Kris Guyer – Page 9

YouTube prepares to welcome back banned creators with “second chance” program

Google, misinformation, Tech, youtube / Kris Guyer / October 9, 2025

A few weeks ago, Google told US Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) that it would allow creators banned for COVID and election misinformation to rejoin the platform. It didn’t offer many details in the letter, but now YouTube has explained the restoration process. YouTube’s “second chances” are actually more expansive than the letter made it seem. Going forward, almost anyone banned from YouTube will have an opportunity to request a new channel. The company doesn’t guarantee approval, but you can expect to see plenty of banned creators back on Google’s video platform in the coming months.

YouTube will now allow banned creator to request reinstatement, but this is separate from appealing a ban. If a channel is banned, creators continue to have the option of appealing the ban. If successful, their channel comes back as if nothing happened. After one year, creators will now have the “second chance” option.

“We know many terminated creators deserve a second chance,” the blog post reads, noting that YouTube itself doesn’t always get things right the first time. The option for getting a new channel will appear in YouTube Studio on the desktop, and Google expects to begin sending out these notices in the coming months. However, anyone terminated for copyright violations is out of luck—Google does not forgive such infringement as easily as it does claiming that COVID is a hoax.

The readmission process will still come with a review by YouTube staff, and the company says it will take multiple factors into consideration, including whether or not the behavior that got the channel banned is still against the rules. This is clearly a reference to COVID and election misinformation, which Google did not allow on YouTube for several years but has since stopped policing. The site will also consider factors like how severe or persistent the violations were and whether the creator’s actions “harmed or may continue to harm the YouTube community.”

YouTube prepares to welcome back banned creators with “second chance” program Read More »

We’re about to find many more interstellar interlopers—here’s how to visit one

alan stern, comet, comet interceptor, european space agency, Features, interstellar object, juno, NASA, Science, Space, swri / Kris Guyer / October 9, 2025

“You don’t have to claim that they’re aliens to make these exciting.”

The Hubble Space Telescope captured this image of the interstellar comet 3I/ATLAS on July 21, when the comet was 277 million miles from Earth. Hubble shows that the comet has a teardrop-shaped cocoon of dust coming off its solid, icy nucleus. Credit: NASA, ESA, David Jewitt (UCLA); Image Processing: Joseph DePasquale (STScI)

A few days ago, an inscrutable interstellar interloper made its closest approach to Mars, where a fleet of international spacecraft seek to unravel the red planet’s ancient mysteries.

Several of the probes encircling Mars took a break from their usual activities and turned their cameras toward space to catch a glimpse of an object named 3I/ATLAS, a rogue comet that arrived in our Solar System from interstellar space and is now barreling toward perihelion—its closest approach to the Sun—at the end of this month.

This is the third interstellar object astronomers have detected within our Solar System, following 1I/ʻOumuamua and 2I/Borisov discovered in 2017 and 2019. Scientists think interstellar objects routinely transit among the planets, but telescopes have only recently had the ability to find one. For example, the telescope that discovered Oumuamua only came online in 2010.

Detectable but still unreachable

Astronomers first reported observations of 3I/ATLAS on July 1, just four months before reaching its deepest penetration into the Solar System. Unfortunately for astronomers, the particulars of this object’s trajectory will bring it to perihelion when the Earth is on the opposite side of the Sun. The nearest 3I/ATLAS will come to Earth is about 170 million miles (270 million kilometers) in December, eliminating any chance for high-resolution imaging. The viewing geometry also means the Sun’s glare will block all direct views of the comet from Earth until next month.

The James Webb Space Telescope observed interstellar comet 3I/ATLAS on August 6 with its Near-Infrared Spectrograph instrument. Credit: NASA/James Webb Space Telescope

Because of that, the closest any active spacecraft will get to 3I/ATLAS happened Friday, when it passed less than 20 million miles (30 million kilometers) from Mars. NASA’s Perseverance rover and Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter were expected to make observations of 3I/ATLAS, along with Europe’s Mars Express and ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter missions.

The best views of the object so far have been captured by the James Webb Space Telescope and the Hubble Space Telescope, positioned much closer to Earth. Those observations helped astronomers narrow down the object’s size, but the estimates remain imprecise. Based on Hubble’s images, the icy core of 3I/ATLAS is somewhere between the size of the Empire State Building to something a little larger than Central Park.

That may be the most we’ll ever know about the dimensions of 3I/ATLAS. The spacecraft at Mars lack the exquisite imaging sensitivity of Webb and Hubble, so don’t expect spectacular views from Friday’s observations. But scientists hope to get a better handle on the cloud of gas and dust surrounding the object, giving it the appearance of a comet. Spectroscopic observations have shown the coma around 3I/ATLAS contains water vapor and an unusually strong signature of carbon dioxide extending out nearly a half-million miles.

On Tuesday, the European Space Agency released the first grainy images of 3I/ATLAS captured at Mars. The best views will come from a small telescope called HiRISE on NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. The images from NASA won’t be released until after the end of the ongoing federal government shutdown, according to a member of the HiRISE team.

Europe’s ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter turned its eyes toward interstellar comet 3I/ATLAS as it passed close to Mars on Friday, October 3. The comet’s coma is visible as a fuzzy blob surrounding its nucleus, which was not resolved by the spacecraft’s camera. Credit: ESA/TGO/CaSSIS

Studies of 3I/ATLAS suggest it was probably kicked out of another star system, perhaps by an encounter with a giant planet. Comets in our Solar System sometimes get ejected into the Milky Way galaxy when they come too close to Jupiter. It roamed the galaxy for billions of years before arriving in the Sun’s galactic neighborhood.

The rogue comet is now gaining speed as gravity pulls it toward perihelion, when it will max out at a relative velocity of 152,000 mph (68 kilometers per second), much too fast to be bound into a closed orbit around the Sun. Instead, the comet will catapult back into the galaxy, never to be seen again.

We need to talk about aliens

Anyone who studies planetary formation would relish the opportunity to get a close-up look at an interstellar object. Sending a mission to one would undoubtedly yield a scientific payoff. There’s a good chance that many of these interlopers have been around longer than our own 4.5 billion-year-old Solar System.

One study from the University of Oxford suggests that 3I/ATLAS came from the “thick disk” of the Milky Way, which is home to a dense population of ancient stars. This origin story would mean the comet is probably more than 7 billion years old, holding clues about cosmic history that are simply inaccessible among the planets, comets, and asteroids that formed with the birth of the Sun.

This is enough reason to mount a mission to explore one of these objects, scientists said. It doesn’t need justification from unfounded theories that 3I/ATLAS might be an artifact of alien technology, as proposed by Harvard University astrophysicist Avi Loeb. The scientific consensus is that the object is of natural origin.

Loeb shared a similar theory about the first interstellar object found wandering through our Solar System. His statements have sparked questions in popular media about why the world’s space agencies don’t send a probe to actually visit one. Loeb himself proposed redirecting NASA’s Juno spacecraft in orbit around Jupiter on a mission to fly by 3I/ATLAS, and his writings prompted at least one member of Congress to write a letter to NASA to “rejuvenate” the Juno mission by breaking out of Jupiter’s orbit and taking aim at 3I/ATLAS for a close-up inspection.

The problem is that Juno simply doesn’t have enough fuel to reach the comet, and its main engine is broken. In fact, the total boost required to send Juno from Jupiter to 3I/ATLAS (roughly 5,800 mph or 2.6 kilometers per second) would surpass the fuel capacity of most interplanetary probes.

Ars asked Scott Bolton, lead scientist on the Juno mission, and he confirmed that the spacecraft lacks the oomph required for the kind of maneuvers proposed by Loeb. “We had no role in that paper,” Bolton told Ars. “He assumed propellant that we don’t really have.”

Avi Loeb, a Harvard University astrophysicist. Credit: Anibal Martel/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

So Loeb’s exercise was moot, but his talk of aliens has garnered public attention. Loeb appeared on the conservative network Newsmax last week to discuss his theory of 3I/ATLAS alongside Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.). Predictably, conspiracy theories abounded. But as of Tuesday, the segment has 1.2 million views on YouTube. Maybe it’s a good thing that people who approve government budgets, especially those without a preexisting interest in NASA, are eager to learn more about the Universe. We will leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions on that matter.

Loeb’s calculations also help illustrate the difficulty of pulling off a mission to an interstellar object. So far, we’ve only known about an incoming interstellar intruder a few months before it comes closest to Earth. That’s not to mention the enormous speeds at which these objects move through the Solar System. It’s just not feasible to build a spacecraft and launch it on such short notice.

Now, some scientists are working on ways to overcome these limitations.

So you’re saying there’s a chance?

One of these people is Colin Snodgrass, an astronomer and planetary scientist at the University of Edinburgh. A few years ago, he helped propose to the European Space Agency a mission concept that would have very likely been laughed out of the room a generation ago. Snodgrass and his team wanted a commitment from ESA of up to $175 million (150 million euros) to launch a mission with no idea of where it would go.

ESA officials called Snodgrass in 2019 to say the agency would fund his mission, named Comet Interceptor, for launch in the late 2020s. The goal of the mission is to perform the first detailed observations of a long-period comet. So far, spacecraft have only visited short-period comets that routinely dip into the inner part of the Solar System.

A long-period comet is an icy visitor from the farthest reaches of the Solar System that has spent little time getting blasted by the Sun’s heat and radiation, freezing its physical and chemical properties much as they were billions of years ago.

Long-period comets are typically discovered a year or two before coming near the Sun, still not enough time to develop a mission from scratch. With Comet Interceptor, ESA will launch a probe to loiter in space a million miles from Earth, wait for the right comet to come along, then fire its engines to pursue it.

Odds are good that the right comet will come from within the Solar System. “That is the point of the mission,” Snodgrass told Ars.

ESA’s Comet Interceptor will be the first mission to visit a comet coming directly from the outer reaches of the Sun’s realm, carrying material untouched since the dawn of the Solar System. Credit: European Space Agency

But if astronomers detect an interstellar object coming toward us on the right trajectory, there’s a chance Comet Interceptor could reach it.

“I think that the entire science team would agree, if we get really lucky and there’s an interstellar object that we could reach, then to hell with the normal plan, let’s go and do this,” Snodgrass said. “It’s an opportunity you couldn’t just leave sitting there.”

But, he added, it’s “very unlikely” that an interstellar object will be in the right place at the right time. “Although everyone’s always very excited about the possibility, and we’re excited about the possibility, we kind of try and keep the expectations to a realistic level.”

For example, if Comet Interceptor were in space today, there’s no way it could reach 3I/ATLAS. “It’s an unfortunate one,” Snodgrass said. “Its closest point to the Sun, it reaches that on the other side of the Sun from where the Earth is. Just bad timing.” If an interceptor were parked somewhere else in the Solar System, it might be able to get itself in position for an encounter with 3I/ATLAS. “There’s only so much fuel aboard,” Snodgrass said. “There’s only so fast we can go.”

It’s even harder to send a spacecraft to encounter an interstellar object than it is to visit one of the Solar System’s homegrown long-period comets. The calculation of whether Comet Interceptor could reach one of these galactic visitors boils down to where it’s heading and when astronomers discover it.

Snodgrass is part of a team using big telescopes to observe 3I/ATLAS from a distance. “As it’s getting closer to the Sun, it is getting brighter,” he said in an interview.

“You don’t have to claim that they’re aliens to make these exciting,” Snodgrass said. “They’re interesting because they are a bit of another solar system that you can actually feasibly get an up-close view of, even the sort of telescopic views we’re getting now.”

Colin Snodgrass, a professor at the University of Edinburgh, leads the Comet Interceptor science team. Credit: University of Edinburgh

Comets and asteroids are the linchpins for understanding the formation of the Solar System. These modest worlds are the leftover building blocks from the debris that coalesced into the planets. Today, direct observations have only allowed scientists to study the history of one planetary system. An interstellar comet would grow the sample size to two.

Still, Snodgrass said his team prefers to keep their energy focused on reaching a comet originating from the frontier of our own Solar System. “We’re not going to let a very lovely Solar System comet go by, waiting to see ‘what if there’s an interstellar thing?'” he said.

Snodgrass sees Comet Interceptor as a proof of concept for scientists to propose a future mission specially designed to travel to an interstellar object. “You need to figure out how do you build the souped-up version that could really get to an interstellar object? I think that’s five or 10 years away, but [it’s] entirely realistic.”

An American answer

Scientists in the United States are working on just such a proposal. A team from the Southwest Research Institute completed a concept study showing how a mission could fly by one of these interstellar visitors. What’s more, the US scientists say their proposed mission could have actually reached 3I/ATLAS had it already been in space.

The American concept is similar to Europe’s Comet Interceptor in that it will park a spacecraft somewhere in deep space and wait for the right target to come along. The study was led by Alan Stern, the chief scientist on NASA’s New Horizons mission that flew by Pluto a decade ago. “These new kinds of objects offer humankind the first feasible opportunity to closely explore bodies formed in other star systems,” he said.

An animation of the trajectory of 3I/ATLAS through the inner Solar System. Credit: NASA/JPL

It’s impossible with current technology to send a spacecraft to match orbits and rendezvous with a high-speed interstellar comet. “We don’t have to catch it,” Stern recently told Ars. “We just have to cross its orbit. So it does carry a fair amount of fuel in order to get out of Earth’s orbit and onto the comet’s path to cross that path.”

Stern said his team developed a cost estimate for such a mission, and while he didn’t disclose the exact number, he said it would fall under NASA’s cost cap for a Discovery-class mission. The Discovery program is a line of planetary science missions that NASA selects through periodic competitions within the science community. The cost cap for NASA’s next Discovery competition is expected to be $800 million, not including the launch vehicle.

A mission to encounter an interstellar comet requires no new technologies, Stern said. Hopes for such a mission are bolstered by the activation of the US-funded Vera Rubin Observatory, a state-of-the-art facility high in the mountains of Chile set to begin deep surveys of the entire southern sky later this year. Stern predicts Rubin will discover “one or two” interstellar objects per year. The new observatory should be able to detect the faint light from incoming interstellar bodies sooner, providing missions with more advance warning.

“If we put a spacecraft like this in space for a few years, while it’s waiting, there should be five or 10 to choose from,” he said.

Alan Stern speaks onstage during Day 1 of TechCrunch Disrupt SF 2018 in San Francisco. Credit: Photo by Kimberly White/Getty Images for TechCrunch

Winning NASA funding for a mission like Stern’s concept will not be easy. It must compete with dozens of other proposals, and NASA’s next Discovery competition is probably at least two or three years away. The timing of the competition is more uncertain than usual due to swirling questions about NASA’s budget after the Trump administration announced it wants to cut the agency’s science funding in half.

Comet Interceptor, on the other hand, is already funded in Europe. ESA has become a pioneer in comet exploration. The Giotto probe flew by Halley’s Comet in 1986, becoming the first spacecraft to make close-up observations of a comet. ESA’s Rosetta mission became the first spacecraft to orbit a comet in 2014, and later that year, it deployed a German-built lander to return the first data from the surface of a comet. Both of those missions explored short-period comets.

“Each time that ESA has done a comet mission, it’s done something very ambitious and very new,” Snodgrass said. “The Giotto mission was the first time ESA really tried to do anything interplanetary… And then, Rosetta, putting this thing in orbit and landing on a comet was a crazy difficult thing to attempt to do.”

“They really do push the envelope a bit, which is good because ESA can be quite risk averse, I think it’s fair to say, with what they do with missions,” he said. “But the comet missions, they are things where they’ve really gone for that next step, and Comet Interceptor is the same. The whole idea of trying to design a space mission before you know where you’re going is a slightly crazy way of doing things. But it’s the only way to do this mission. And it’s great that we’re trying it.”

Stephen Clark is a space reporter at Ars Technica, covering private space companies and the world’s space agencies. Stephen writes about the nexus of technology, science, policy, and business on and off the planet.

We’re about to find many more interstellar interlopers—here’s how to visit one Read More »

Bank of England warns AI stock bubble rivals 2000 dotcom peak

AI, AI stocks, alphabet, Amazon, andrew bailey, Apple, bank of england, Biz & IT, Donald Trump, dotcom bubble, Federal Reserve, financial stability, Google, Lisa Cook, machine learning, mark zuckerberg, market correction, Meta, microsoft, NVIDIA, UK economy / Kris Guyer / October 8, 2025

Share valuations based on past earnings have also reached their highest levels since the dotcom bubble 25 years ago, though the BoE noted they appear less extreme when based on investors’ expectations for future profits. “This, when combined with increasing concentration within market indices, leaves equity markets particularly exposed should expectations around the impact of AI become less optimistic,” the central bank said.

Toil and trouble?

The dotcom bubble offers a potentially instructive parallel to our current era. In the late 1990s, investors poured money into Internet companies based on the promise of a transformed economy, seemingly ignoring whether individual businesses had viable paths to profitability. Between 1995 and March 2000, the Nasdaq index rose 600 percent. When sentiment shifted, the correction was severe: the Nasdaq fell 78 percent from its peak, reaching a low point in October 2002.

Whether we’ll see the same thing or worse if an AI bubble pops is mere speculation at this point. But similarly to the early 2000s, the question about today’s market isn’t necessarily about the utility of AI tools themselves (the Internet was useful, after all, despite the bubble), but whether the amount of money being poured into the companies that sell them is out of proportion with the potential profits those improvements might bring.

We don’t have a crystal ball to determine when such a bubble might pop, or even if it is guaranteed to do so, but we’ll likely continue to see more warning signs ahead if AI-related deals continue to grow larger and larger over time.

Bank of England warns AI stock bubble rivals 2000 dotcom peak Read More »

Vandals deface ads for AI necklaces that listen to all your conversations

AI, ai companions, ai friends, ai wearables, Artificial Intelligence, chatbots, companion bots, Policy / Kris Guyer / October 8, 2025

In addition to backlash over feared surveillance capitalism, critics have accused Schiffman of taking advantage of the loneliness epidemic. Conducting a survey last year, researchers with Harvard Graduate School of Education’s Making Caring Common found that people between “30-44 years of age were the loneliest group.” Overall, 73 percent of those surveyed “selected technology as contributing to loneliness in the country.”

But Schiffman rejects these criticisms, telling the NYT that his AI Friend pendant is intended to supplement human friends, not replace them, supposedly helping to raise the “average emotional intelligence” of users “significantly.”

“I don’t view this as dystopian,” Schiffman said, suggesting that “the AI friend is a new category of companionship, one that will coexist alongside traditional friends rather than replace them,” the NYT reported. “We have a cat and a dog and a child and an adult in the same room,” the Friend founder said. “Why not an AI?”

The MTA has not commented on the controversy, but Victoria Mottesheard—a vice president at Outfront Media, which manages MTA advertising—told the NYT that the Friend campaign blew up because AI “is the conversation of 2025.”

Website lets anyone deface Friend ads

So far, the Friend ads have not yielded significant sales, Schiffman confirmed, telling the NYT that only 3,100 have sold. He expects that society isn’t ready for AI companions to be promoted at such a large scale and that his ad campaign will help normalize AI friends.

In the meantime, critics have rushed to attack Friend on social media, inspiring a website where anyone can vandalize a Friend ad and share it online. That website has received close to 6,000 submissions so far, its creator, Marc Mueller, told the NYT, and visitors can take a tour of these submissions by choosing “ride train to see more” after creating their own vandalized version.

For visitors to Mueller’s site, riding the train displays a carousel documenting backlash to Friend, as well as “performance art” by visitors poking fun at the ads in less serious ways. One example showed a vandalized ad changing “Friend” to “Fries,” with a crude illustration of McDonald’s French fries, while another transformed the ad into a campaign for “fried chicken.”

Others were seemingly more serious about turning the ad into a warning. One vandal drew a bunch of arrows pointing to the “end” in Friend while turning the pendant into a cry-face emoji, seemingly drawing attention to research on the mental health risks of relying on AI companions—including the alleged suicide risks of products like Character.AI and ChatGPT, which have spawned lawsuits and prompted a Senate hearing.

Vandals deface ads for AI necklaces that listen to all your conversations Read More »

Play Store changes coming this month as SCOTUS declines to freeze antitrust remedies

antitrust, Apps, Google, play store, Tech / Kris Guyer / October 7, 2025

Changes are coming to the Play Store in spite of a concerted effort from Google to maintain the status quo. The company asked the US Supreme Court to freeze parts of the Play Store antitrust ruling while it pursued an appeal, but the high court has rejected that petition. That means the first elements of the antitrust remedies won by Epic Games will have to be implemented in mere weeks.

The app store case is one of three ongoing antitrust actions against Google, but it’s the furthest along of them. Google lost the case in 2023, and in 2024, US District Judge James Donato ordered a raft of sweeping changes aimed at breaking Google’s illegal monopoly on Android app distribution. In July, Google lost its initial appeal, leaving it with little time before the mandated changes must begin.

Its petition to the Supreme Court was Google’s final Hail Mary to avoid opening the Play Store even a crack. Google asked the justices to pause remedies pending its appeal, but the court has declined to do so, Reuters reports. Hopefully, Google planned for this eventuality because it must implement the first phase of the remedies by October 22.

The more dramatic changes are not due until July 2026, but this month will still bring major changes to Android apps. Google will have to allow developers to link to alternative methods of payment and download outside the Play Store, and it cannot force developers to use Google Play Billing within the Play Store. Google is also prohibited from setting prices for developers.

Play Store changes coming this month as SCOTUS declines to freeze antitrust remedies Read More »

Newest developer beta backtracks on one iPadOS 26 multitasking decision

Apple, iPadOS, ipados 26, Tech / Kris Guyer / October 7, 2025

We’re generally fans of the new windowed multitasking features in iPadOS 26—for people who want to use their iPads more like traditional laptops, the new system is more powerful, flexible, and predictable than the old Stage Manager, and it works on a wider range of iPads.

But some users on Reddit and elsewhere objected to Apple’s wholesale removal of the old multitasking mode, Split View (which allowed two apps onscreen at a time with a handle for adjusting the amount of screen they took up) and Slide Over (which allowed a small window to be swiped over top of your screen and then quickly dismissed when you were done with it).

Split View was reasonably easy to recreate with the new system, but users who had relied on Slide Over bemoaned the lack of an equivalent feature in iPadOS 26. Apple apparently agrees because the second developer beta of the upcoming iPadOS 26.1 adds Slide Over support back into the operating system (as reported by MacRumors). Like the old Slide Over window, the new one sits on top of all your other apps and can be invoked and dismissed whenever you want.

The new version of Slide Over isn’t quite the same as the old one; only one app can be in Slide Over mode at a time, whereas the old version would let you switch between apps in the Slide Over interface. But the new Slide Over window can be repositioned and resized, just like other windows in iPadOS 26.

Apple hasn’t said when it will release the final version of iPadOS 26.1, iOS 26.1, macOS 26.1, or the equivalent updates for its other platforms. But based on its past practice, we can probably expect to see it released to the general public at some point in October or November, after another beta build or two.

Newest developer beta backtracks on one iPadOS 26 multitasking decision Read More »

The neurons that let us see what isn’t there

Biology, Neuroscience, optical illusions, Science, visual system / Kris Guyer / October 6, 2025

Earlier work had hinted at such cells, but Shin and colleagues show systematically that they’re not rare oddballs—they’re a well-defined, functionally important subpopulation. “What we didn’t know is that these neurons drive local pattern completion within primary visual cortex,” says Shin. “We showed that those cells are causally involved in this pattern completion process that we speculate is likely involved in the perceptual process of illusory contours,” adds Adesnik.

Behavioral tests still to come

That doesn’t mean the mice “saw” the illusory contours when the neurons were artificially activated. “We didn’t actually measure behavior in this study,” says Adesnik. “It was about the neural representation.” All we can say at this point is that the IC-encoders could induce neural activity patterns that matched what imaging shows during normal perception of illusory contours.

“It’s possible that the mice weren’t seeing them,” admits Shin, “because the technique has involved a relatively small number of neurons, for technical limitations. But in the future, one could expand the number of neurons and also introduce behavioral tests.”

That’s the next frontier, Adesnik says: “What we would do is photo-stimulate these neurons and see if we can generate an animal’s behavioral response even without any stimulus on the screen.” Right now, optogenetics can only drive a small number of neurons, and IC-encoders are relatively rare and scattered. “For now, we have only stimulated a small number of these detectors, mainly because of technical limitations. IC-encoders are a rare population, probably distributed through the layers [of the visual system], but we could imagine an experiment where we recruit three, four, five, maybe even 10 times as many neurons,” he says. “In this case, I think we might be able to start getting behavioral responses. We’d definitely very much like to do this test.”

Nature Neuroscience, 2025. DOI: 10.1038/s41593-025-02055-5

Federica Sgorbissa is a science journalist; she writes about neuroscience and cognitive science for Italian and international outlets.

The neurons that let us see what isn’t there Read More »

AMD wins massive AI chip deal from OpenAI with stock sweetener

AI, AI chips, AI development tools, AI GPU, AI infrastructure, AMD, Biz & IT, Broadcom, GPUs, machine learning, microsoft, NVIDIA, openai / Kris Guyer / October 6, 2025

As part of the arrangement, AMD will allow OpenAI to purchase up to 160 million AMD shares at 1 cent each throughout the chips deal.

OpenAI diversifies its chip supply

With demand for AI compute growing rapidly, companies like OpenAI have been looking for secondary supply lines and sources of additional computing capacity, and the AMD partnership is part the company’s wider effort to secure sufficient computing power for its AI operations. In September, Nvidia announced an investment of up to $100 billion in OpenAI that included supplying at least 10 gigawatts of Nvidia systems. OpenAI plans to deploy a gigawatt of Nvidia’s next-generation Vera Rubin chips in late 2026.

OpenAI has worked with AMD for years, according to Reuters, providing input on the design of older generations of AI chips such as the MI300X. The new agreement calls for deploying the equivalent of 6 gigawatts of computing power using AMD chips over multiple years.

Beyond working with chip suppliers, OpenAI is widely reported to be developing its own silicon for AI applications and has partnered with Broadcom, as we reported in February. A person familiar with the matter told Reuters the AMD deal does not change OpenAI’s ongoing compute plans, including its chip development effort or its partnership with Microsoft.

AMD wins massive AI chip deal from OpenAI with stock sweetener Read More »

ICE wants to build a 24/7 social media surveillance team

Biz & IT, digital surveillance, federal surveillance, Government surveillance, immigration, immigration and customs enforcement, Policy, Security, syndication / Kris Guyer / October 4, 2025

Together, these teams would operate as intelligence arms of ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations division. They will receive tips and incoming cases, research individuals online, and package the results into dossiers that could be used by field offices to plan arrests.

The scope of information contractors are expected to collect is broad. Draft instructions specify open-source intelligence: public posts, photos, and messages on platforms from Facebook to Reddit to TikTok. Analysts may also be tasked with checking more obscure or foreign-based sites, such as Russia’s VKontakte.

They would also be armed with powerful commercial databases such as LexisNexis Accurint and Thomson Reuters CLEAR, which knit together property records, phone bills, utilities, vehicle registrations, and other personal details into searchable files.

The plan calls for strict turnaround times. Urgent cases, such as suspected national security threats or people on ICE’s Top Ten Most Wanted list, must be researched within 30 minutes. High-priority cases get one hour; lower-priority leads must be completed within the workday. ICE expects at least three-quarters of all cases to meet those deadlines, with top contractors hitting closer to 95 percent.

The plan goes beyond staffing. ICE also wants algorithms, asking contractors to spell out how they might weave artificial intelligence into the hunt—a solicitation that mirrors other recent proposals. The agency has also set aside more than a million dollars a year to arm analysts with the latest surveillance tools.

ICE did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Earlier this year, The Intercept revealed that ICE had floated plans for a system that could automatically scan social media for “negative sentiment” toward the agency and flag users thought to show a “proclivity for violence.” Procurement records previously reviewed by 404 Media identified software used by the agency to build dossiers on flagged individuals, compiling personal details, family links, and even using facial recognition to connect images across the web. Observers warned it was unclear how such technology could distinguish genuine threats from political speech.

ICE wants to build a 24/7 social media surveillance team Read More »

How different mushrooms learned the same psychedelic trick

mushrooms, psychedelics, Science, syndication / Kris Guyer / October 4, 2025

Magic mushrooms have been used in traditional ceremonies and for recreational purposes for thousands of years. However, a new study has found that mushrooms evolved the ability to make the same psychoactive substance twice. The discovery has important implications for both our understanding of these mushrooms’ role in nature and their medical potential.

Magic mushrooms produce psilocybin, which your body converts into its active form, psilocin, when you ingest it. Psilocybin rose in popularity in the 1960s and was eventually classed as a Schedule 1 drug in the US in 1970, and as a Class A drug in 1971 in the UK, the designations given to drugs that have high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. This put a stop to research on the medical use of psilocybin for decades.

But recent clinical trials have shown that psilocybin can reduce depression severity, suicidal thoughts, and chronic anxiety. Given its potential for medical treatments, there is renewed interest in understanding how psilocybin is made in nature and how we can produce it sustainably.

The new study, led by pharmaceutical microbiology researcher Dirk Hoffmeister, from Friedrich Schiller University Jena, discovered that mushrooms can make psilocybin in two different ways, using different types of enzymes. This also helped the researchers discover a new way to make psilocybin in a lab.

Based on the work led by Hoffmeister, enzymes from two types of unrelated mushrooms under study appear to have evolved independently from each other and take different routes to create the exact same compound.

This is a process known as convergent evolution, which means that unrelated living organisms evolve two distinct ways to produce the same trait. One example is that of caffeine, where different plants including coffee, tea, cacao, and guaraná have independently evolved the ability to produce the stimulant.

This is the first time that convergent evolution has been observed in two organisms that belong to the fungal kingdom. Interestingly, the two mushrooms in question have very different lifestyles. Inocybe corydalina, also known as the greenflush fibrecap and the object of Hoffmeister’s study, grows in association with the roots of different kinds of trees. Psilocybe mushrooms, on the other hand, traditionally known as magic mushrooms, live on nutrients that they acquire by decomposing dead organic matter, such as decaying wood, grass, roots, or dung.

How different mushrooms learned the same psychedelic trick Read More »

Why iRobot’s founder won’t go within 10 feet of today’s walking robots

Agility Robotics, AI, AI development tools, AI research, Biz & IT, boston dynamics, dexterity, elon musk, Figure, humanoid robots, iRobot, machine learning, manipulation, MIT, openai, optimus, Rethink Robotics, robot AI, robotics, Robots, rodney brooks, safety, Tech, Tesla, walking robots / Kris Guyer / October 4, 2025

In his post, Brooks recounts being “way too close” to an Agility Robotics Digit humanoid when it fell several years ago. He has not dared approach a walking one since. Even in promotional videos from humanoid companies, Brooks notes, humans are never shown close to moving humanoid robots unless separated by furniture, and even then, the robots only shuffle minimally.

This safety problem extends beyond accidental falls. For humanoids to fulfill their promised role in health care and factory settings, they need certification to operate in zones shared with humans. Current walking mechanisms make such certification virtually impossible under existing safety standards in most parts of the world.

The humanoid Apollo robot. Credit: Google

Brooks predicts that within 15 years, there will indeed be many robots called “humanoids” performing various tasks. But ironically, they will look nothing like today’s bipedal machines. They will have wheels instead of feet, varying numbers of arms, and specialized sensors that bear no resemblance to human eyes. Some will have cameras in their hands or looking down from their midsections. The definition of “humanoid” will shift, just as “flying cars” now means electric helicopters rather than road-capable aircraft, and “self-driving cars” means vehicles with remote human monitors rather than truly autonomous systems.

The billions currently being invested in forcing today’s rigid, vision-only humanoids to learn dexterity will largely disappear, Brooks argues. Academic researchers are making more progress with systems that incorporate touch feedback, like MIT’s approach using a glove that transmits sensations between human operators and robot hands. But even these advances remain far from the comprehensive touch sensing that enables human dexterity.

Today, few people spend their days near humanoid robots, but Brooks’ 3-meter rule stands as a practical warning of challenges ahead from someone who has spent decades building these machines. The gap between promotional videos and deployable reality remains large, measured not just in years but in fundamental unsolved problems of physics, sensing, and safety.

Why iRobot’s founder won’t go within 10 feet of today’s walking robots Read More »

Apple iPhone 17 Pro review: Come for the camera, stay for the battery

Apple, Features, IPhone, iphone 17, iPhone 17 Air, iphone 17 pro, Tech / Kris Guyer / October 3, 2025

a weird-looking phone for taking pretty pictures

If your iPhone is your main or only camera, the iPhone 17 Pro is for you.

The iPhone 17 Pro’s excellent camera is the best reason to buy it instead of the regular iPhone 17. Credit: Andrew Cunningham

Apple’s “Pro” iPhones usually look and feel a lot like the regular ones, just with some added features stacked on top. They’ve historically had better screens and more flexible cameras, and there has always been a Max option for people who really wanted to blur the lines between a big phone and a small tablet (Apple’s commitment to the cheaper “iPhone Plus” idea has been less steadfast). But the qualitative experience of holding and using one wasn’t all that different compared to the basic aluminum iPhone.

This year’s iPhone 17 Pro looks and feels like more of a departure from the basic iPhone, thanks to a new design that prioritizes function over form. It’s as though Apple anticipated the main complaints about the iPhone Air—why would I want a phone with worse battery and fewer cameras, why don’t they just make the phone thicker so they can fit in more things—and made a version of the iPhone that they could point to and say, “We already make that phone—it’s that one over there.”

Because the regular iPhone 17 is so good, and because it uses the same 6.3-inch OLED ProMotion screen, I think the iPhone 17 Pro is playing to a narrower audience than usual this year. But Apple’s changes and additions are also tailor-made to serve that audience. In other words, fewer people even need to consider the iPhone Pro this time around, but there’s a lot to like here for actual “pros” and people who demand a lot from their phones.

Design

The iPhone 17 drops the titanium frame of the iPhone 15 and 16 Pro in favor of a return to aluminum. But it’s no longer the aluminum-framed glass-sandwich design that the iPhone 17 still uses; it’s a reformulated “aluminum unibody” design that also protects a substantial portion of the phone’s back. It’s the most metal we’ve seen on the back of the iPhone since 2016’s iPhone 7.

But remember that part of the reason the 2017 iPhone 8 and iPhone X switched to the glass sandwich design was wireless charging. The aluminum iPhones always featured some kind of cutouts or gaps in the aluminum to allow Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and cellular signals through. But the addition of wireless charging to the iPhone meant that a substantial portion of the phone’s back now needed to be permeable by wireless signals, and the solution to that problem was simply to embrace it with a full sheet of glass.

The iPhone 17 Pro returns to the cutout approach, and while it might be functional, it leaves me pretty cold, aesthetically. Small stripes on the sides of the phone and running all the way around the “camera plateau” provide gaps between the metal parts so that you can’t mess with your cellular reception by holding the phone wrong; on US versions of the phone with support for mmWave 5G, there’s another long ovular cutout on the top of the phone to allow those signals to pass through.

But the largest and most obvious is the sheet of glass on the back that Apple needed to add to make wireless charging work. The aluminum, the cell signal cutouts, and this sheet of glass are all different shades of the phone’s base color (it’s least noticeable on the Deep Blue phone and most noticeable on the orange one).

The result is something that looks sort of unfinished and prototype-y. There are definitely people who will like or even prefer this aesthetic, which makes it clearer that this piece of technology is a piece of technology rather than trying to hide it—the enduring popularity of clear plastic electronics is a testament to this. But it does feel like a collection of design decisions that Apple was forced into by physics rather than choices it wanted to make.

That also extends to the camera plateau area, a reimagining of the old iPhone camera bump that extends all the way across the top of the phone. It’s a bit less slick-looking than the one on the iPhone Air because of the multiple lenses. And because the camera bumps are still additional protrusions on top of the plateau, the phone wobbles when it’s resting flat on a table instead of resting on the plateau in a way that stabilizes the phone.

Finally, there’s the weight of the phone, which isn’t breaking records but is a step back from a substantial weight reduction that Apple was using as a first-sentence-of-the-press-release selling point just two years ago. The iPhone 17 Pro weighs the same amount as the iPhone 14 Pro, and it has a noticeable heft to it that the iPhone Air (say) does not have. You’ll definitely notice if (like me) your current phone is an iPhone 15 Pro.

Apple sent me one of its $59 “TechWoven” cases with the iPhone 17 Pro, and it solved a lot of what I didn’t like about the design—the inconsistent materials and colors everywhere, and the bump-on-a-bump camera. There’s still a bump on the top, but at least the aperture of a case evens it out so that your phone isn’t tilted by the plateau and wobbling because of the bump.

I liked Apple’s TechWoven case for the iPhone Pro, partly because it papered over some of the things I don’t love about the design. Credit: Andrew Cunningham

The original FineWoven cases were (rightly) panned for how quickly and easily they scratched, but the TechWoven case might be my favorite Apple-designed phone case of the ones I’ve used. It doesn’t have the weird soft lint-magnet feel of some of the silicone cases, FineWoven’s worst problems seem solved, and the texture on the sides of the case provides a reassuring grippiness. My main issue is that the opening for the USB-C port on the bottom is relatively narrow. Apple’s cables will fit fine, but I had a few older or thicker USB-C connectors that didn’t.

This isn’t a case review, but I bring it up mainly to say that I stand by my initial assessment of the Pro’s function-over-form design: I am happy I put it in a case, and I think you will be, too, whichever case you choose (when buying for myself or family members, I have defaulted to Smartish cases for years, but your mileage may vary).

On “Scratchgate”

Early reports from Apple’s retail stores indicated that the iPhone 17 Pro’s design was more susceptible to scratches than past iPhones and that some seemed to be showing marks from as simple and routine an activity as connecting and disconnecting a MagSafe charging pad.

Apple says the marks left by its in-store MagSafe chargers weren’t permanent scratches and could be cleaned off. But independent testing from the likes of iFixit has found that the anodization process Apple uses to add color to the iPhone’s aluminum frame is more susceptible to scratching and flaking on non-flat surfaces like the edges of the camera bump.

Like “antennagate” and “bendgate” before it, many factors will determine whether “scratchgate” is actually something you’ll notice. Independent testing shows there is something to the complaints, but it doesn’t show how often this kind of damage will appear in actual day-to-day use over the course of months or years. Do keep it in mind when deciding which iPhone and accessories you want—it’s just one more reason to keep the iPhone 17 Pro in a case, if you ask me—but I wouldn’t say it should keep you from buying this phone if you like everything else about it.

Camera

I have front-loaded my complaints about the iPhone 17 Pro to get them out of the way, but the fun thing about an iPhone in which function follows form is that you get a lot of function.

When I made the jump from the regular iPhone to the Pro (I went from an 11 to a 13 Pro and then to a 15 Pro), I did it mainly for the telephoto lens in the camera. For both kid photos and casual product photography, it was game-changing to be able to access the functional equivalent of optical zoom on my phone.

The iPhone 17 Pro’s telephoto lens in 4x mode. Andrew Cunningham

The iPhone 16 Pro changed the telephoto lens’ zoom level from 3x to 5x, which was useful if you want maximum zoom but which did leave a gap between it and the Fusion Camera-enabled 2x mode. The 17 Pro switches to a 4x zoom by default, closing that gap, and it further maximizes the zooming capabilities by switching to a 48 MP sensor.

Like the main and ultrawide cameras, which had already switched to 48 MP sensors in previous models, the telephoto camera saves 24 MP images when shooting in 4x mode. But it can also crop a 12 MP image out of the center of that sensor to provide a native-resolution 12 MP image at an 8x zoom level, albeit without the image quality improvements from the “pixel binning” process that 4x images get.

You can debate how accurate it is to market this as “optical-quality zoom” as Apple does, but it’s hard to argue with the results. The level of detail you can capture from a distance in 8x mode is consistently impressive, and Apple’s hardware and software image stabilization help keep these details reasonably free of the shake and blur you might see if you were shooting at this zoom level with an actual hardware lens.

It’s my favorite feature of the iPhone 17 Pro, and it’s the thing about the phone that comes closest to being worth the $300 premium over the regular iPhone 17.

The iPhone 17 Pro, main lens, 1x mode. Andrew Cunningham

Apple continues to gate several other camera-related features to the Pro iPhones. All phones can shoot RAW photos in third-party camera apps that support it, but only the Pro iPhones can shoot Apple’s ProRAW format in the first-party camera app (ProRAW performs Apple’s typical image processing for RAW images but retains all the extra information needed for more flexible post-processing).

I don’t spend as much time shooting video on my phone as I do photos, but for the content creator and influencer set (and the “we used phones and also professional lighting and sound equipment to shoot this movie” set) Apple still reserves several video features for the Pro iPhones. That list includes 120 fps 4K Dolby Vision video recording and a four-mic array (both also supported by the iPhone 16 Pro), plus ProRes RAW recording and Genlock support for synchronizing video from multiple sources (both new to the 17 Pro).

The iPhone Pro also remains the only iPhone to support 10 Gbps USB transfer speeds over the USB-C port, making it faster to transfer large video files from the phone to an external drive or a PC or Mac for additional processing and editing. It’s likely that Apple built this capability into the A19 Pro’s USB controller, but both the iPhone Air and the regular iPhone 17 are restricted to the same old 25-year-old 480 Mbps USB 2.0 data transfer speeds.

The iPhone 17 Pro gets the same front camera treatment as the iPhone 17 and the Air: a new square “Center Stage” sensor that crops a 24 MP square image into an 18 MP image, allowing users to capture approximately the same aspect ratios and fields-of-view with the front camera regardless of whether they’re holding the phone in portrait or landscape mode. It’s definitely an image-quality improvement, but it’s the same as what you get with the other new iPhones.

Specs, speeds, and battery

You still need to buy a Pro phone to get a USB-C port with 10 Gbps USB 3 transfer speeds instead of 480 Mbps USB 2.0 speeds. Credit: Andrew Cunningham

The iPhone 17 Pro uses, by a slim margin, the fastest and most capable version of the A19 Pro chip, partly because it has all of the A19 Pro’s features fully enabled and partly because its thermal management is better than the iPhone Air’s.

The A19 Pro in the iPhone 17 Pro uses two high-performance CPU cores and four smaller high-efficiency CPU cores, plus a fully enabled six-core GPU. Like the iPhone Air, the iPhone Pro also includes 12GB of RAM, up from 8GB in the iPhone 16 Pro and the regular iPhone 17. Apple has added a vapor chamber to the iPhone 17 Pro to help keep it cool rather than relying on metal to conduct heat away from the chips—an infinitesimal amount of water inside a small metal pocket continually boils, evaporates, and condenses inside the closed copper-lined chamber. This spreads the heat evenly over a large area, compared to just using metal to conduct the heat; having the heat spread out over a larger area then allows that heat to be dissipated more quickly.

All phones were tested with Adaptive Power turned off.

We saw in our iPhone 17 review how that phone’s superior thermals helped it outrun the iPhone Air’s version of the A19 Pro in many of our graphics tests; the iPhone Pro’s A19 Pro beats both by a decent margin, thanks to both thermals and the extra hardware.

The performance line graph that 3DMark generates when you run its benchmarks actually gives us a pretty clear look at the difference between how the iPhones act. The graphs for the iPhone 15 Pro, the iPhone 17, and the iPhone 17 Pro all look pretty similar, suggesting that they’re cooled well enough to let the benchmark run for a couple of minutes without significant throttling. The iPhone Air follows a similar performance curve for the first half of the test or so but then drops noticeably lower for the second half—the ups and downs of the line actually look pretty similar to the other phones, but the performance is just a bit lower because the A19 Pro in the iPhone Air is already slowing down to keep itself cool.

The CPU performance of the iPhone 17 Pro is also marginally better than this year’s other phones, but not by enough that it will be user-noticeable.

As for battery, Apple’s own product pages say it lasts for about 10 percent longer than the regular iPhone 17 and between 22 and 36 percent longer than the iPhone Air, depending on what you’re doing.

I found the iPhone Air’s battery life to be tolerable with a little bit of babying and well-timed use of the Low Power Mode feature, and the iPhone 17’s battery was good enough that I didn’t worry about making it through an 18-hour day. But the iPhone 17 Pro’s battery really is a noticeable step up.

One day, I forgot to plug it in overnight and awoke to a phone that still had a 30 percent charge, enough that I could make it through the morning school drop-off routine and plug it in when I got back home. Not only did I not have to think about the iPhone 17 Pro’s battery, but it’s good enough that even a battery with 85-ish percent capacity (where most of my iPhone batteries end up after two years of regular use) should still feel pretty comfortable. After the telephoto camera lens, it’s definitely the second-best thing about the iPhone 17 Pro, and the Pro Max should last for even longer.

Pros only

Apple’s iPhone 17 Pro. Credit: Andrew Cunningham

I’m taken with a lot of things about the iPhone 17 Pro, but the conclusion of our iPhone 17 review still holds: If you’re not tempted by the lightness of the iPhone Air, then the iPhone 17 is the one most people should get.

Even more than most Pro iPhones, the iPhone 17 Pro and Pro Max will make the most sense for people who actually use their phones professionally, whether that’s for product or event photography, content creation, or some other camera-centric field where extra flexibility and added shooting modes can make a real difference. The same goes for people who want a bigger screen, since there’s no iPhone 17 Plus.

Sure, the 17 Pro also performs a little better than the regular 17, and the battery lasts longer. But the screen was always the most immediately noticeable upgrade for regular people, and the exact same display panel is now available in a phone that costs $300 less.

The benefit of the iPhone Pro becoming a bit more niche is that it’s easier to describe who each of these iPhones is for. The Air is the most pleasant to hold and use, and it’s the one you’ll probably buy if you want people to ask you, “Oh, is that one of the new iPhones?” The Pro is for people whose phones are their most important camera (or for people who want the biggest phone they can get). And the iPhone 17 is for people who just want a good phone but don’t want to think about it all that much.

The good

Excellent performance and great battery life
It has the most flexible camera in any iPhone, and the telephoto lens in particular is a noticeable step up from a 2-year-old iPhone 15 Pro
12GB of RAM provides extra future-proofing compared to the standard iPhone
Not counting the old iPhone 16, it’s Apple’s only iPhone to be available in two screen sizes
Extra photography and video features for people who use those features in their everyday lives or even professionally

The bad

Clunky, unfinished-looking design
More limited color options compared to the regular iPhone
Expensive
Landscape layouts for apps only work on the Max model

The ugly

Increased weight compared to previous models, which actually used their lighter weight as a selling point

Andrew is a Senior Technology Reporter at Ars Technica, with a focus on consumer tech including computer hardware and in-depth reviews of operating systems like Windows and macOS. Andrew lives in Philadelphia and co-hosts a weekly book podcast called Overdue.

Apple iPhone 17 Pro review: Come for the camera, stay for the battery Read More »

Author name: Kris Guyer