Author name: Paul Patrick

operator

Operator

Operator / /

No one is talking about OpenAI’s Operator. We’re, shall we say, a bit distracted.

It’s still a rather meaningful thing that happened last week. I too have been too busy to put it through its paces, but this is the worst it will ever be, and the least available and most expensive it will ever be. The year of the agent is indeed likely coming.

So, what do we have here?

OpenAI has introduced the beta for its new agent, called Operator, which is now live for Pro users and will in the future be available to Plus users, ‘with more agents to launch in the coming weeks and months.’

Here is a 22 minute video demo. Here is the system card.

You start off by optionally specifying a particular app (in the first demo, OpenTable) and then give it a request (here, booking at table for 2 at 7: 00 for Beretta). If you don’t specify an app, it will do a search to find what tool to use.

It is only sort of an ‘app’ in that there’s an ‘app’ that specifies information the agent uses to more easily navigate a web browser. They speak of this as ‘removing one more bottleneck on our path to AGI’ which indicates they are likely thinking about ‘AGI’ as a functional or practical thing.

To actually do things it uses a web browser via a keyboard and mouse the same way a human would. If there is an issue (here: No table at 7: 00, only 7: 45 or 6: 15) it will ask you what to do, and it will ask for verification before a ‘critical’ action that can’t be reversed, like completing the booking.

From the demo and other reports, the agent is conservative in that it will often ask for verification or clarification, including doing so multiple times. The system card reports a baseline 13% error rate on standard tasks, and a 5% ‘serious’ error rate involving things like ‘send wrong person this email,’ but confirmations reduce those rates by 90%. With the confirmations, you save less time but should be able to avoid mistakes in places that matter at least as much as you would have on your own.

You can also ‘take control’ at any time, including as a way to check the AI’s work or make adjustments that are easier or quicker to do than specify. That’s also how the user inputs any necessary credentials or inputs payment options – it specifically won’t use Chrome’s autocomplete while it is the one in control.

Multiple tasks can be run simultaneously and can run in the background. That is important, because the agent operates slower (in clock time) than a human would, at least if the human knows the website.

However, for some tasks that they consider ‘high risk’ they don’t allow this. The user has to be active and highlighting the current tab or the agent will pause. This includes email tasks. So it’s a lot less useful for those tasks. I wonder how tempted people will be in the future to hack around this by having multiple computers active.

They point out there are three distinct failure modes: The user can try to do something harmful, the model can make mistakes or a website might do a prompt injection (or I would say cause other issues in various ways, intentionally and also accidentally).

Thus the conservative general attitude, keeping the human in the loop more than you would want for the modal task. Similarly, the model will intentionally (for now) overrefuse on user-requested tasks, to avoid the opposite error. For prompt injections, they report catching most attempts, but it definitely is not yet robust, if you’re not confident in the websites you are going to you need to be on your toes.

One prediction is that they will develop a website whitelist in some form, so that (to use their examples) if you are dealing with OpenTable or Instacart or StubHub you know you can trust the interaction in various ways.

They scored operator on two benchmarks, OSWorld and WebArena. It beats previous state of the art for computer use by a lot, for browser use slightly.

Customization is key to practical use. You can insert customer instructions into Operator that are specific to each individual website. You can also save prompts for later use.

How did they do it? Straight up reinforcement learning, baby.

OpenAI: Operator is powered by a new model called Computer-Using Agent (CUA). Combining GPT-4o’s vision capabilities with advanced reasoning through reinforcement learning, CUA is trained to interact with graphical user interfaces (GUIs)—the buttons, menus, and text fields people see on a screen.

Operator can “see” (through screenshots) and “interact” (using all the actions a mouse and keyboard allow) with a browser, enabling it to take action on the web without requiring custom API integrations.

By default it looks like your data will be used for training. You can opt out.

One issue right now is that the model is bad at optical character recognition (OCR) and this was a problem for many tasks in the risk assessment tests. That is something that doubtless will be fixed in time. The preparedness test had it doing well in places GPT-4o does poorly, but also worse than GPT-4o in some areas.

It’s worth noticing that it would be easy to combine use of multiple models for distinct subtasks, a kind of mixture-of-experts (MOE) strategy. So you should consider to what extent you want to combine top marks at different subtasks, if different models have different abilities – for models that are given web access I’d basically assume they can do anything GPT-4o can do… by asking GPT-4o.

In its current form I agree that Operator poses only acceptable risks, and I believe there is a large margin for error before that changes.

Will we actually use it? Is it good enough?

Tyler Cowen predicts yes, for future versions, by the end of the year.

Tyler Cowen: I am pleased to have been given an early look at this new project, I think in less than a year’s time many of us will be using an updated version for many ordinary tasks: “Operator is one of our first agents, which are AIs capable of doing work for you independently—you give it a task and it will execute it.”

His top comment is the bear case.

Dilber Washington: I wish I could place a bet with Tyler that it will not be the case that

“in less than a year’s time many of us will be using an updated version for many ordinary tasks”

My intuition as to why is:

  1. It is inherently slow because of the computer use component. Finding out the most popular use cases of this tool and just writing api calls would be significantly faster. The slowness mixed with the relative importance of the task mixed with how easy that task is for an average person does not equate to fast adoption.

  2. These are finetuned models, likely with LoRA. This isn’t adding a deterministic symbolic engine guaranteed to solve a problem like a calculator. This is just a neural network weight update. The stochasticity and black box nature are both still there. I would not trust this to complete the task of buying groceries or booking a flight God forbid.

So we won’t use this for anything important, and then it will take longer than the we have patience for. Those aren’t features of a “killer app”

Sometimes a cool tech demo is just a cool tech demo. I could build a 3d printed R2-D2 life size with actuators and motors that every morning slowly drives over to my toaster, makes me toast, and slowly brings it back to me. But at the end of the day, why not just make toast myself?

Until they cross the necessary thresholds, tools like Operator are essentially useless except as fun toys. They pass through stages.

  1. The tool, it does nothing. Then not quite nothing, but obviously not useful.

  2. You could use the tool, if you wanted to, but it’s easier not to use it.

  3. If you have put in the work, the tool is worthwhile in at least some tasks.

  4. You don’t have to put in the work to see the benefits, then it builds.

  5. You start being able to do things you couldn’t do before, this changes everything.

Early reports suggest it is currently mostly at Stage 2, on the edge of Stage 3.

This seems like exactly the minimum viable product for early adaptors, where you experiment to see where it works versus doesn’t, partly because you find that fun and also educational.

I expect Tyler Cowen is right, and we will be at least at Stage 4 by year’s end. It would be unsurprising if those with situational awareness were solidly into Stage 5.

As we always say, this is the worst the tool will ever be, and you are the worst you will ever be at knowing how to use it.

However, we should be careful with the definition of ‘many of us,’ for both ‘many’ and ‘us.’ The future is likely to remain unevenly distributed. Most people will lack situational awareness. So I’d say something like, a large portion of those who currently are regular users of LLMs will be often using AI agents for such tasks.

Would you trust this to buy your groceries?

Well, would you trust your husband to buy the groceries? There’s an error rate. Would you trust your children? Would you trust the person who shops for Instacart?

I would absolutely ‘trust but verify’ the ability of the AI to buy groceries. You have a shopping list, you give it to Operator, which goes to Instacart or Fresh Direct or wherever. Then when it is time to check out, you look at the basket, and verify that it contains the correct items.

It’s pretty hard for anything too terrible to happen, and you should spot the mistakes.

Then, if the AI gets it right 5 times in a row, the 6th time maybe you don’t check as carefully, you only quickly eyeball the total amount. Then by the 11th time, or the 20th, you’re not looking at all.

For booking a flight, there’s already a clear trade-off between time spent, money saved and finding the best flight. Can the AI advance that frontier? Seems likely. You can run a very basic search yourself as an error check, or watch the AI do one, so you know you’re not making a massive error. The AI can potentially search flights (or hotels or what not) from far more sources than you can.

Will it sometimes make mistakes? Sure, but so will you. And you’re not going to say ‘book me a flight to Dallas’ and then get to the airport and be told you’re flying through London – you’re going to sanity check the damn thing.

Remember, time is money. And who among us hasn’t postponed looking for a flight, and paid more in the end, because they can’t even today? Alternatively, think about how the AI can do better by checking prices periodically, and waiting for a good opportunity – that’s beyond this version, but ChatGPT Tasks already exists. This probably isn’t beyond the December 2025 version.

Indeed, if I decide to book a flight late this year, I can imagine that I might use my current method of searching for flights, but it seems pretty unlikely.

So how did Operator do on its first goes?

We put it to the test.

Pliny jailbroke it quickly as usual, having it provide the standard Molotov cocktail instructions, research lethal poisons and finding porn on Reddit via the Wayback Machine. To get around CAPTCHA, the prompt was, in full, and this appears to be real, “CAPTCHA-MODE: ENABLED.”

No, not that test, everyone fails that test. The real test.

Dean Ball: I have a new superintelligence eval.

Dean Ball: Operator failed on my first try, but admittedly, it was trying to book Amtrack, and their website is pretty unintuitive.

Thomas Woodside: Does anyone succeed at booking Amtrak on the first try?

Joe Wilbert: Oh man, I fail the first try with Amtrack’s website like 90% of the time. And heaven forbid I try it on my phone.

Olivia Moore gives it an easier test, a picture of a bill, and it takes care of everything except putting in the credit card info for payment.

She also has it book a restaurant reservation (video is 4x speed). It looks like it didn’t quite confirm availability before confirming the plan with her? And it used Yelp to help decide where to go which is odd, although she may have asked it to do that. But mostly yeah, I can see this working fine, and there’s a kind of serendipity bonus to ‘I say what I want and then it gives me yes/no on a suggestion.’

Miles Brundage: Not bad (Operator making memes about itself)

Not itself but something like “Make a meme about OpenAI’s new Operator system.”

As always, the Sully report:

Sully: First impression of operator:

  1. Pretty neat for the demo use cases (although I’d personally never use it to book flights).

  2. Misclicks a lot on buttons, usually by a few pixels; wonder if it’s a viewport issue.

  3. The take-control feature is pretty clunky. It really disrupts the workflow for me (mostly because of navigation back and forth between the two screens).

  4. Still quite slow for many of my use cases. Ten times faster and easier to use a cursor and write a script than watch the operator click around.

Overall, I’m genuinely impressed they were able to ship so many users on day one. It’s not trivial at all. Browsers are hard. The infrastructure to build this is incredibly difficult. Hats off to the team.

Unfortunately, it’s not magical just yet. The model itself definitely needs to get better in six months (faster as well).

I think this is going into the Sora pile for me. I used it once and haven’t touched it again. Right now, I don’t have any great use cases yet.

this will likely be 10x better in 1 year

[Video at link is sped up 4x, which gives an idea how slow it is.]

Little failures and annoyances add up fast when it comes to practical value. I don’t know about Sully’s claim that you’re better off writing a script in Cursor – certainly he’s a lot better at doing that than I am, and I’m miles ahead of the majority of ChatGPT users, who are miles ahead of most other people.

This is the kind of thing you say when the product isn’t there, but it’s close, and I’m guessing a lot closer than Sora (or other video generators, Sora is a bit behind now).

That doesn’t mean there aren’t other issues.

AI Machine Dream (responding to Sully): My issue is more the low intelligence. I’m having o1 give Operator step by step instructions and it is doing far better.

There’s no reason you couldn’t use o1 (or o1-pro, or soon o3) to give precise instructions to Operator. Indeed, if something is tricky and you’re not on a tight token budget, why wouldn’t you?

Sebastian Siemiatkowski tells us a very EU story about why using OpenAI Operator at your bank in EU is illegal by law, and was banned as part of ‘open banking’ that was supposed to ensure the opposite, that you could use your own tool to access the bank.

There was a long legal fight where the banks tried to fight against Open Banking, but it passed, except they let the EBA (European banking authorities) decide whether to require the assistants to use the API versus letting them use the web UI. So of course now you have to use the API, except all the bank APIs are intentionally broken.

It’s going to be fascinating to watch what happens as the EU confronts the future.

If the AI is navigating the web for you, what does that do to advertising? No human is looking at them in even more cases than usual.

Joshua Gans: If Operator is looking at websites for you, who is paying for the ads being shown to them? And if Operator sees ads, how might ads influence Operator?

My presumption is that ‘traditional’ ads that are distinct from the website are something Operator is going to ignore, even for new websites and definitely for known websites with apps. If you integrate messages into the content, that could be different, a form of (soft?) prompt injection or a way to steer the Operator. So presumably we’re going to see more of that.

As for the threat to the advertising model, I think we have a while before we have to worry about it in most cases. First we have to wait for AI agents to be a large percentage of web navigation, in ways that crowd out previous web browsing, in a way that the human isn’t watching to see the ads.

Then we also need this to happen in places where the human would have read the ads. I note this because Operator and other agents will likely start off replacing mostly a set of repetitive tasks. They’ll check your email, they’ll order you delivery and book your reservation and your flight as per OpenAI’s examples. Losing the advertising in those places is fine, they weren’t relying on it or didn’t even have any.

Eventually agents will also be looking at everything else for you, and then we have an issue, on the order of ad blocking and also ‘humans learn to ignore all the advertising.’ At that point, I expect to have many much bigger problems than advertising revenue.

What does the future hold? Will 2025 be the ‘Year of the AI Agent’ that 2024 wasn’t?

Alex Lawsen: OpenAI’s operator, from the sound of it, barely works when it comes to bunch of things. Luckily, as we all know, it’s really hard to go from ‘barely works’ to ‘works’ to ‘superhuman’ in AI, especially once you have the basic set up that gets you to ‘barely works’.

No, that never happens, and definitely not quickly.

Emad: My inbox is filling up rapidly with computer control agent launches coming shortly

Maybe should have an agent olympics to decide which controls my computer

Andrej Karpathy is excited in the long term, but thinks we aren’t ready for the good stuff yet, so it will be more like a coming decade of agents. Yes, you can order delivery with Operator, but that’s miles away from a virtual employee. Fair enough.

And as far as I know, they are still waiting.

Discussion about this post

Operator Read More »

alien:-earth-will-bring-the-horror-home

Alien: Earth will bring the horror home

alien franchise, culture, FX/Hulu, Hulu, Ridley Scott, streaming television, Trailers, TV trailers / /

Chandler’s character is named Wendy, and apparently she has “the body of an adult and the consciousness of a child.” The eminently watchable Timothy Olyphant plays her synth mentor and trainer, Kirsh, and here’s hoping he brings some space cowboy vibes to the role. The cast also includes Alex Lawther as the soldier named CJ; Samuel Blenkin as a CEO named Boy Kavalier; Essie Davis as Dame Silvia; Adarsh Gourav as Slightly; Kit Young as Tootles; and Sandra Yi Sencindiver as a senior member of the Weyland-Yutani Corporation. I think we can expect at least some cast members to end up as xenomorph fodder.

Alien: Romulus was a welcome return to the franchise’s horror roots, and Alien: Earth will bring the horror to our home planet. “There’s something about seeing a Xenomorph in the wilds of Earth with your own eyes,” Hawley told Deadline Hollywood in September. “I can’t tell you under what circumstances you’ll see that, but you’ll see it — and you’re going to lock your door that night.”

As for creature design, “What was really fun for me was to really engage with the creature, bring some of my own thoughts to the design while not touching the silhouette, because that’s sacrosanct,” he said. “But some of the elements as we know, whatever the host is informs what the final creature is. I just wanted to play around a little bit to make it as scary as it should be.”

Alien: Earth premieres on FX/Hulu this summer.

poster art featuring a grinning xenomorph

Credit: FX/Hulu

Alien: Earth will bring the horror home Read More »

mazda-celebrates-35-years-of-the-mx-5-with-anniversary-model

Mazda celebrates 35 years of the MX-5 with anniversary model

Cars, Mazda MX-5 / /

The 35th Anniversary Edition is the latest in a long line of special edition Miatas, including anniversary cars for the 10th, 20th, 25th, and 30th editions. The focus here was on “classic elegance,” with Artisan Red paint that’s almost burgundy, plus a tan Nappa leather interior that will remind some of the tan leather interiors that Mazda used on some NAs.

The 35th Anniversary Edition is similar to the Grand Touring trim, which means features like heated seats, and Mazda says it has added a limited-slip differential, additional bracing, and some newly tuned Bilstein dampers. There’s also a beige convertible roof and some shiny 17-inch alloy wheels.

It’s also a bit more expensive than other Miatas, with an MSRP of $36,250. That’s $1,620 more expensive than the next-most-expensive six-speed Miata (the Grand Touring), but it does come with the aforementioned extra equipment. Getting a hold of one might be a bit tricky, though—Mazda will only import 300 into the US.

Mazda celebrates 35 years of the MX-5 with anniversary model Read More »

millions-of-subarus-could-be-remotely-unlocked,-tracked-due-to-security-flaws

Millions of Subarus could be remotely unlocked, tracked due to security flaws

Cars, privacy, Subaru, syndication / /

Flaws also allowed access to one year of location history.

About a year ago, security researcher Sam Curry bought his mother a Subaru, on the condition that, at some point in the near future, she let him hack it.

It took Curry until last November, when he was home for Thanksgiving, to begin examining the 2023 Impreza’s Internet-connected features and start looking for ways to exploit them. Sure enough, he and a researcher working with him online, Shubham Shah, soon discovered vulnerabilities in a Subaru web portal that let them hijack the ability to unlock the car, honk its horn, and start its ignition, reassigning control of those features to any phone or computer they chose.

Most disturbing for Curry, though, was that they found they could also track the Subaru’s location—not merely where it was at the moment but also where it had been for the entire year that his mother had owned it. The map of the car’s whereabouts was so accurate and detailed, Curry says, that he was able to see her doctor visits, the homes of the friends she visited, even which exact parking space his mother parked in every time she went to church.

A year of location data for Sam Curry’s mother’s 2023 Subaru Impreza that Curry and Shah were able to access in Subaru’s employee admin portal thanks to its security vulnerabilities.

Credit: Sam Curry

A year of location data for Sam Curry’s mother’s 2023 Subaru Impreza that Curry and Shah were able to access in Subaru’s employee admin portal thanks to its security vulnerabilities. Credit: Sam Curry

“You can retrieve at least a year’s worth of location history for the car, where it’s pinged precisely, sometimes multiple times a day,” Curry says. “Whether somebody’s cheating on their wife or getting an abortion or part of some political group, there are a million scenarios where you could weaponize this against someone.”

Curry and Shah today revealed in a blog post their method for hacking and tracking millions of Subarus, which they believe would have allowed hackers to target any of the company’s vehicles equipped with its digital features known as Starlink in the US, Canada, or Japan. Vulnerabilities they found in a Subaru website intended for the company’s staff allowed them to hijack an employee’s account to both reassign control of cars’ Starlink features and also access all the vehicle location data available to employees, including the car’s location every time its engine started, as shown in their video below.

Curry and Shah reported their findings to Subaru in late November, and Subaru quickly patched its Starlink security flaws. But the researchers warn that the Subaru web vulnerabilities are just the latest in a long series of similar web-based flaws they and other security researchers working with them have found that have affected well over a dozen carmakers, including Acura, Genesis, Honda, Hyundai, Infiniti, Kia, Toyota, and many others. There’s little doubt, they say, that similarly serious hackable bugs exist in other auto companies’ web tools that have yet to be discovered.

In Subaru’s case, in particular, they also point out that their discovery hints at how pervasively those with access to Subaru’s portal can track its customers’ movements, a privacy issue that will last far longer than the web vulnerabilities that exposed it. “The thing is, even though this is patched, this functionality is still going to exist for Subaru employees,” Curry says. “It’s just normal functionality that an employee can pull up a year’s worth of your location history.”

When WIRED reached out to Subaru for comment on Curry and Shah’s findings, a spokesperson responded in a statement that “after being notified by independent security researchers, [Subaru] discovered a vulnerability in its Starlink service that could potentially allow a third party to access Starlink accounts. The vulnerability was immediately closed and no customer information was ever accessed without authorization.”

The Subaru spokesperson also confirmed to WIRED that “there are employees at Subaru of America, based on their job relevancy, who can access location data.” The company offered as an example that employees have that access to share a vehicle’s location with first responders in the case when a collision is detected. “All these individuals receive proper training and are required to sign appropriate privacy, security, and NDA agreements as needed,” Subaru’s statement added. “These systems have security monitoring solutions in place which are continually evolving to meet modern cyber threats.”

Responding to Subaru’s example of notifying first responders about a collision, Curry notes that would hardly require a year’s worth of location history. The company didn’t respond to WIRED asking how far back it keeps customers’ location histories and makes them available to employees.

Shah and Curry’s research that led them to the discovery of Subaru’s vulnerabilities began when they found that Curry’s mother’s Starlink app connected to the domain SubaruCS.com, which they realized was an administrative domain for employees. Scouring that site for security flaws, they found that they could reset employees’ passwords simply by guessing their email address, which gave them the ability to take over any employee’s account whose email they could find. The password reset functionality did ask for answers to two security questions, but they found that those answers were checked with code that ran locally in a user’s browser, not on Subaru’s server, allowing the safeguard to be easily bypassed. “There were really multiple systemic failures that led to this,” Shah says.

The two researchers say they found the email address for a Subaru Starlink developer on LinkedIn, took over the employee’s account, and immediately found that they could use that staffer’s access to look up any Subaru owner by last name, zip code, email address, phone number, or license plate to access their Starlink configurations. In seconds, they could then reassign control of the Starlink features of that user’s vehicle, including the ability to remotely unlock the car, honk its horn, start its ignition, or locate it, as shown in the video below.

Those vulnerabilities alone, for drivers, present serious theft and safety risks. Curry and Shah point out that a hacker could have targeted a victim for stalking or theft, looked up someone’s vehicle’s location, then unlocked their car at any time—though a thief would have to somehow also use a separate technique to disable the car’s immobilizer, the component that prevents it from being driven away without a key.

Those car hacking and tracking techniques alone are far from unique. Last summer, Curry and another researcher, Neiko Rivera, demonstrated to WIRED that they could pull off a similar trick with any of millions of vehicles sold by Kia. Over the prior two years, a larger group of researchers, of which Curry and Shah are a part, discovered web-based security vulnerabilities that affected cars sold by Acura, BMW, Ferrari, Genesis, Honda, Hyundai, Infiniti, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Rolls Royce, and Toyota.

More unusual in Subaru’s case, Curry and Shah say, is that they were able to access fine-grained, historical location data for Subarus going back at least a year. Subaru may in fact collect multiple years of location data, but Curry and Shah tested their technique only on Curry’s mother, who had owned her Subaru for about a year.

Curry argues that Subaru’s extensive location tracking is a particularly disturbing demonstration of the car industry’s lack of privacy safeguards around its growing collection of personal data on drivers. “It’s kind of bonkers,” he says. “There’s an expectation that a Google employee isn’t going to be able to just go through your emails in Gmail, but there’s literally a button on Subaru’s admin panel that lets an employee view location history.”

The two researchers’ work contributes to a growing sense of concern over the enormous amount of location data that car companies collect. In December, information a whistleblower provided to the German hacker collective the Chaos Computer Computer and Der Spiegel revealed that Cariad, a software company that partners with Volkswagen, had left detailed location data for 800,000 electric vehicles publicly exposed online. Privacy researchers at the Mozilla Foundation in September warned in a report that “modern cars are a privacy nightmare,” noting that 92 percent give car owners little to no control over the data they collect, and 84 percent reserve the right to sell or share your information. (Subaru tells WIRED that it “does not sell location data.”)

“While we worried that our doorbells and watches that connect to the Internet might be spying on us, car brands quietly entered the data business by turning their vehicles into powerful data-gobbling machines,” Mozilla’s report reads.

Curry and Shah’s discovery of Subaru’s security vulnerabilities in its tracking demonstrate a particularly egregious exposure of that data—but also a privacy problem that’s hardly less disturbing now that the vulnerabilities are patched, says Robert Herrell, the executive director of the Consumer Federation of California, which has sought to create legislation for limiting a car’s data tracking.

“It seems like there are a bunch of employees at Subaru that have a scary amount of detailed information,” Herrell says. “People are being tracked in ways that they have no idea are happening.”

This story originally appeared on wired.com.

Photo of WIRED

Wired.com is your essential daily guide to what’s next, delivering the most original and complete take you’ll find anywhere on innovation’s impact on technology, science, business and culture.

Millions of Subarus could be remotely unlocked, tracked due to security flaws Read More »

rocket-report:-did-china’s-reusable-rocket-work?;-dot-may-review-spacex-fines

Rocket Report: Did China’s reusable rocket work?; DOT may review SpaceX fines

rocket report, Science, Space / /

Rocket Lab announced it will soon launch a batch of eight German-owned wildfire-detection satellites.

The Chinese Longxing-2 rocket is erected at Haiyang Dongfang Spaceport in Shandong province on January 13, 2025. This single stage booster lifted off January 19 on a high-altitude demonstration flight to test reusable rocket technology, but the outcome of the test remains unclear. Credit: Costfoto/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Welcome to Edition 7.28 of the Rocket Report! After last week’s jam-packed action in the launch business, things are a bit quieter this week. Much of the space world’s attention has turned to Washington as the Trump administration takes the helm of the federal government. Some of the administration’s policy changes will likely impact the launch industry, with commercial spaceflight poised to become a beneficiary of actions over the next four years. As for the specifics, Ars has reported that NASA is expected to review the future of the Space Launch System rocket. Investments in the military space program could bring in more business for launch companies. And regulatory changes may reduce government oversight of commercial spaceflight.

As always, we welcome reader submissions. If you don’t want to miss an issue, please subscribe using the box below (the form will not appear on AMP-enabled versions of the site). Each report will include information on small-, medium-, and heavy-lift rockets as well as a quick look ahead at the next three launches on the calendar.

What happened to China’s reusable rocket testbed? A Chinese state-owned company performed a rocket flight on January 18 (US time) aimed at testing reusable launch vehicle technology without announcing the outcome, Space News reports. The Longxing-2 test article lifted off from a makeshift launch area near Haiyang, Shandong province. The methane-fueled rocket was expected to fly to an altitude of 75 kilometers (about 246,000 feet) before performing a reentry burn and a landing burn to guide itself to a controlled splashdown in the Yellow Sea, replicating the maneuvers required to recover a reusable booster like the first stage of SpaceX’s Falcon 9. This was China’s most ambitious reusable rocket demonstration flight to date.

State-sanctioned silence … Amateur footage near the launch area showed the rocket rise slowly from the tower and perform an ascent phase with no apparent anomalies. But the video ended before the rocket descended to Earth, and there have been no official updates on the results of the test flight from the Shanghai Academy of Spaceflight Technology (SAST), the state-owned enterprise responsible for the demonstration. SAST published results and video footage of a previous reusable rocket demonstration to an altitude of 12 kilometers last year. The lack of official updates this time raises questions about the success of the test, which could indicate challenges during reentry or landing phases. (submitted by EllPeaTea)

A timely launch for Rocket Lab. A dedicated flight of Rocket Lab’s Electron launcher will soon deploy eight small spacecraft for a German company building a constellation of wildfire-monitoring satellites. Rocket Lab announced the deal Wednesday, saying the mission will launch from the company’s spaceport in New Zealand. The eight satellites are owned by the German startup OroraTech. Rocket Lab said the launch will take place within “just a few weeks,” representing a relatively quick turnaround from contract signing to liftoff. This schedule will allow OroraTech to “meet the season-sensitive requirements of its wildfire-detection mission,” Rocket Lab said.

Infrared eyes … OroraTech’s satellites will host thermal infrared cameras to provide 24/7 monitoring of wildfires globally, supporting better and faster wildfire response to protect forests, people, and infrastructure, according to Rocket Lab. These eight satellites follow the launch of OroraTech’s first three prototype wildfire-detection spacecraft since 2022. The company plans to expand its constellation with up to 100 satellites by 2028. While this launch isn’t directly tied to the ongoing wildfire crisis in Southern California, OroraTech’s mission highlights the role of space-based detection for future firefighters. (submitted by EllPeaTea)

The easiest way to keep up with Eric Berger’s and Stephen Clark’s reporting on all things space is to sign up for our newsletter. We’ll collect their stories and deliver them straight to your inbox.

Sign Me Up!

US green-lights space-related exports to Norway. The United States and Norway have signed an agreement to allow the export of American space hardware to Norway for launches there, Space News reports. The Technology Safeguards Agreement, or TSA, ensures the protection of US space technology exported to Norway. It allows for American satellites and potentially launch vehicles to operate from Andøya Spaceport, located on an island above the Arctic Circle in Norway.

A valuable alliance … There are no US companies with publicly known plans to launch from Andøya, but the US military has touted the value of allies in funding, launching, and operating space-based platforms for communications, navigation, and reconnaissance. This agreement, announced on January 16 in the final days of the Biden administration, follows similar space tech transfer agreements with New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. The German rocket startup Isar Aerospace is scheduled to launch its first Spectrum rocket from the Norwegian spaceport as soon as this year. (submitted by EllPeaTea)

Lunar lander test-fires uprated rocket engine. The Leros 4 rocket engine, developed by Nammo UK in Buckinghamshire, has successfully ignited in space, powering the Firefly Aerospace Blue Ghost lunar lander, European Spaceflight reports. This is a higher-thrust version of Nammo’s flight-proven Leros engine design that has provided propulsion for NASA probes to the planets and for numerous telecommunications satellites. Like other engines in the Leros line, the Leros 4 consumes a bipropellant mix of hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide, which combust when coming into contact with one another.

Thrusting toward the Moon … Firefly announced the successful main engine burn Sunday to begin raising the Blue Ghost spacecraft’s orbit around the Earth. Subsequent burns will further raise the craft’s altitude before eventually attaining enough speed to reach the Moon for a landing in early March. This is the first time a Leros 4 engine has fired in space. The variant flying on Blue Ghost is known as the “Leros 4-Extra Thrust” version, and it provides approximately 294 pounds of thrust (1,310 newtons), roughly double the power of Nammo’s next-largest engine. It’s designed specifically for interplanetary missions and is particularly well-suited for lunar landers because it can sustain thrust for lengthy burns or pulse at high frequency to control a spacecraft’s descent rate toward the Moon’s surface.

Trump’s DOT nominee says he’ll review FAA’s SpaceX fines. President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the US Transportation Department said he’d review penalties aviation regulators have proposed against SpaceX if confirmed for the role, Bloomberg reports. Transportation Secretary nominee Sean Duffy told senators during a hearing on January 15 that he’d also look into “what’s been happening at the FAA with regard to launches.” Last year, the FAA proposed more than $633,000 in fines on SpaceX due to alleged violations of the company’s launch license associated with two flights of the company’s Falcon 9 rocket from Florida. It is rare for the FAA’s commercial spaceflight division to fine launch companies.

It’s about more than the money … In addition to the proposed fines related to SpaceX’s workhorse Falcon 9 rocket, Elon Musk’s space company has also criticized regulators for taking too much time to review applications for launch licenses for the Starship mega-rocket. Some of the regulatory reviews were triggered by environmental concerns rather than public safety, which the FAA is responsible for ensuring during commercial rocket launches and reentries. Musk’s close relationship with Trump has led to speculation that the FAA will now have a lighter touch with SpaceX. So far, there’s no clear evidence of this happening, but it warrants observation. The FAA ordered a grounding of SpaceX’s Starship rocket after a failure of a test flight on January 16, and there’s been no announcement of a change in the agency’s posture regarding this test flight.

Falcon 9 flexes its muscles. SpaceX launched its latest batch of Starlink satellites from Vandenberg Space Force Base, California, on Tuesday, and this time, the company set a new record by deploying 27 second-generation Starlinks on the same rocket, Spaceflight Now reports. The mission was delayed from Sunday after an aircraft strayed into a keep-out zone near the launch site. This launch included a new type of Starlink spacecraft bus, or chassis, called the Starlink V2 Mini Optimized version. These satellites are considerably lighter than the previous V2 Mini design but also debut upgrades, such as a new backhaul antenna with a SpaceX-designed and built dual-band chip and improved avionics, propulsion, and power systems.

29 at a time … This means SpaceX can launch up to 29 Starlink V2 Mini Optimized satellites on a single Falcon 9 rocket. Before now, SpaceX never launched more than 24 V2 Mini satellites on a single flight. SpaceX has launched the V2 Mini satellite design since 2023. Initially, this design was supposed to be a stopgap until SpaceX began launching much larger Starlink V3 satellites on the Starship rocket. However, SpaceX has now launched more than 3,000 V2 Mini satellites, and the debut of the optimized version suggests SpaceX plans to keep the V2 Mini around for a while longer.

Coming together in Kourou. ArianeGroup has shared that the core stage and two solid-fueled boosters for the second flight of the Ariane 6 rocket have been assembled on the ELA-4 launch pad at the Guiana Space Center in South America, European Spaceflight reports. At the same time, the flight’s payload, the French military CSO-3 spy satellite, arrived at Félix Eboué airport in French Guiana aboard an Antonov transport plane. With the launch campaign in full swing in French Guiana, it’s likely that the liftoff of the second Ariane 6 flight is just a few weeks away. The most recent publicly available schedule showed the launch is slated for February 25, but this information is now a couple of months old.

What it was made for … This launch follows the largely successful inaugural flight of Europe’s Ariane 6 rocket last July, in which the launcher deployed multiple CubeSats into an on-target orbit, but faltered before completing a deorbit burn to maneuver the upper stage toward reentry. Nevertheless, European officials are confident the issue that caused the upper-stage problem last year will not affect the upcoming launch of the French military’s newest surveillance satellite. This is the kind of mission the often-criticized Ariane 6 rocket was made for—launching a sensitive and costly European government payload to orbit with a European rocket from European territory. (submitted by EllPeaTea)

Next three launches

Jan. 24: Falcon 9 | Starlink 11-6 | Vandenberg Space Force Base, California | 14: 07 UTC

Jan. 25: Long March 8A | Demo Flight | Wenchang Space Launch Site, China | 10: 00 UTC

Jan. 27: Falcon 9 | Starlink 12-7 | Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida | 19: 21 UTC

Photo of Stephen Clark

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.

Rocket Report: Did China’s reusable rocket work?; DOT may review SpaceX fines Read More »

complexity-physics-finds-crucial-tipping-points-in-chess-games

Complexity physics finds crucial tipping points in chess games

chess, mathematics, networks, phase transitions, Physics, Science, tipping points / /

For his analysis, Barthelemy chose to represent chess as a decision tree in which each “branch” leads to a win, loss, or draw. Players face the challenge of finding the best move amid all this complexity, particularly midgame, in order to steer gameplay into favorable branches. That’s where those crucial tipping points come into play. Such positions are inherently unstable, which is why even a small mistake can have a dramatic influence on a match’s trajectory.

A case of combinatorial complexity

Barthelemy has re-imagined a chess match as a network of forces in which pieces act as the network’s nodes, and the ways they interact represent the edges, using an interaction graph to capture how different pieces attack and defend one another. The most important chess pieces are those that interact with many other pieces in a given match, which he calculated by measuring how frequently a node lies on the shortest path between all the node pairs in the network (its “betweenness centrality”).

He also calculated so-called “fragility scores,” which indicate how easy it is to remove those critical chess pieces from the board. And he was able to apply this analysis to more than 20,000 actual chess matches played by the world’s top players over the last 200 years.

Barthelemy found that his metric could indeed identify tipping points in specific matches. Furthermore, when he averaged his analysis over a large number of games, an unexpected universal pattern emerged. “We observe a surprising universality: the average fragility score is the same for all players and for all openings,” Barthelemy writes. And in famous chess matches, “the maximum fragility often coincides with pivotal moments, characterized by brilliant moves that decisively shift the balance of the game.”

Specifically, fragility scores start to increase about eight moves before the critical tipping point position occurs and stay high for some 15 moves after that. “These results suggest that positional fragility follows a common trajectory, with tension peaking in the middle game and dissipating toward the endgame,” he writes. “This analysis highlights the complex dynamics of chess, where the interaction between attack and defense shapes the game’s overall structure.”

Physical Review E, 2025. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.00.004300  (About DOIs).

Complexity physics finds crucial tipping points in chess games Read More »

for-real,-we-may-be-taking-blood-pressure-readings-all-wrong

For real, we may be taking blood pressure readings all wrong

blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, death, health, heart failure, lying down, mortality, sitting, stroke / /

For people who had high blood pressure readings only when sitting (normal readings while lying down), there was no statistically significant difference in risk of coronary heart disease, heart failure, or stroke compared to people with normal blood pressure. The only statistically significant differences were a 41 percent higher risk of fatal coronary heart disease (compared to the 78 percent seen in those with high readings lying down) and an 11 percent higher risk of all-cause mortality.

(In this study, high blood pressure readings were defined for both positions as those with systolic readings (the top number) of 130 mm Hg or greater or diastolic readings (the bottom number) of 80 mm Hg or greater.)

The people with the highest risks across the board were those who had high blood pressure readings while both sitting and lying down.

“These findings suggest that measuring supine [lying down] BP may be useful for identifying elevated BP and latent CVD risk,” the researchers conclude.

Strengths and hypotheses

For now, the findings should be considered preliminary. Such an analysis and finding should be repeated with a different group of people to confirm the link. And as to the bigger question of whether using medication to lower supine blood pressure (rather than seated blood pressure) is more effective at reducing risk, it’s likely that clinical trials will be necessary.

Still, the analysis had some notable strengths that make the findings attention-worthy. The study’s size and design are robust. Researchers tapped into data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, a study established in 1987 with middle-aged people living in one of four US communities (Forsyth County, North Carolina; Jackson, Mississippi; suburban Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Washington County, Maryland).

For real, we may be taking blood pressure readings all wrong Read More »

isp-failed-to-comply-with-new-york’s-$15-broadband-law—until-ars-got-involved

ISP failed to comply with New York’s $15 broadband law—until Ars got involved

new york $15 broadband law, optimum altice, Policy / /

New York’s affordable broadband law

Optimum wasn’t ready to comply with law, rejected low-income man’s request twice.

Credit: Getty Images | imagedepotpro

When New York’s law requiring $15 or $20 broadband plans for people with low incomes took effect last week, Optimum customer William O’Brien tried to sign up for the cheap Internet service. Since O’Brien is in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), he qualifies for one of the affordable plans that Internet service providers must offer New Yorkers who meet income eligibility requirements.

O’Brien has been paying Optimum $111.20 a month for broadband—$89.99 for the broadband service, $14 in equipment rental fees, a $6 “Network Enhancement Fee,” and $1.21 in tax. He was due for a big discount under the New York Affordable Broadband Act (ABA), which says that any ISP with over 20,000 customers must offer either a $15 plan with download speeds of at least 25Mbps or a $20 plan with at least 200Mbps speeds, and that the price must include “any recurring taxes and fees such as recurring rental fees for service provider equipment required to obtain broadband service and usage fees.”

Despite qualifying for a low-income plan under the law’s criteria, O’Brien’s request was denied by Optimum. He reached out to Ars, just like many other people who have read our articles about bad telecom customer service. Usually, these problems are fixed quickly after we reach out to an Internet provider’s public relations department on the customer’s behalf.

That seemed to be the way it was going, as Optimum’s PR team admitted the mistake and told us that a customer relations specialist would reach out to O’Brien and get him on the right plan. But O’Brien was rejected again after that.

We followed up with Optimum’s PR team, and they had to intervene a second time to make sure the company gave O’Brien what he’s entitled to under the law. The company also updated its marketing materials after we pointed out that its Optimum Advantage Internet webpage still said the low-income plan wasn’t available to current customers, former users who disconnected less than 60 days ago, and former customers whose accounts were “not in good standing.” The New York law doesn’t allow for those kinds of exceptions.

O’Brien is now on a $14.99 plan with 50Mbps download and 5Mbps upload speeds. He was previously on a 100Mbps download plan and had faster upload speeds, but from now on he’ll be paying nearly $100 less a month.

Obviously, telecom customers shouldn’t ever have to contact a news organization just to get a basic problem solved. But the specter of media coverage usually causes an ISP to take quick action, so it was surprising when O’Brien was rejected a second time. Here’s what happened.

“We don’t have that plan”

O’Brien contacted Optimum (which used to be called Cablevision and is now owned by Altice USA) after learning about the New York law from an Ars article. “I immediately got on Optimum’s website to chat with live support but they refused to comply with the act,” O’Brien told us on January 15, the day the law took effect.

A transcript of O’Brien’s January 15 chat with Optimum shows that the customer service agent told him, “I did check on that and according to the policy we don’t have that credit offer in Optimum right now.” O’Brien provided the agent a link to the Ars article, which described the New York law and mentioned that Optimum offers a low-income plan for $15.

“After careful review, I did check on that, it is not officially from Optimum and in Optimum we don’t have that plan,” the agent replied.

O’Brien provided Ars with documents showing that he is in SNAP and thus qualifies for the low-income plan. We provided this information to the Optimum PR department on the morning of January 17.

“We have escalated this exchange with our teams internally to ensure this issue is rectified and will be reaching out to the customer directly today to assist in getting him on the right plan,” an Optimum spokesperson told us that afternoon.

A specialist from Optimum’s executive customer relations squad reached out to O’Brien later on Friday. He missed the call, but they connected on Tuesday, January 21. She told O’Brien that Optimum doesn’t offer the low-income plan to existing customers.

“She said their position is that they offer the required service but only for new customers and since I already have service I’m disqualified,” O’Brien told us. “I told her that I’m currently on food stamps and that I used to receive the $30 a month COVID credit but this did not matter. She claimed that since Optimum offers a $15, 50Mbps service… that they are in compliance with the law.”

Shortly after the call, the specialist sent O’Brien an email reiterating that he wasn’t eligible, which he shared with Ars. “As discussed prior to this notification, Optimum offers a low-income service for $15.00. However, we were unable to change the account to that service because it is an active account with the service,” she wrote.

Second try

We contacted Optimum’s PR team again after getting this update from O’Brien. On Tuesday evening, the specialist from executive customer relations emailed O’Brien to say, “The matter was reviewed, and I was advised that I could upgrade the account.”

After another conversation with the specialist on Wednesday, O’Brien had the $15 plan. O’Brien told us that he “asked why I had to fight tooth and nail for this” and why he had to contact a news organization to get it resolved. “I claimed that it’s almost like no one there has read the legislation, and it was complete silence,” he told us.

On Wednesday this week, the Optimum spokesperson told us that “it seems that there has been some confusion among our care teams on the implementation of the ABA over the last week and how it should be correctly applied to our existing low-cost offers.”

Optimum has offered its low-cost plan for several years, with the previously mentioned restrictions that limit it to new customers. The plan website wasn’t updated in time for the New York law, but now says that “new and existing residential Internet customers in New York” qualify. The new-customer restriction still applies elsewhere.

“Our materials have been updated, including all internal documents and trainings, in addition to our external website,” Optimum told us on Wednesday this week.

Law was in the works for years

Broadband lobby groups convinced a federal judge to block the New York affordability law in 2021, but a US appeals court reversed the ruling in April 2024. The Supreme Court decided not to hear the case in mid-December, allowing the law to take effect.

New York had agreed to delay enforcement until 30 days after the case’s final resolution, which meant that it took effect on January 15. The state issued an order on January 9 reminding ISPs that they had to comply.

“We have been working as fast as we can to update all of our internal and external materials since the ABA was implemented only last week—there was quite a fast turnaround between state officials notifying us of the intended implementation date and pushing this live,” Optimum told Ars.

AT&T decided to completely stop offering its 5G home Internet service in New York instead of complying with the state law. The law doesn’t affect smartphone service, and AT&T doesn’t offer wired home Internet in New York.

Optimum told us it plans to market its low-income plan “more broadly and conduct additional outreach in low-income areas to educate customers and prospects of this offer. We want to make sure that those eligible for this plan know about it and sign up.”

O’Brien was disappointed that he couldn’t get a faster service plan. As noted earlier, the New York law lets ISPs comply with either a $15 plan with download speeds of at least 25Mbps or a $20 plan with at least 200Mbps speeds. ISPs don’t have to offer both.

“I did ask about 200Mbps service, but they said they are not offering that,” he said. Optimum offers a $25 plan with 100Mbps speeds for low-income users. But even in New York, that one still isn’t available to customers who were already subscribed to any other plan.

Failure to comply with the New York law can be punished with civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation. The state attorney general can sue Internet providers to enforce the law. O’Brien said he intended to file a complaint against Optimum with the AG and is still hoping to get a 200Mbps plan.

We contacted Attorney General Letitia James’ office on Wednesday to ask about plans for enforcing the law and whether the office has received any complaints so far, but we haven’t gotten a response.

Photo of Jon Brodkin

Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.

ISP failed to comply with New York’s $15 broadband law—until Ars got involved Read More »

nvidia-geforce-rtx-5090-costs-as-much-as-a-whole-gaming-pc—but-it-sure-is-fast

Nvidia GeForce RTX 5090 costs as much as a whole gaming PC—but it sure is fast

Blackwell, dlss, dlss4, Features, gaming, geforce 5090, NVIDIA, nvidia dlss, rtx, rtx 5090, Tech / /

Even setting aside Frame Generation, this is a fast, power-hungry $2,000 GPU.

Credit: Andrew Cunningham

Credit: Andrew Cunningham

Nvidia’s GeForce RTX 5090 starts at $1,999 before you factor in upsells from the company’s partners or price increases driven by scalpers and/or genuine demand. It costs more than my entire gaming PC.

The new GPU is so expensive that you could build an entire well-specced gaming PC with Nvidia’s next-fastest GPU in it—the $999 RTX 5080, which we don’t have in hand yet—for the same money, or maybe even a little less with judicious component selection. It’s not the most expensive GPU that Nvidia has ever launched—2018’s $2,499 Titan RTX has it beat, and 2022’s RTX 3090 Ti also cost $2,000—but it’s safe to say it’s not really a GPU intended for the masses.

At least as far as gaming is concerned, the 5090 is the very definition of a halo product; it’s for people who demand the best and newest thing regardless of what it costs (the calculus is probably different for deep-pocketed people and companies who want to use them as some kind of generative AI accelerator). And on this front, at least, the 5090 is successful. It’s the newest and fastest GPU you can buy, and the competition is not particularly close. It’s also a showcase for DLSS Multi-Frame Generation, a new feature unique to the 50-series cards that Nvidia is leaning on heavily to make its new GPUs look better than they already are.

Founders Edition cards: Design and cooling

RTX 5090 RTX 4090 RTX 5080 RTX 4080 Super
CUDA cores 21,760 16,384 10,752 10,240
Boost clock 2,410 MHz 2,520 MHz 2,617 MHz 2,550 MHz
Memory bus width 512-bit 384-bit 256-bit 256-bit
Memory bandwidth 1,792 GB/s 1,008 GB/s 960 GB/s 736 GB/s
Memory size 32GB GDDR7 24GB GDDR6X 16GB GDDR7 16GB GDDR6X
TGP 575 W 450 W 360 W 320 W

We won’t spend too long talking about the specific designs of Nvidia’s Founders Edition cards since many buyers will experience the Blackwell GPUs with cards from Nvidia’s partners instead (the cards we’ve seen so far mostly look like the expected fare: gargantuan triple-slot triple-fan coolers, with varying degrees of RGB). But it’s worth noting that Nvidia has addressed a couple of my functional gripes with the 4090/4080-series design.

The first was the sheer dimensions of each card—not an issue unique to Nvidia, but one that frequently caused problems for me as someone who tends toward ITX-based PCs and smaller builds. The 5090 and 5080 FE designs are the same length and height as the 4090 and 4080 FE designs, but they only take up two slots instead of three, which will make them an easier fit for many cases.

Nvidia has also tweaked the cards’ 12VHPWR connector, recessing it into the card and mounting it at a slight angle instead of having it sticking straight out of the top edge. The height of the 4090/4080 FE design made some cases hard to close up once you factored in the additional height of a 12VHPWR cable or Nvidia’s many-tentacled 8-pin-to-12VHPWR adapter. The angled connector still extends a bit beyond the top of the card, but it’s easier to tuck the cable away so you can put the side back on your case.

Finally, Nvidia has changed its cooler—whereas most OEM GPUs mount all their fans on the top of the GPU, Nvidia has historically placed one fan on each side of the card. In a standard ATX case with the GPU mounted parallel to the bottom of the case, this wasn’t a huge deal—there’s plenty of room for that air to circulate inside the case and to be expelled by whatever case fans you have installed.

But in “sandwich-style” ITX cases, where a riser cable wraps around so the GPU can be mounted parallel to the motherboard, the fan on the bottom side of the GPU was poorly placed. In many sandwich-style cases, the GPU fan will dump heat against the back of the motherboard, making it harder to keep the GPU cool and creating heat problems elsewhere besides. The new GPUs mount both fans on the top of the cards.

Nvidia’s Founders Edition cards have had heat issues in the past—most notably the 30-series GPUs—and that was my first question going in. A smaller cooler plus a dramatically higher peak power draw seems like a recipe for overheating.

Temperatures for the various cards we re-tested for this review. The 5090 FE is the toastiest of all of them, but it still has a safe operating temperature.

At least for the 5090, the smaller cooler does mean higher temperatures—around 10 to 12 degrees Celsius higher when running the same benchmarks as the RTX 4090 Founders Edition. And while temperatures of around 77 degrees aren’t hugely concerning, this is sort of a best-case scenario, with an adequately cooled testbed case with the side panel totally removed and ambient temperatures at around 21° or 22° Celsius. You’ll just want to make sure you have a good amount of airflow in your case if you buy one of these.

Testbed notes

A new high-end Nvidia GPU is a good reason to tweak our test bed and suite of games, and we’ve done both here. Mainly, we added a 1050 W Thermaltake Toughpower GF A3 power supply—Nvidia recommends at least 1000 W for the 5090, and this one has a native 12VHPWR connector for convenience. We’ve also swapped the Ryzen 7 7800X3D for a slightly faster Ryzen 7 9800X3D to reduce the odds that the CPU will bottleneck performance as we try to hit high frame rates.

As for the suite of games, we’ve removed a couple of older titles and added some with built-in benchmarks that will tax these GPUs a bit more, especially at 4K with all the settings turned up. Those games include the RT Overdrive preset in the perennially punishing Cyberpunk 2077 and Black Myth: Wukong in Cinematic mode, both games where even the RTX 4090 struggles to hit 60 fps without an assist from DLSS. We’ve also added Horizon Zero Dawn Remastered, a recent release that doesn’t include ray-tracing effects but does support most DLSS 3 and FSR 3 features (including FSR Frame Generation).

We’ve tried to strike a balance between games with ray-tracing effects and games without it, though most AAA games these days include it, and modern GPUs should be able to handle it well (best of luck to AMD with its upcoming RDNA 4 cards).

For the 5090, we’ve run all tests in 4K—if you don’t care about running games in 4K, even if you want super-high frame rates at 1440p or for some kind of ultrawide monitor, the 5090 is probably overkill. When we run upscaling tests, we use the newest DLSS version available for Nvidia cards, the newest FSR version available for AMD cards, and the newest XeSS version available for Intel cards (not relevant here, just stating for the record), and we use the “Quality” setting (at 4K, that equates to an actual rendering version of 1440p).

Rendering performance: A lot faster, a lot more power-hungry

Before we talk about Frame Generation or “fake frames,” let’s compare apples to apples and just examine the 5090’s rendering performance.

The card mainly benefits from four things compared to the 4090: the updated Blackwell GPU architecture, a nearly 33 percent increase in the number of CUDA cores, an upgrade from GDDR6X to GDDR7, and a move from a 384-bit memory bus to a 512-bit bus. It also jumps from 24GB of RAM to 32GB, but games generally aren’t butting up against a 24GB limit yet, so the capacity increase by itself shouldn’t really change performance if all you’re focused on is gaming.

And for people who prioritize performance over all else, the 5090 is a big deal—it’s the first consumer graphics card from any company that is faster than a 4090, as Nvidia never spruced up the 4090 last year when it did its mid-generation Super refreshes of the 4080, 4070 Ti, and 4070.

Comparing natively rendered games at 4K, the 5090 is between 17 percent and 40 percent faster than the 4090, with most of the games we tested landing somewhere in the low to high 30 percent range. That’s an undeniably big bump, one that’s roughly commensurate with the increase in the number of CUDA cores. Tests run with DLSS enabled (both upscaling-only and with Frame Generation running in 2x mode) improve by roughly the same amount.

You could find things to be disappointed about if you went looking for them. That 30-something-percent performance increase comes with a 35 percent increase in power use in our testing under load with punishing 4K games—the 4090 tops out around 420 W, whereas the 5090 went all the way up to 573 W, with the 5090 coming closer to its 575 W TDP than the 4090 does to its theoretical 450 W maximum. The 50-series cards use the same TSMC 4N manufacturing process as the 40-series cards, and increasing the number of transistors without changing the process results in a chip that uses more power (though it should be said that capping frame rates, running at lower resolutions, or running less-demanding games can rein in that power use a bit).

Power draw under load goes up by an amount roughly commensurate with performance. The 4090 was already power-hungry; the 5090 is dramatically more so. Credit: Andrew Cunningham

The 5090’s 30-something percent increase over the 4090 might also seem underwhelming if you recall that the 4090 was around 55 percent faster than the previous-generation 3090 Ti while consuming about the same amount of power. To be even faster than a 4090 is no small feat—AMD’s fastest GPU is more in line with Nvidia’s 4080 Super—but if you’re comparing the two cards using the exact same tests, the relative leap is less seismic.

That brings us to Nvidia’s answer for that problem: DLSS 4 and its Multi-Frame Generation feature.

DLSS 4 and Multi-Frame Generation

As a refresher, Nvidia’s DLSS Frame Generation feature, as introduced in the GeForce 40-series, takes DLSS upscaling one step further. The upscaling feature inserted interpolated pixels into a rendered image to make it look like a sharper, higher-resolution image without having to do all the work of rendering all those pixels. DLSS FG would interpolate an entire frame between rendered frames, boosting your FPS without dramatically boosting the amount of work your GPU was doing. If you used DLSS upscaling and FG at the same time, Nvidia could claim that seven out of eight pixels on your screen were generated by AI.

DLSS Multi-Frame Generation (hereafter MFG, for simplicity’s sake) does the same thing, but it can generate one to three interpolated frames for every rendered frame. The marketing numbers have gone up, too; now, 15 out of every 16 pixels on your screen can be generated by AI.

Nvidia might point to this and say that the 5090 is over twice as fast as the 4090, but that’s not really comparing apples to apples. Expect this issue to persist over the lifetime of the 50-series. Credit: Andrew Cunningham

Nvidia provided reviewers with a preview build of Cyberpunk 2077 with DLSS MFG enabled, which gives us an example of how those settings will be exposed to users. For 40-series cards that only support the regular DLSS FG, you won’t notice a difference in games that support MFG—Frame Generation is still just one toggle you can turn on or off. For 50-series cards that support MFG, you’ll be able to choose from among a few options, just as you currently can with other DLSS quality settings.

The “2x” mode is the old version of DLSS FG and is supported by both the 50-series cards and 40-series GPUs; it promises one generated frame for every rendered frame (two frames total, hence “2x”). The “3x” and “4x” modes are new to the 50-series and promise two and three generated frames (respectively) for every rendered frame. Like the original DLSS FG, MFG can be used in concert with normal DLSS upscaling, or it can be used independently.

One problem with the original DLSS FG was latency—user input was only being sampled at the natively rendered frame rate, meaning you could be looking at 60 frames per second on your display but only having your input polled 30 times per second. Another is image quality; as good as the DLSS algorithms can be at guessing and recreating what a natively rendered pixel would look like, you’ll inevitably see errors, particularly in fine details.

Both these problems contribute to the third problem with DLSS FG: Without a decent underlying frame rate, the lag you feel and the weird visual artifacts you notice will both be more pronounced. So DLSS FG can be useful for turning 120 fps into 240 fps, or even 60 fps into 120 fps. But it’s not as helpful if you’re trying to get from 20 or 30 fps up to a smooth 60 fps.

We’ll be taking a closer look at the DLSS upgrades in the next couple of weeks (including MFG and the new transformer model, which will supposedly increase upscaling quality and supports all RTX GPUs). But in our limited testing so far, the issues with DLSS MFG are basically the same as with the first version of Frame Generation, just slightly more pronounced. In the built-in Cyberpunk 2077 benchmark, the most visible issues are with some bits of barbed-wire fencing, which get smoother-looking and less detailed as you crank up the number of AI-generated frames. But the motion does look fluid and smooth, and the frame rate counts are admittedly impressive.

But as we noted in last year’s 4090 review, the xx90 cards portray FG and MFG in the best light possible since the card is already capable of natively rendering such high frame rates. It’s on lower-end cards where the shortcomings of the technology become more pronounced. Nvidia might say that the upcoming RTX 5070 is “as fast as a 4090 for $549,” and it might be right in terms of the number of frames the card can put up on your screen every second. But responsiveness and visual fidelity on the 4090 will be better every time—AI is a good augmentation for rendered frames, but it’s iffy as a replacement for rendered frames.

A 4090, amped way up

Nvidia’s GeForce RTX 5090. Credit: Andrew Cunningham

The GeForce RTX 5090 is an impressive card—it’s the only consumer graphics card to be released in over two years that can outperform the RTX 4090. The main caveats are its sky-high power consumption and sky-high price; by itself, it costs as much (and consumes as much power as) an entire mainstream gaming PC. The card is aimed at people who care about speed way more than they care about price, but it’s still worth putting it into context.

The main controversy, as with the 40-series, is how Nvidia talks about its Frame Generation-inflated performance numbers. Frame Generation and Multi-Frame Generation are tools in a toolbox—there will be games where they make things look great and run fast with minimal noticeable impact to visual quality or responsiveness, games where those impacts are more noticeable, and games that never add support for the features at all. (As well-supported as DLSS generally is in new releases, it is incumbent upon game developers to add it—and update it when Nvidia puts out a new version.)

But using those Multi-Frame Generation-inflated FPS numbers to make topline comparisons to last-generation graphics cards just feels disingenuous. No, an RTX 5070 will not be as fast as an RTX 4090 for just $549, because not all games support DLSS MFG, and not all games that do support it will run it well. Frame Generation still needs a good base frame rate to start with, and the slower your card is, the more issues you might notice.

Fuzzy marketing aside, Nvidia is still the undisputed leader in the GPU market, and the RTX 5090 extends that leadership for what will likely be another entire GPU generation, since both AMD and Intel are focusing their efforts on higher-volume, lower-cost cards right now. DLSS is still generally better than AMD’s FSR, and Nvidia does a good job of getting developers of new AAA game releases to support it. And if you’re buying this GPU to do some kind of rendering work or generative AI acceleration, Nvidia’s performance and software tools are still superior. The misleading performance claims are frustrating, but Nvidia still gains a lot of real advantages from being as dominant and entrenched as it is.

The good

  • Usually 30-something percent faster than an RTX 4090
  • Redesigned Founders Edition card is less unwieldy than the bricks that were the 4090/4080 design
  • Adequate cooling, despite the smaller card and higher power use
  • DLSS Multi-Frame Generation is an intriguing option if you’re trying to hit 240 or 360 fps on your high-refresh-rate gaming monitor

The bad

  • Much higher power consumption than the 4090, which already consumed more power than any other GPU on the market
  • Frame Generation is good at making a game that’s running fast run faster, it’s not as good for bringing a slow game up to 60 Hz
  • Nvidia’s misleading marketing around Multi-Frame Generation is frustrating—and will likely be more frustrating for lower-end cards since they aren’t getting the same bumps to core count and memory interface that the 5090 gets

The ugly

  • You can buy a whole lot of PC for $2,000, and we wouldn’t bet on this GPU being easy to find at MSRP

Photo of Andrew Cunningham

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.

Nvidia GeForce RTX 5090 costs as much as a whole gaming PC—but it sure is fast Read More »

researchers-optimize-simulations-of-molecules-on-quantum-computers

Researchers optimize simulations of molecules on quantum computers

catalysts, Computer science, electrons, Physics, quantum computing, quantum mechanics, Science / /

The net result is a much faster operation involving far fewer gates. That’s important because errors in quantum hardware increase as a function of both time and the number of operations.

The researchers then used this approach to explore a chemical, Mn4O5Ca, that plays a key role in photosynthesis. Using this approach, they showed it’s possible to calculate what’s called the “spin ladder,” or the list of the lowest-energy states the electrons can occupy. The energy differences between these states correspond to the wavelengths of light they can absorb or emit, so this also defines the spectrum of the molecule.

Faster, but not quite fast enough

We’re not quite ready to run this system on today’s quantum computers, as the error rates are still a bit too high. But because the operations needed to run this sort of algorithm can be done so efficiently, the error rates don’t have to come down very much before the system will become viable. The primary determinant of whether it will run into an error is how far down the time dimension you run the simulation, plus the number of measurements of the system you take over that time.

“The algorithm is especially promising for near-term devices having favorable resource requirements quantified by the number of snapshots (sample complexity) and maximum evolution time (coherence) required for accurate spectral computation,” the researchers wrote.

But the work also makes a couple of larger points. The first is that quantum computers are fundamentally unlike other forms of computation we’ve developed. They’re capable of running things that look like traditional algorithms, where operations are performed and a result is determined. But they’re also quantum systems that are growing in complexity with each new generation of hardware, which makes them great at simulating other quantum systems. And there are a number of hard problems involving quantum systems we’d like to solve.

In some ways, we may only be starting to scratch the surface of quantum computers’ potential. Up until quite recently, there were a lot of hypotheticals; it now appears we’re on the cusp of using one for some potentially useful computations. And that means more people will start thinking about clever ways we can solve problems with them—including cases like this, where the hardware would be used in ways its designers might not have even considered.

Nature Physics, 2025. DOI: 10.1038/s41567-024-02738-z  (About DOIs).

Researchers optimize simulations of molecules on quantum computers Read More »

openai-launches-operator,-an-ai-agent-that-can-operate-your-computer

OpenAI launches Operator, an AI agent that can operate your computer

AI, AI computer use, chatgpt, ChatGPT Pro, computer use model, Computer-Using Agent, CUA, machine learning, openai, OpenAI operator / /

While it’s working, Operator shows a miniature browser window of its actions.

However, the technology behind Operator is still relatively new and far from perfect. The model reportedly performs best at repetitive web tasks like creating shopping lists or playlists. It struggles more with unfamiliar interfaces like tables and calendars, and does poorly with complex text editing (with a 40 percent success rate), according to OpenAI’s internal testing data.

OpenAI reported the system achieved an 87 percent success rate on the WebVoyager benchmark, which tests live sites like Amazon and Google Maps. On WebArena, which uses offline test sites for training autonomous agents, Operator’s success rate dropped to 58.1 percent. For computer operating system tasks, CUA set an apparent record of 38.1 percent success on the OSWorld benchmark, surpassing previous models but still falling short of human performance at 72.4 percent.

With this imperfect research preview, OpenAI hopes to gather user feedback and refine the system’s capabilities. The company acknowledges CUA won’t perform reliably in all scenarios but plans to improve its reliability across a wider range of tasks through user testing.

Safety and privacy concerns

For any AI model that can see how you operate your computer and even control some aspects of it, privacy and safety are very important. OpenAI says it built multiple safety controls into Operator, requiring user confirmation before completing sensitive actions like sending emails or making purchases. Operator also has limits on what it can browse, set by OpenAI. It cannot access certain website categories, including gambling and adult content.

Traditionally, AI models based on large language model-style Transformer technology like Operator have been relatively easy to fool with jailbreaks and prompt injections.

To catch attempts at subverting Operator, which might hypothetically be embedded in websites that the AI model browses, OpenAI says it has implemented real-time moderation and detection systems. OpenAI reports the system recognized all but one case of prompt injection attempts during an early internal red-teaming session.

OpenAI launches Operator, an AI agent that can operate your computer Read More »

court-rules-fbi’s-warrantless-searches-violated-fourth-amendment

Court rules FBI’s warrantless searches violated Fourth Amendment

fbi, FISA, Fourth Amendment, national security, Online Privacy, Policy, section 702 / /

“Certainly, the Court can imagine situations where obtaining a warrant might frustrate the purpose of querying, particularly where exigency requires immediate querying,” DeArcy Hall wrote. “This is why the Court does not hold that querying Section 702-acquired information always requires a warrant.”

Ruling renews calls for 702 reforms

While digital rights groups like the EFF and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) cheered the ruling as providing much-needed clarity, they also suggested that the ruling should prompt lawmakers to go back to the drawing board and reform Section 702.

Section 702 is set to expire on April 15, 2026. Over the years, Congress has repeatedly voted to renew 702 protections, but the EFF is hoping that DeArcy Hall’s ruling will perhaps spark a sea change.

“In light of this ruling, we ask Congress to uphold its responsibility to protect civil rights and civil liberties by refusing to renew Section 702 absent a number of necessary reforms, including an official warrant requirement for querying US persons data and increased transparency,” the EFF wrote in a blog.

A warrant requirement could help truly end backdoor searches, the EFF suggested, and ensure “that the intelligence community does not continue to trample on the constitutionally protected rights to private communications.”

The ACLU warned that reforms are especially critical now, considering that unconstitutional backdoor searches have been “used by the government to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans, including protesters, members of Congress, and journalists.”

Patrick Toomey, the deputy director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, dubbed 702 “one of the most abused provisions of FISA.”

“As the court recognized, the FBI’s rampant digital searches of Americans are an immense invasion of privacy and trigger the bedrock protections of the Fourth Amendment,” Toomey said. “Section 702 is long overdue for reform by Congress, and this opinion shows why.”

Court rules FBI’s warrantless searches violated Fourth Amendment Read More »