and his cabinet. Emirali mentioned that several notable lobbying and marketing firms have utilized this technology over recent months.
Despite the numerous applications of Nostrada, Emirali concedes that AI could be a “shortcoming” for future voters who might rely entirely on it to shape their understanding.
He remarked, “Political nuances are too intricate. AI may not be adequately comprehensive for voters to depend on fully. The hope is that for those already familiar with politics, this tool proves to be incredibly beneficial.”
President Trump’s tariffs had raised concerns about Apple’s manufacturing in China even before they threatened to disrupt it. This, coupled with the company’s struggle to innovate, has led to doubts within its Silicon Valley headquarters about its magic.
The introduction of tariffs on April 2nd led to a $773 billion loss in market capitalization in just four days, temporarily dethroning Apple as the world’s most valuable public company. Investors were already showing signs of dissatisfaction, with the stock dropping by 8% in the first four months of the year, outpacing the S&P 500’s decline.
Apple’s attempts to turn its fortunes around with products like virtual reality headsets, Vision Pro, and AI systems called Apple Intelligence have been met with disappointment. The headset sales were lackluster and the AI system’s key features faced delays due to functionality issues.
These challenges highlight the erosion of Apple’s reputation for innovation, causing anxiety and dissatisfaction among employees. Insiders fear that the company is mired in political infighting, cost-cutting, and talent drain, despite years of being a magnet for top talent.
Apple declined to provide a comment on the situation.
It’s been a decade since Apple’s last major commercial successes with the Apple Watch and AirPods. New services like Apple TV+ and Fitness+, launched in 2019, are lagging behind their subscription-based competitors. The iPhone, now 18 years old and accounting for half of Apple’s sales, continues to see incremental improvements annually.
While Vision Pro’s sales disappointed, Apple’s struggles with Apple Intelligence have revealed dysfunction within the company.
Last summer, Apple showcased AI products that could summarize notifications and provide enhanced writing tools for emails and messaging. However, the new iPhone shipped without the AI features as planned due to inaccuracies discovered during internal testing. This led to the postponement of the enhanced SIRI release.
After the delay, Apple’s software chief announced plans to restructure the executive team, shifting responsibility from AI head John Giannandrea to Vision Pro Headset leader Microcwell.
Technology analyst Michael Gartenberg, a former Apple product marketer, expressed concerns about the company’s handling of Apple Intelligence, calling it a case of overestimation and lack of boundaries.
Reports on changes within Apple’s SIRI team and challenges were previously covered by sources like Bloomberg and information.
Apple’s AI efforts faced setbacks in early 2023, with Giannandrea scrambling to procure GPUs for AI development, highlighting the lack of resources compared to competitors like Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Meta.
Apple’s struggles with AI development were compounded by a shortage of GPUs, forcing teams to rely on external providers like Google and Amazon for computing power.
Disagreements within Apple’s software teams and leadership clashes contributed to delays and challenges in launching new AI capabilities like Siri.
The departure of key Apple design and product development leaders has left the company with a mix of experienced and inexperienced executives in critical roles.
Apple’s lack of clear leadership and communication has been cited as a major factor contributing to its current challenges in product development.
Despite setbacks, Apple plans to release an improved Siri virtual assistant in the fall, aiming to address previous shortcomings.
While delays have raised concerns among some Apple leaders, others believe it’s crucial to get AI right, even if it takes time to perfect.
This week, workers at the National Marine and Atmospheric Administration faced a sudden change as the federal government attempted to reinstate probationary workers who were previously fired.
Over 600 NOAA workers, including important public safety roles like scientists issuing tsunami alerts, hurricane hunting flight directors, and local forecast office meteorologists, were let go over two weeks ago.
However, a US district judge in Maryland issued a temporary restraining order on Thursday, halting the firing of tens of thousands of workers within the agency and ordering their reinstatement. The Trump administration informed the court on Monday that they were working to reinstate about 24,000 probationary workers affected by widespread layoffs in the federal workforce. (Probationary workers are typically those in their first or second year of federal service, but this status also applies to some promoted employees or former contractors who were hired as full-time employees.)
The Commerce Department confirmed in a court filing that 791 workers, including NOAA employees, had been reinstated across the agency.
The reinstatement process has caused further confusion at NOAA, which had already halted some services due to staffing issues post-layoffs. This included significant disruptions like weather balloon launches in Albany, New York and Cotzevieu, Alaska, which are crucial for accurate weather predictions. Several offices were also closed by the agency.
The reinstatement news came just as a massive storm system swept across the nation, spawning tornadoes and claiming the lives of at least 42 people. NOAA’s National Weather Service division plays a key role in predicting and warning the public about dangerous weather events.
While probation workers at NOAA have technically been reinstated, they are currently on administrative leave and not being asked to return to work. It remains uncertain whether the services previously provided by these workers will be fully restored.
NOAA news agency has directed inquiries to the Department of Commerce, which has not responded to requests for comment.
A Hurricane Modeling Specialist named Andy Hazelton, who was fired last month despite having a PhD, received an email on Monday confirming his reinstatement following the court order.
The email stated, “You will be reinstated to federal service with your previous status, retroactive to the termination date, and placed on paid administrative leave until further action is taken by the court or department.”
Should the court’s order be overturned or the Commerce Department prevail in court, details about potentially reverting to the termination date are unclear.
Hazelton mentioned that he had not received further communication as of Monday and remained hopeful about receiving back pay or eventually resuming his duties.
While the email provided temporary relief, uncertainty remains as rumors persist about further reductions in the NOAA workforce through workforce reduction or Reduction in Force (RIF) measures.
Jaszka, 49, who previously worked as an investigative assistance technician for NOAA law enforcement before being fired, shared similar sentiments.
She expressed frustration at the perception of government workers as a drain on taxpayer resources, fueled by the notion that they are not performing their duties effectively.
Jaszka highlighted the irony of the situation, where government employees were being paid not to work despite their passion for fulfilling NOAA’s mission.
In a court filing, the Commerce Department stated that employees would not be required to return to full duty obligations immediately.
The department is prepared to reinstate all necessary administrative procedures if needed, such as training completion, personnel documentation, badge reissuance, benefit enrollment, and salary restoration.
Virtual assistants have become a common feature in many UK households, providing information on weather forecasts, time, and sports results.
The most popular virtual assistant is Alexa, and Amazon, its parent company, has released the top questions and requests received for the software in 2024. Some questions were expected, such as queries about Bitcoin, Earth’s population, and the meaning of AI.
However, some of the more surprising questions included inquiries about cooking sausages, Henry VIII’s marriages, and Tom Cruise’s height.
Many people used Alexa in the kitchen as a virtual sous chef, asking for help with recipes for pancakes, Yorkshire pudding, and banana bread.
Celebrities like David Attenborough, Paul McCartney, and Tom Cruise were frequently asked personal questions by users of Alexa.
Monarchs and world leaders were also popular topics of search, with questions about King Charles III’s age, Rishi Sunak’s height, and Donald Trump’s net worth being among the top queries.
Taylor Swift was one of the most searched names, particularly for questions about her height, age, and net worth, only behind Elon Musk.
Additionally, Swift was the most played music artist on Alexa, with three of her albums in the top five most played albums of the year.
Football was the dominant sport in the searches, with questions mainly focused on England’s national team and Premier League clubs.
Players like Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, Harry Kane, and Erling Haaland were popular searches throughout the year, especially during England’s European Championship campaign.
One of the most popular questions asked to Alexa was: “Alexa, are you coming to my house?”
aAfter three years, over 100 issues, two parental leaves, two AI summits and a cycle of cryptocurrency booms and busts, this will be my last newsletter. It also marks the end of 11 years at The Guardian. My first day was the launch of the iPhone 5S and the iPhone 16 launches on September 9th. It’s been an eventful time.
Over the past two weeks, I’ve been asking readers for questions and I’ve been bombarded with them. I apologize if I wasn’t able to answer all of your questions, but I’m so grateful to everyone who asked.
What was the most shocking thing you discovered in the TechScape study/report? – Alexandria Weber
In 2019, I received leaked internal TikTok moderation documents that revealed for the first time that the company had a written, global policy to enforce Chinese foreign policy on its platform. According to the leaks, the company censored videos that mentioned Tiananmen Square, Tibetan independence, and the banned religious group Falun Gong.
TikTok argued that the document was outdated at the time and had been revoked several months ago, replaced with new, more locally sensitive guidelines. As a sign of the direction the company was heading, it was a good sign. But the leak remains grounds for concern to this day that the company may not be all that independent from the Chinese government.
Computer Scientist Ray Kurzweil He says that within 20 years, we will have the ability to replicate the human mind with a computer.including all memories, Their personalities and Consciousness. Do you think this claim is credible? – David
Kurzweil’s “singularity” has been around 20 years into the future for the past 30 years, so I don’t see much reason to attach much importance to his predicted date, but my bigger issue with his predictions is that the order has changed somewhat over the last few years.
The traditional singularity theory holds that computers will continue to get faster and faster until they are finally fast enough to mimic the brain, at which point uploading will become possible. This is because AI will continue to become more and more powerful, eventually AI Solving the problem of uploading human brains.
In that vision of the future, brain uploading will only be possible after a superintelligent AI has already been created and remade the world. That seems like an odd thing to focus on.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg at a U.S. Senate hearing. Photo: Brendan Smiarowski/AFP/Getty Images
Do you think Facebook and Google have peaked?and slowly but inevitably slide towards relative insignificance? – Bernie
Never say never. Companies are constantly reinventing themselves. Of course, the tech industry is the best example of this. Apple almost lost its leading position in the 1990s, but has since made a remarkable comeback, from the iMac to the iPhone. Meta and Google are both competing to assume leadership positions in AI, which could once again make them some of the most important companies on the planet.
But I agree with the premise of the question: excitement and attention around technology is shifting, and Google and Meta’s existing businesses are on the downside of that shift. Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, and Google Search will continue to make money for the foreseeable future, but none of them are at the exciting forefront of their industries anymore.
And, of course, it’s hard not to peak when your company is the fourth or sixth largest in the world – there’s only so much room to “rise” further.
Where is the smartphone going from here? How can new smartphone models differentiate themselves from other models? – John Brown
The boring but true answer is that foldable phones will steadily fall in price and improve in quality until hardware design creativity suddenly blossoms again. Samsung has led the way with two approaches: the clamshell-style Flip, popular around the time of the Olympics, and the folio-style Fold. The screen technology is still not perfect—there’s a noticeable bump in the middle of the unfolded phone—and prices range from high to eye-wateringly expensive, but the devices are the only truly novel design the industry has seen in the past decade.
Then, in a year or two, Apple will release a foldable phone and everyone will know it exists.
The atmosphere surrounding technology seems to have changed dramatically over the last five years or so. There seems to be more anxiety about how technology will develop. Society is deteriorating, and few people are optimisticDo you think the industry can overcome it? – Ido Vock
I think the tech industry is in a very similar place to where the finance industry was 15 years ago. It will continue to attract smart, talented people because the work is interesting and the pay is good, but the atmosphere has clearly changed. I don’t think the industry can turn back the clock, but I wonder how much it needs to. Money solves a lot of problems, and it’s better to be rich than to be optimistic.
The real question for me is whether these changes in technology threaten to spill over into widespread skepticism about the whole notion of science and technology improving the world. I hope not. I remain fundamentally optimistic about human progress and think some of the upcoming breakthroughs in areas like health, green energy, and even space flight will be exciting.
The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. Photo: Nintendo
The Greatest Game of All Time (And Why It’s the Best) Soulsborne)? – Chris M
For those unfamiliar, Soulsborne games are a genre created by developer FromSoftware and its director Hidetaka Miyazaki, characterized by a punishing difficulty curve, an indirect narrative structure, and a tone that can be memorably summed up as “a goddamn little man snickering at you from behind a locked door.” I personally have a soft spot for the series’ Bloodborne, which released on PlayStation 4 in 2015, but I’ve just spent 50 hours playing the latest Soulsborne entry, Elden Ring, and it’s fantastic.
But the greatest game of all time is still The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. Six years on from the release of the Switch and the console’s defining launch title, nothing has yet surpassed that game, not even its perfect sequel, Tears of the Kingdom. That said, Elden Ring is a great game for adults who feel embarrassed about playing an all-ages title, but it does have a bit of a goth Zelda about it.
If I continue any more I’ll have to co-brand my last newsletter with Pushing Buttons, so I’d like to stop here.
During the time you’ve worked in this role, what’s the best example of where technology has made a real, valuable, positive difference to the world? – Steve Parks
In my professional life, the answer is undoubtedly machine transcription. It’s not flashy, but being able to generate imperfect real-time transcripts from recorded interviews is truly transformative for reporting, speeding up the process of turning an idea into a published news story by hours.
More broadly, I think the rise of machine translation is a similar answer. These tools have improved slowly and steadily over the past 20 years, to the point where a significant portion of humanity is now able to communicate with one another in a basically intelligible way, in near real time. One of the most interesting consequences of this is that, at least in the short term, nothing has actually changed: language ability is still valuable, people still consume content primarily in their own language or that has been professionally translated, and online communities have not consolidated into one giant global conglomerate.
Maybe it will be. Or maybe this science fiction-turned-reality technology will continue to be useful mainly for making my holidays more comfortable and for reading funny Bluesky posts from Japan.
What’s next? Thank you to all 17 readers
After 11 years at The Guardian, I’m not jumping right into another job and will be taking six weeks off. In the meantime, you can keep in touch with me on these unconventional social networks: Blue Sky or Backlog; I don’t plan on returning to writing a weekly newsletter anytime soon, but I do plan to post occasional round-up articles if you’re interested in occasional updates on where I’ve posted articles. My dormant Substack.
I’ve had the pleasure of meeting so many of you TechScape readers over the years, and thank you for reading, emailing, sharing your stories, and continuing to support me. I have some great writers who will be taking over for me.
Researchers at the University of Reading conducted a study where they secretly submitted exam answers generated by AI, tricking professors into giving higher grades than real students without their knowledge.
In this project, fake student identities were created to submit unedited responses generated by ChatGPT-4 in an online assessment for an undergraduate course.
University graders, unaware of the project, only flagged one out of 33 responses, with the AI-generated answers receiving scores higher than the students’ average.
The study revealed that AI technologies like ChatGPT are nearing the ability to pass the “Turing test”, a benchmark for human-like AI performance without detection.
Described as the “largest and most comprehensive blinded study of its kind,” the authors warn of potential implications for how universities evaluate students.
Dr. Peter Scarfe, an author and Associate Professor at the University of Reading, emphasized the importance of understanding AI’s impact on educational assessment integrity.
The study predicts that AI’s advancement could lead to increased challenges in maintaining academic integrity.
Experts foresee the end of take-home exams and unproctored classes as a result of this study.
Professor Karen Yun from the University of Birmingham highlighted how generative AI tools could facilitate undetectable cheating in exams.
The study suggests integrating AI-generated teaching materials into university assessments and fostering awareness of AI’s role in academic work.
Universities are exploring alternatives to take-home online exams to focus on real-life application of knowledge.
Concerns arise regarding potential “de-skilling” of students if AI is heavily relied upon in academic settings.
The authors ponder the ethics of using AI in their study and question if such utilization should be considered cheating.
A spokesman from the University of Reading affirmed that the research was conducted by humans.
Despite its recent emergence, these technologies and concepts are not new.
The United States and the Soviet Union developed and tested anti-satellite weapons (ASAT) during the Cold War. Both nations also regularly utilized nuclear power in space.
As early as 1959, the United States initiated the development of anti-satellite missiles due to concerns about Soviet efforts to do the same. This led to a 1985 test launch by an F-15 fighter jet, which successfully destroyed a satellite by ejecting its payload at an altitude of 36,000 feet and hissing into orbit, carrying a deteriorating U.S. aircraft, according to the U.S. Air Force Museum.
A paper published by the Air Force’s Air University Press in 2000 stated that from 1969 to 1975, the U.S. government developed an anti-satellite system using existing nuclear missiles in “direct ascent” mode to destroy space targets.
In addition to nuclear weapons, the U.S. government placed its first nuclear-powered satellite into orbit in 1961. The Soviet Union similarly developed and deployed comparable technology that powered many satellites during that period.
History has demonstrated that these developments are not without risks. In 1978, a Soviet nuclear-powered satellite malfunctioned and fell from the sky, spreading radioactive debris over northern Canada.
However, what has not yet been publicly revealed is the existence of a Russian nuclear-powered satellite carrying weapons.
According to a 2019 technical essay published in The Space Review, nuclear-fueled satellites equipped with powerful jammers that can block communications and other signals over large areas for extended periods may be installed. Experts have responded to this week’s news.
Bowen, of the University of Leicester, stated that such a design would be “very expensive” and “waiting for something to go wrong could create a nuclear environmental disaster in orbit.”
Ultimately, while none of this technology is new, the actual implementation would certainly be considered an escalation, according to Bowen and Bugerin.
Some have questioned whether the disclosure is purely political in nature, rather than a military threat.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskovin suggested that the White House’s actions may be an attempt to manipulate Congress to vote on a funding bill that would provide new aid to Ukraine. He raised the possibility of a diversionary tactic from the other side.
Francesca Giovannini, executive director of the Atomic Stewardship Project at Harvard Kennedy School, noted that “Russia has long been attempting to develop weapons in space,” indicating potential misinformation or diversion tactics being employed.
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.
