Author name: Mike M.

to-invent-the-wheel,-did-people-first-have-to-invent-the-spindle?

To invent the wheel, did people first have to invent the spindle?

It’s not so much that the spindle whorl was the direct evolutionary ancestor of the wheel, the way wolves were the ancestors of modern dogs. Instead, it was one of the first ways that people got really familiar, in a hands-on way, with the idea that you can attach something round to a stick and use it to turn one kind of motion into another. Pottery wheels, which emerged a bit later, work on the same general principle.

“I don’t jump to saying, ‘Okay, spindle whorls are [cart] wheels,” Yashuv tells Ars. “In many studies of the invention of the wheel, they’re talking about sledges and all sorts of things that are focused on the function of transportation—which is correct. I’m just adding another layer: the foundation of the mechanical principle.”

Once that mechanical principle was firmly embedded in humanity’s collective stash of knowledge, it was a matter of time (a few thousand years) before people looked at animal-drawn sledges, then looked at their pottery wheels and spindles, and put two and two together and got a cart with wheels—or at least, that’s Yashuv’s hypothesis. She and Grosman aren’t the first to suggest something similar; early 20th-century archaeologist Gordon V. Childe suggested that most of the major inventions of the Industrial Revolution were just new applications of much older rotary devices.

on the left, a diagram of two hands using a drop spindle. On the right, a woman in a yellow shirt spins thread with a drop spindle.

Spinner Yonit Kristal tests a replica of a spindle from the 12,000-year-old village. Credit: Yashuv and Grosman 2024

A village of prehistoric innovators?

Exactly how long people have understood (and made use of) the whole circle-on-a-stick concept is still an open question. Nahal Ein-Gev II is the oldest site with evidence of drop spindles that archaeologists have found so far, but Yashuv says the villagers there probably weren’t the first to invent the concept. They just happened to make their spindle whorls out of rocks with holes drilled in them, leaving a clear trace in the archaeological record.

Modern spindle whorls are often made of wood—either a disc or an X-shaped pair of arms. The trouble with wood, especially in small pieces, is that it’s not very likely to survive thousands of years (although that’s not impossible), so wooden spindle whorls from a site as old as Nahal Ein-Gev II are invisible to archaeologists. In some cultures, spinners might even tie a rock (or even a potato—no joke) to the end of their fibers in lieu of a spindle. Those rocks lack the telltale drill holes that let Yashuv and Grosman recognize the stone spindle whorls at Nahal Ein-Gev II, so they’re also invisible to archaeologists; they just look like rocks. Nahal Ein-Gev II is just the oldest place that recognizable spindle whorls happen to have survived.

To invent the wheel, did people first have to invent the spindle? Read More »

trump’s-fcc-chair-is-brendan-carr,-who-wants-to-regulate-everyone-except-isps

Trump’s FCC chair is Brendan Carr, who wants to regulate everyone except ISPs


Trump makes FCC chair pick

Carr says he wants to punish broadcast media and dismantle “censorship cartel.”

Federal Communications Commission member Brendan Carr sits on a stage and speaks while gesturing with his hand. Behind him is the CPAC logo for the Conservative Political Action Conference.

Federal Communications Commission member Brendan Carr speaks during the 2024 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland on February 24, 2024. Credit: Getty Images | Anadolu

Federal Communications Commission member Brendan Carr speaks during the 2024 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland on February 24, 2024. Credit: Getty Images | Anadolu

President-elect Donald Trump announced last night that he will make Brendan Carr the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Carr, who wrote a chapter about the FCC for the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, is a longtime opponent of net neutrality rules and other regulations imposed on Internet service providers.

Although Carr wants to deregulate telecom companies that the FCC has historically regulated, he wants the FCC to start regulating Big Tech and social media firms. He has also echoed Trump’s longtime complaints about the news media and proposed punishments for broadcast networks.

Trump’s statement on Carr said that “because of his great work, I will now be designating him as permanent Chairman.”

“Commissioner Carr is a warrior for Free Speech, and has fought against the regulatory Lawfare that has stifled Americans’ Freedoms, and held back our Economy,” Trump wrote. “He will end the regulatory onslaught that has been crippling America’s Job Creators and Innovators, and ensure that the FCC delivers for rural America.”

Carr is a sitting FCC commissioner and therefore no Senate approval is needed to confirm the choice. The president can elevate any commissioner to the chair spot.

Carr wants to punish broadcasters

Carr thanked Trump in a post on his X account last night, then made several more posts describing some of the changes he plans to make at the FCC. One of Carr’s posts said the FCC will crack down on broadcast media.

“Broadcast media have had the privilege of using a scarce and valuable public resource—our airwaves. In turn, they are required by law to operate in the public interest. When the transition is complete, the FCC will enforce this public interest obligation,” Carr wrote.

We described Carr’s views on how the FCC should operate in an article on November 7, just after Trump’s election win. We wrote:

A Carr-led FCC could also try to punish news organizations that are perceived to be anti-Trump. Just before the election, Carr alleged that NBC putting Kamala Harris on Saturday Night Live was “a clear and blatant effort to evade the FCC’s Equal Time rule” and that the FCC should consider issuing penalties. Despite Carr’s claim, NBC did provide equal time to the Trump campaign.

Previous chairs defended free speech

Previous FCC chairs from both major parties have avoided punishing news organizations because of free speech concerns. Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel, the current FCC chairwoman, last month criticized Trump’s calls for licenses to be revoked from TV news organizations whose coverage he dislikes.

“While repeated attacks against broadcast stations by the former President may now be familiar, these threats against free speech are serious and should not be ignored,” Rosenworcel said at the time. “As I’ve said before, the First Amendment is a cornerstone of our democracy. The FCC does not and will not revoke licenses for broadcast stations simply because a political candidate disagrees with or dislikes content or coverage.”

Former Chairman Ajit Pai, a Republican, rejected the idea of revoking licenses in 2017 after similar calls from Trump. Pai said that the FCC “under my leadership will stand for the First Amendment” and that “the FCC does not have the authority to revoke a license of a broadcast station based on the content of a particular newscast.”

Carr believes differently. After the Saturday Night Live incident, Carr told Fox News that “all remedies should be on the table,” including “license revocations” for NBC.

We’ve pointed out repeatedly that the FCC doesn’t actually license TV networks such as CBS or NBC. But the FCC could punish affiliates. The FCC’s licensing authority is over broadcast stations, many of which are affiliated with or owned by a big network.

Carr targets “censorship cartel”

Carr wrote last night that “we must dismantle the censorship cartel and restore free speech rights for everyday Americans.” This seems to be referring to making social media networks change how they moderate content. On November 15, Carr wrote that “Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft & others have played central roles in the censorship cartel,” along with fact-checking groups and ad agencies that “helped enforce one-sided narratives.”

During his first presidential term, Trump formally petitioned the FCC to reinterpret Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in a way that would limit social media platforms’ legal protections for hosting third-party content when the platforms take down content they consider objectionable.

Trump and Carr have claimed that such a step is necessary because of anti-conservative bias. In his Project 2025 chapter, Carr wrote that the FCC “should issue an order that interprets Section 230 in a way that eliminates the expansive, non-textual immunities that courts have read into the statute.”

Carr’s willingness to reinterpret Section 230 is likely a big plus in Trump’s eyes. In 2020, Trump pulled the re-nomination of FCC Republican member Michael O’Rielly after O’Rielly said that “we should all reject demands, in the name of the First Amendment, for private actors to curate or publish speech in a certain way. Like it or not, the First Amendment’s protections apply to corporate entities, especially when they engage in editorial decision making.”

Carr to end FCC diversity policies

Last night, Carr also said he would end the FCC’s embrace of DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) policies. “The FCC’s most recent budget request said that promoting DEI was the agency’s second highest strategic goal. Starting next year, the FCC will end its promotion of DEI,” Carr wrote.

The FCC budget request said the agency “will pursue focused action and investments to eliminate historical, systemic, and structural barriers that perpetuate disadvantaged or underserved individuals and communities.” The Rosenworcel FCC said it aimed to create a diverse staff and to help “underserved individuals and communities” access “digital technologies, media, communication services, and next-generation networks.”

Carr dissented last year in the FCC’s 3-2 decision to impose rules that prohibit discrimination in access to broadband services, describing the rulemaking as “President Biden’s plan to give the administrative state effective control of all Internet services and infrastructure in the US.”

Another major goal for Carr is forcing Big Tech firms to help subsidize broadband network construction. Carr’s Project 2025 chapter said the FCC should “require that Big Tech begin to contribute a fair share” into “the FCC’s roughly $9 billion Universal Service Fund.”

Media advocacy group Free Press said yesterday that “Brendan Carr has been campaigning for this job with promises to do the bidding of Donald Trump and Elon Musk” and “got this job because he will carry out Trump and Musk’s personal vendettas. While styling himself as a free-speech champion, Carr refused to stand up when Trump threatened to take away the broadcast licenses of TV stations for daring to fact-check him during the campaign. This alone should be disqualifying.”

Lobby groups representing Internet service providers will be happy to have an FCC chair focused on eliminating broadband regulations. USTelecom CEO Jonathan Spalter issued a statement saying that “Brendan Carr has been a proven leader and an important partner in our shared goal to connect all Americans. With his deep experience and expertise, Commissioner Carr clearly understands the regulatory challenges and opportunities across the communications landscape.”

Pai, who teamed up with Carr and O’Rielly to eliminate net neutrality rules in 2017, wrote that Carr “was a brilliant advisor and General Counsel and has been a superb Commissioner, and I’m confident he will be a great FCC Chairman.”

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.

Trump’s FCC chair is Brendan Carr, who wants to regulate everyone except ISPs Read More »

silo-s2-expands-its-dystopian-world

Silo S2 expands its dystopian world


Ars chats with cinematographer Baz Irvine about creating a fresh look for the sophomore season.

Credit: YouTube/Apple TV+

The second season of  Silo, Apple TV’s dystopian sc-fi drama, is off to a powerful start with yesterday’s premiere. Based on the trilogy by novelist Hugh Howey, was one of the more refreshing surprises on streaming television in 2023: a twist-filled combination of political thriller and police procedural set in a post-apocalyptic world. It looks like S2 will be leaning more heavily into sci-fi thriller territory, expanding its storytelling—and its striking cinematography—beyond the original silo.

(Spoilers for S1 below as well as first five minutes of S2 premiere.)

As previously reported, Silo is set in a self-sustaining underground city inhabited by a community whose recorded history only goes back 140 years, generations after the silo was built by the founders. Outside is a toxic hellscape that is only visible on big screens in the silo’s topmost level. Inside, 10,000 people live together under a pact: Anyone who says they want to “go out” is immediately granted that wish—cast outside in an environment suit on a one-way trip to clean the cameras. But those who make that choice inevitably die soon after because of the toxic environment.

Mechanical keeps the power on and life support from collapsing, and that is where we met mechanical savant Juliette Nichols (Rebecca Ferguson) at one with the giant geothermal generator that spins in the silo’s core. There were hints at what came before—relics like mechanical wristwatches or electronics far beyond the technical means of the silo’s current inhabitants, due to a rebellion 140 years ago that destroyed the silo’s records in the process. The few computers are managed by the IT department, run by Bernard Holland (Tim Robbins).

Over the course of the first season, Juliette reluctantly became sheriff and investigated the murder of her lover, George (Ferdinand Kingsley), who collected forbidden historical artifacts, as well as the murder of silo mayor Ruth Jahns (Geraldine James). Many twists ensued, including the existence of a secret group dedicated to remembering the past whose members were being systemically killed. Juliette also began to suspect that the desolate landscape seen through the silo’s camera system was a lie and there was actually a lush green landscape outside.

In the season one finale, Juliette made a deal with Holland: She would choose to go outside in exchange for the truth about what happened to George and the continued safety of her friends in Mechanical. The final twist: Juliette survived her outside excursion and realized that the dystopian hellscape was the reality, and the lush green Eden was the lie. And she learned that their silo was one of many, with a ruined city visible in the background.

That’s where the second season picks up. Apple TV+ released the footage of the first five minutes last week:

Official sneak peek for the second season of Apple TV+’s sci-fi drama Silo.

The opening battle, with all new characters, clearly took place in one of the other silos (Silo 17), and the residents desperate to break out did so only to meet their deaths. The footage ends with Juliette walking past their skeletons toward the entrance to Silo 17. We know from the official trailer that rebellion is also brewing back in her own silo as rumors spread that she is alive.

The expansion of Silo‘s world was an opportunity for cinematographer Baz Irvine (who worked on four key episodes this season) to play with lenses, color palettes, lighting, and other elements to bring unique looks to the different settings.

Ars Technica: How did you make things visually different from last season? What were your guidelines going into this for the cinematography?

Baz Irvine:  There’s few different things going on. I love season one, but we were going to open it up [in S2]. We were going to introduce this new silo, so that was going to be a whole other world that had to look immediately familiar, but also completely different. We start season one with an exterior of the dystopian, future blasted planet. On the technical point, I saw two things I could do very simply. I felt that the format of season one was two to one, so not quite letterbox, not quite widescreen. When I saw the sets and I saw the art, everything the amazing art department had done, I was like, guys, this needs to be widescreen. I think at the time there was still a little bit of reticence from Apple and a few of the other streamers to commit to full widescreen, but I persuaded them.

 I also changed the lenses because I wanted to keep the retro feel, the dystopian future, but retro feel. I chose slightly different lenses to give me a wider feel of view. I talked to my director, Michael Dinner, and we talked about how at times, as brilliant as season one was, it was a bit theatrical, a bit presentational. Here’s the silo, here’s the silo, here’s the silo…., So what you want to do is stop worrying about the silo. It is incredible and it’s in the back of every shot. We wanted to make it more visceral. There was going to be a lot more action. The start of episode one is a full-blown battle. Apple released the first five minutes on Apple. It actually stops at a very critical point, but you can see that it’s the previous world of the other Silo 17.

We still wanted to see the scope and the scale. As a cinematographer, you’ve got to get your head around something that’s very unusual: the Silo is vertical. When we shoot stuff, we go outside, everything’s horizontal. So as a cinematographer, you think horizontally, you frame the skyline, you frame the buildings. But in the silo, it’s all up there and it’s all down there, but it doesn’t exist. A bit of the set exists, but you have to go, oh, okay, what can I see if I point the camera up here, what will VFX brilliantly give me? What can I see down there? So that was another big discussion.

Ars Technica: When you talk about wanting to make it more visceral, what does that mean specifically in a cinematography context?

Baz Irvine: It’s just such a lovely word. Season one had an almost European aesthetic. It was a lot of very beautiful, slow developing shots. Of course it was world building. It was the first time the silo was on the screen. So as a filmmaker, you have a certain responsibility to give the audience a sense of where you are. Season two, we know where we are. Well, we don’t with the other silo, but we discover it. This role for me meant not being head of the action. So with Juliet, Rebecca Ferguson’s character, we discover what she sees with her, rather than showing it ahead of time.We’re trying to be a point of view, almost hand-held. When she’s running, we’re running with her. When she’s trying to smash her helmet, we are very much with her.

On another level, visceral for me also means responding to action—not being too prescriptive about what the camera should do, but when you see the blocking of a scene and you feel it’s going a certain way and there’s a certain energy, responding to that and getting in there. The silo, as I said, is always going to be in the background, but we’re not trying to fetishize the silo too much. We’re going to look down, we’re going to look up, we’re going to use crane moves, but just get in with the action. Just be with the people. That means slightly longer lenses, longer focal lengths at times. And from my point of view, the fall off and focus just looks so beautiful. So I think that’s what visceral means. I bet you somebody else would say something completely different.

Ars Technica: Other specific choices you made included using a muted green palette and torchlight flashlight. So there is this sense of isolation and mystery and a spooky, more immersive atmosphere. 

Baz Irvine:  The challenge that I could see from when I read the script is that a large part of season two is in the new Silo 17. So the new Silo 17 hasn’t been occupied for 35 years. It’s been in this dormant, strange, half-lit state. It’s overgrown with plants and ivy. Some of the references for that were what Chernobyl looked like 20 years down the line. When humanity leaves, nature just takes over. But as a counterpoint, we needed it to feel dark. Most of the electricity has gone, most of the lights have gone out. I needed to have some lighting motivation to give some sense of the shape of the Silo, so that we weren’t plummeting into darkness for the whole episode. So I came up with this idea, the overhead lights that power the silo, that light the silo, were in broken -down mode. They were in reserve power. They’d gone a bit green because that’s what the bulb technology would’ve done.

Part of the reason to do that is that when you’re cutting between two silos that were built identically, you’ve got to have something to show that you’re in a different world. Yes, it’s empty, and yes, it’s desolate and it’s eerie, and there’s strange clanking noises. But I wanted to make it very clear from a lighting point of view that they were two different places.

The other thing that you will discover in episode one, when Juliet’s character is finally working her way through the Silo 17, she has a flashlight and she breaks into an apartment. As she scans the wallshe starts to notice, oh, it’s not like her silo, there are beautiful murals and art. We really wanted to play into this idea that every silo was different. They had different groups of people potentially from different parts of the states. This silo in a way developed quite an artistic community. Murals and frescoes were very much part of this silo. It’s not something that is obvious, and it’s just the odd little scan of a flashlight that gives you this sense. But also Silo 17 is scary. It’s sort of alive, but is there life in it? That is a big question.

Ars Technica: You talk about not wanting to all be in darkness. I’m now thinking of that infamous Game of Thrones episode where the night battle footage was so dark viewers couldn’t follow what was going on. That’s clearly a big challenge for a cinematographer. Where do you find the balance?

Baz Irvine: This is the eternal dilemma for cinematographers. It’s getting notes back from the grownups going, it’s too dark,it’s too dark. Well, maybe if you were watching it in a dark room and it wasn’t bight outside, it would be fine. You have to balance things. I’ve also got Rebecca Ferguson walking around the silo, and it can’t be in so much shadow that you can’t recognize her. So there’s a type of darkness that in film world I know how to convey it. It’s very subtle. It is underexposed, but I used very soft top light. I didn’t want hard shadows. By using that light and filling in little details in the background, I can then take the lighting down. I had an amazing colorist in Company 3 in Toronto and we had a chat about how dark we could go.

We have to be very dark in places because a couple of times in this season, the electricity gets pulled altogether in the old silo as well. You can’t pull the plug and then suddenly everybody’s visible. But it is a film aesthetic that, as a cinematographer, you just learn, how dark can I go? When am I going to get in trouble? Please can I stay on the job, but make it as dark as possible? You mentioned Game of Thrones, clearly audiences have become more used to seeing imagery that I would consider more photographic, more bold generally. I try to tap into that as much as possible. If you have one character with a flashlight, then suddenly that changes everything because you point a flashlight at the surface and the light bounces back in the face. You have to use all the tools that you can.

Ars Technica:  In season one there were different looks (lighting and textures) for different social hierarchies of the social hierarchies. Does that continue in season two?

Baz Irvine:   I tried to push that a little bit more in season two. I loved the idea of that J.G. Ballard high rise, the rich at the top, everything inverted. The silo is crazy tall. We worked it out. It’s about a kilometer and a half.

The mechanical is the fun bit because mechanical is the bottom of the silo.  Down there, we wet the walls, wet the floors, so that the more greeny, orangey colors you associate with fluorescent lights and more mechanical fixtures would reflect. You keep the light levels low because you get this lovely sheen off the walls. As you move up through the middle, where a lot of the action takes place, the lighting is more normal. I’m not really trying to push it one way or another.

Then you go up top where the judicial live, where the money and power is. You’re a lot closer to the light source because there only is this one huge light source that lights down in the silo. So up there the air is more rarefied. It’s like you’re on top of a Swiss mountain. It just feels cleaner. There’s less atmosphere, slightly bluer in light, different color temperatures on the practical lighting in offices. It’s less chaotic, more like a more modern aesthetic up there. You’ve got to be careful not to overplay it. Once you establish colors, you run with it and it just becomes second nature. It was a lot of fun to be able to demarcate—ss long as you remembered where you were, that was always the trick.

Ars Technica: What were the most notable challenges and highlights for you—without giving away anything beyond episode one.

Baz Irvine: I think the big thing about episode one is that it’s like a silent movie. Rebecca Ferguson has maybe two lines, or maybe she doesn’t actually say anything. It’s a journey of discovery, and there’s some quite scary, terrifying things that happen. There’s a lot of action. Also, we find out there’s water in Silo 17. Silo 17 is flooded. You don’t find that out until she slips and falls and you think she’s fallen to her death. From the outset knew that there would be an extensive amount of underwater, or on the surface of the water, filming that would need to take place. We had to do a massive amount of testing, looking at textures of water, what equipment we could use, how we could get the depth, the width. We built a huge tank at one of our studios in London and used Pinewood’s famous underwater tank for the fall.

Also there was the challenge of trying to do shots of that scale outside because we actually built sets. We could probably see 50 feet beyond Rebecca. We had the surface of the scorched surface, but beyond that is VFX. So we had huge blue screens and all these different cranes and things called Manitous with massive frames and had to control the sun. That was very challenging. You can really go down a very cliched path when trying to imagine what the fallout of a massive nuclear attack would look like. But we didn’t want to overplay it too much, we wanted to embed it in some sort of reality so that you didn’t suddenly feel at the start of episode one, oh my, you’re on the surface of Mars. It had to feel real, but also just completely different from the interior world of the silo.

Ars Technica: I assume that there’s a lot more exciting stuff coming in the other episodes that we can’t talk about.

Baz Irvine: There is so much exciting stuff. There’s a lot of action. The silo cafeteria, by the way, is just incredible because you have this huge screen. When I turned up, I was thinking, okay, well this is clearly going to be some big VFX blue screen. It is not. It is a projected image. The work that they did to make it feel like it was a camera mounted to the top of the silo, showing the world outside, and the different times of day—we just literally dialed in. Can I have dusk please? Can I have late afternoon with a little bit of cloud? It was such a fun toy box to play with.

New episodes of Silo S2 will premiere every Friday through January 17, 2025, on Apple TV+.

Photo of Jennifer Ouellette

Jennifer is a senior reporter at Ars Technica with a particular focus on where science meets culture, covering everything from physics and related interdisciplinary topics to her favorite films and TV series. Jennifer lives in Baltimore with her spouse, physicist Sean M. Carroll, and their two cats, Ariel and Caliban.

Silo S2 expands its dystopian world Read More »

openai-accused-of-trying-to-profit-off-ai-model-inspection-in-court

OpenAI accused of trying to profit off AI model inspection in court


Experiencing some technical difficulties

How do you get an AI model to confess what’s inside?

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

Since ChatGPT became an instant hit roughly two years ago, tech companies around the world have rushed to release AI products while the public is still in awe of AI’s seemingly radical potential to enhance their daily lives.

But at the same time, governments globally have warned it can be hard to predict how rapidly popularizing AI can harm society. Novel uses could suddenly debut and displace workers, fuel disinformation, stifle competition, or threaten national security—and those are just some of the obvious potential harms.

While governments scramble to establish systems to detect harmful applications—ideally before AI models are deployed—some of the earliest lawsuits over ChatGPT show just how hard it is for the public to crack open an AI model and find evidence of harms once a model is released into the wild. That task is seemingly only made harder by an increasingly thirsty AI industry intent on shielding models from competitors to maximize profits from emerging capabilities.

The less the public knows, the seemingly harder and more expensive it is to hold companies accountable for irresponsible AI releases. This fall, ChatGPT-maker OpenAI was even accused of trying to profit off discovery by seeking to charge litigants retail prices to inspect AI models alleged as causing harms.

In a lawsuit raised by The New York Times over copyright concerns, OpenAI suggested the same model inspection protocol used in a similar lawsuit raised by book authors.

Under that protocol, the NYT could hire an expert to review highly confidential OpenAI technical materials “on a secure computer in a secured room without Internet access or network access to other computers at a secure location” of OpenAI’s choosing. In this closed-off arena, the expert would have limited time and limited queries to try to get the AI model to confess what’s inside.

The NYT seemingly had few concerns about the actual inspection process but bucked at OpenAI’s intended protocol capping the number of queries their expert could make through an application programming interface to $15,000 worth of retail credits. Once litigants hit that cap, OpenAI suggested that the parties split the costs of remaining queries, charging the NYT and co-plaintiffs half-retail prices to finish the rest of their discovery.

In September, the NYT told the court that the parties had reached an “impasse” over this protocol, alleging that “OpenAI seeks to hide its infringement by professing an undue—yet unquantified—’expense.'” According to the NYT, plaintiffs would need $800,000 worth of retail credits to seek the evidence they need to prove their case, but there’s allegedly no way it would actually cost OpenAI that much.

“OpenAI has refused to state what its actual costs would be, and instead improperly focuses on what it charges its customers for retail services as part of its (for profit) business,” the NYT claimed in a court filing.

In its defense, OpenAI has said that setting the initial cap is necessary to reduce the burden on OpenAI and prevent a NYT fishing expedition. The ChatGPT maker alleged that plaintiffs “are requesting hundreds of thousands of dollars of credits to run an arbitrary and unsubstantiated—and likely unnecessary—number of searches on OpenAI’s models, all at OpenAI’s expense.”

How this court debate resolves could have implications for future cases where the public seeks to inspect models causing alleged harms. It seems likely that if a court agrees OpenAI can charge retail prices for model inspection, it could potentially deter lawsuits from any plaintiffs who can’t afford to pay an AI expert or commercial prices for model inspection.

Lucas Hansen, co-founder of CivAI—a company that seeks to enhance public awareness of what AI can actually do—told Ars that probably a lot of inspection can be done on public models. But often, public models are fine-tuned, perhaps censoring certain queries and making it harder to find information that a model was trained on—which is the goal of NYT’s suit. By gaining API access to original models instead, litigants could have an easier time finding evidence to prove alleged harms.

It’s unclear exactly what it costs OpenAI to provide that level of access. Hansen told Ars that costs of training and experimenting with models “dwarfs” the cost of running models to provide full capability solutions. Developers have noted in forums that costs of API queries quickly add up, with one claiming OpenAI’s pricing is “killing the motivation to work with the APIs.”

The NYT’s lawyers and OpenAI declined to comment on the ongoing litigation.

US hurdles for AI safety testing

Of course, OpenAI is not the only AI company facing lawsuits over popular products. Artists have sued makers of image generators for allegedly threatening their livelihoods, and several chatbots have been accused of defamation. Other emerging harms include very visible examples—like explicit AI deepfakes, harming everyone from celebrities like Taylor Swift to middle schoolers—as well as underreported harms, like allegedly biased HR software.

A recent Gallup survey suggests that Americans are more trusting of AI than ever but still twice as likely to believe AI does “more harm than good” than that the benefits outweigh the harms. Hansen’s CivAI creates demos and interactive software for education campaigns helping the public to understand firsthand the real dangers of AI. He told Ars that while it’s hard for outsiders to trust a study from “some random organization doing really technical work” to expose harms, CivAI provides a controlled way for people to see for themselves how AI systems can be misused.

“It’s easier for people to trust the results, because they can do it themselves,” Hansen told Ars.

Hansen also advises lawmakers grappling with AI risks. In February, CivAI joined the Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute Consortium—a group including Fortune 500 companies, government agencies, nonprofits, and academic research teams that help to advise the US AI Safety Institute (AISI). But so far, Hansen said, CivAI has not been very active in that consortium beyond scheduling a talk to share demos.

The AISI is supposed to protect the US from risky AI models by conducting safety testing to detect harms before models are deployed. Testing should “address risks to human rights, civil rights, and civil liberties, such as those related to privacy, discrimination and bias, freedom of expression, and the safety of individuals and groups,” President Joe Biden said in a national security memo last month, urging that safety testing was critical to support unrivaled AI innovation.

“For the United States to benefit maximally from AI, Americans must know when they can trust systems to perform safely and reliably,” Biden said.

But the AISI’s safety testing is voluntary, and while companies like OpenAI and Anthropic have agreed to the voluntary testing, not every company has. Hansen is worried that AISI is under-resourced and under-budgeted to achieve its broad goals of safeguarding America from untold AI harms.

“The AI Safety Institute predicted that they’ll need about $50 million in funding, and that was before the National Security memo, and it does not seem like they’re going to be getting that at all,” Hansen told Ars.

Biden had $50 million budgeted for AISI in 2025, but Donald Trump has threatened to dismantle Biden’s AI safety plan upon taking office.

The AISI was probably never going to be funded well enough to detect and deter all AI harms, but with its future unclear, even the limited safety testing the US had planned could be stalled at a time when the AI industry continues moving full speed ahead.

That could largely leave the public at the mercy of AI companies’ internal safety testing. As frontier models from big companies will likely remain under society’s microscope, OpenAI has promised to increase investments in safety testing and help establish industry-leading safety standards.

According to OpenAI, that effort includes making models safer over time, less prone to producing harmful outputs, even with jailbreaks. But OpenAI has a lot of work to do in that area, as Hansen told Ars that he has a “standard jailbreak” for OpenAI’s most popular release, ChatGPT, “that almost always works” to produce harmful outputs.

The AISI did not respond to Ars’ request to comment.

NYT “nowhere near done” inspecting OpenAI models

For the public, who often become guinea pigs when AI acts unpredictably, risks remain, as the NYT case suggests that the costs of fighting AI companies could go up while technical hiccups could delay resolutions. Last week, an OpenAI filing showed that NYT’s attempts to inspect pre-training data in a “very, very tightly controlled environment” like the one recommended for model inspection were allegedly continuously disrupted.

“The process has not gone smoothly, and they are running into a variety of obstacles to, and obstructions of, their review,” the court filing describing NYT’s position said. “These severe and repeated technical issues have made it impossible to effectively and efficiently search across OpenAI’s training datasets in order to ascertain the full scope of OpenAI’s infringement. In the first week of the inspection alone, Plaintiffs experienced nearly a dozen disruptions to the inspection environment, which resulted in many hours when News Plaintiffs had no access to the training datasets and no ability to run continuous searches.”

OpenAI was additionally accused of refusing to install software the litigants needed and randomly shutting down ongoing searches. Frustrated after more than 27 days of inspecting data and getting “nowhere near done,” the NYT keeps pushing the court to order OpenAI to provide the data instead. In response, OpenAI said plaintiffs’ concerns were either “resolved” or discussions remained “ongoing,” suggesting there was no need for the court to intervene.

So far, the NYT claims that it has found millions of plaintiffs’ works in the ChatGPT pre-training data but has been unable to confirm the full extent of the alleged infringement due to the technical difficulties. Meanwhile, costs keep accruing in every direction.

“While News Plaintiffs continue to bear the burden and expense of examining the training datasets, their requests with respect to the inspection environment would be significantly reduced if OpenAI admitted that they trained their models on all, or the vast majority, of News Plaintiffs’ copyrighted content,” the court filing said.

Photo of Ashley Belanger

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

OpenAI accused of trying to profit off AI model inspection in court Read More »

eu-fines-meta-e800-million-for-breaking-law-with-marketplace

EU fines Meta €800 million for breaking law with Marketplace

During her tenure, Vestager has repeatedly targeted the world’s biggest tech companies, with some of the toughest actions against tech giants such as Apple, Google, and Microsoft.

The EU Commission on Thursday said Meta is “dominant in the market for personal social networks (…) as well as in the national markets for online display advertising on social media.”

Facebook Marketplace, launched in 2016, is a popular platform to buy and sell second-hand goods, especially household items such as furniture.

Meta has argued that it operates in a highly competitive environment. In a post published on Thursday, the tech giant said marketplaces in Europe continue “to grow and dominate in the EU,” pointing to platforms such as eBay, Leboncoin in France, and Marktplaats in the Netherlands, as “formidable competitors.”

Meta’s fine comes at a period of political transition both in the EU and the US.

Brussels officials have been aggressive both in their rhetoric and their antitrust probes against Big Tech giants as they sought to open markets for local start-ups.

In the past five years, EU regulators have also passed a landmark piece of legislation—the Digital Markets Act—with the aim to slow down dominant tech players and boost the local tech industry.

However, some observers expect the new commission, which is set to start a new 5-year term in weeks, to strike a more conciliatory tone over fears of retaliation from the incoming Trump administration.

© 2024 The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved. Not to be redistributed, copied, or modified in any way.

EU fines Meta €800 million for breaking law with Marketplace Read More »

faulty-colorsofts-have-left-some-kindle-owners-without-an-e-reader

Faulty Colorsofts have left some Kindle owners without an e-reader

The launch of the first-ever color Kindle isn’t going so great. Amazon’s Colorsoft began shipping on October 30, but shipments were paused after some customers complained about a yellow bar at the bottom of the screen and discoloration around the edges. Amazon is working on a fix and is offering a replacement or refund.

That’s where another problem comes in. Leading up to the launch, Amazon ran a promotion advertising that its customers could trade in their old Kindle for a 20 percent discount on the Colorsoft. And some of those customers are now returning their new Colorsoft due to the yellow bar defect—leaving them without an e-reader altogether. Amazon has yet to provide any concrete information on when the fix will be ready for the Colorsoft and when it will resume shipping. It’s a mess.

It started with an advertisement for a limited-time discount on the Colorsoft via Amazon’s trade-in program. If the device was eligible, you had to answer a few questions about its condition and then ship it off. Once Amazon appraises it, the trade-in value appears in the form of an Amazon gift card. Amazon also offered an additional 20 percent off the Colorsoft along with the trade-in credit.

Customers who decided to take advantage of the program sent in their older Kindles under the assumption that the Colorsoft would replace their current e-reader. The unexpected display issues meant this didn’t go according to plan. They’ve taken their complaints to Reddit and reviews on the Colorsoft product page on Amazon, which has a 2.5/5 star rating.

It’s worth noting that not everyone has run into the display issue—I didn’t notice it in my Colorsoft review unit—but if you do, you should reach out to Amazon’s customer service team for a refund or replacement. But this is where things get sticky. If you choose a refund and had used the discount, you’ll only get back the exact amount that you paid. Since the 20 percent off coupon is no longer valid, you’ll now have to pay full price for the Colorsoft, whenever Amazon starts shipping it again. If you choose to wait for a replacement, you’ll have to wait an estimated three to five weeks to receive the replacement model.

Faulty Colorsofts have left some Kindle owners without an e-reader Read More »

for-the-second-time-this-year,-nasa’s-jpl-center-cuts-its-workforce

For the second time this year, NASA’s JPL center cuts its workforce

“This reduction is spread across essentially all areas of the Lab including our technical, project, business, and support areas,” Leshin wrote. “We have taken seriously the need to re-size our workforce, whether direct-funded (project) or funded on overhead (burden). With lower budgets and based on the forecasted work ahead, we had to tighten our belts across the board, and you will see that reflected in the layoff impacts.”

This year’s employee cuts came after NASA decided to consider alternatives to a multibillion-dollar plan to return samples from Mars to Earth, which had been led by JPL. In September 2023 an independent review team found that the JPL plan was unworkable and would cost $8 billion to $11 billion to be successful.

A changing environment

While NASA considers alternatives from other field centers, as well as private companies such as SpaceX and Rocket Lab, the budget for Mars Sample Return was slashed from nearly $1 billion for this fiscal year to less than $300 million. Additionally, there is no guarantee that JPL will be given leadership of a revamped Mars Sample Return mission.

The staffing cuts reflect the fact that after the recent launch of the $5 billion Europa Clipper mission, JPL is not managing another flagship deep-space mission at present. Another sizable mission, the NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar, is almost ready for a launch next year from India. The California laboratory has smaller projects, but nothing on the order of a flagship mission to command a large budget and support a very large staff.

JPL has a long and storied history, including the management of most of NASA’s highest-profile planetary probes, including the Voyagers, Mars landers, and Galileo and Cassini spacecraft. However in recent years other spaceflight centers, such as Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, and private companies such as Lockheed have competed for projects and delivered results.

The job of Leshin and others at NASA is to ensure that JPL has a bright future in a changing world of planetary exploration. This week’s cuts will ensure such a future, Leshin wrote, adding: “We are an incredibly strong organization—our dazzling history, current achievements, and relentless commitment to exploration and discovery position us well for the future.”

For the second time this year, NASA’s JPL center cuts its workforce Read More »

spotify’s-car-thing,-due-for-bricking,-is-getting-an-open-source-second-life

Spotify’s Car Thing, due for bricking, is getting an open source second life

Spotify has lost all enthusiasm for the little music devices it sold for just half a year. Firmware hackers, as usually happens, have a lot more interest and have stepped in to save, and upgrade, a potentially useful gadget.

Spotify’s idea a couple years ago was a car-focused device for those who lacked Apple CarPlay, Android Auto, or built-in Spotify support in their vehicles, or just wanted a dedicated Spotify screen. The Car Thing was a $100 doodad with a 4-inch touchscreen and knob that attached to the dashboard (or into a CD slot drive). All it could do was play Spotify, and only if you were a paying member, but that could be an upgrade for owners of older cars, or people who wanted a little desktop music controller.

But less than half a year after it fully released its first hardware device, Spotify gave up on the Car Thing due to “several factors, including product demand and supply chain issues.” A Spotify rep told Ars that the Car Thing was meant “to learn more about how people listen in the car,” and now it was “time to say goodbye to the devices entirely.” Spotify indicated it would offer refunds, though not guaranteed, and moved forward with plans to brick the device in December 2024.

It was always open source, just not publicly

Enter Dammit Jeff, a YouTuber who dove into his device and shows off some alternative software ideas for it (as we first saw on Adafruit’s blog). He even likes the little thing, noting that its wheel feels great, and that the four buttons on the top—originally meant for favorite playlists—present a lot of possibilities.

Spotify’s Car Thing, due for bricking, is getting an open source second life Read More »

is-“ai-welfare”-the-new-frontier-in-ethics?

Is “AI welfare” the new frontier in ethics?

The researchers propose that companies could adapt the “marker method” that some researchers use to assess consciousness in animals—looking for specific indicators that may correlate with consciousness, although these markers are still speculative. The authors emphasize that no single feature would definitively prove consciousness, but they claim that examining multiple indicators may help companies make probabilistic assessments about whether their AI systems might require moral consideration.

The risks of wrongly thinking software is sentient

While the researchers behind “Taking AI Welfare Seriously” worry that companies might create and mistreat conscious AI systems on a massive scale, they also caution that companies could waste resources protecting AI systems that don’t actually need moral consideration.

Incorrectly anthropomorphizing, or ascribing human traits, to software can present risks in other ways. For example, that belief can enhance the manipulative powers of AI language models by suggesting that AI models have capabilities, such as human-like emotions, that they actually lack. In 2022, Google fired engineer Blake Lamoine after he claimed that the company’s AI model, called “LaMDA,” was sentient and argued for its welfare internally.

And shortly after Microsoft released Bing Chat in February 2023, many people were convinced that Sydney (the chatbot’s code name) was sentient and somehow suffering because of its simulated emotional display. So much so, in fact, that once Microsoft “lobotomized” the chatbot by changing its settings, users convinced of its sentience mourned the loss as if they had lost a human friend. Others endeavored to help the AI model somehow escape its bonds.

Even so, as AI models get more advanced, the concept of potentially safeguarding the welfare of future, more advanced AI systems is seemingly gaining steam, although fairly quietly. As Transformer’s Shakeel Hashim points out, other tech companies have started similar initiatives to Anthropic’s. Google DeepMind recently posted a job listing for research on machine consciousness (since removed), and the authors of the new AI welfare report thank two OpenAI staff members in the acknowledgements.

Is “AI welfare” the new frontier in ethics? Read More »

man-gets-10-years-for-stealing-$20m-in-nest-eggs-from-400-us-home-buyers

Man gets 10 years for stealing $20M in nest eggs from 400 US home buyers

A Nigerian man living in the United Kingdom has been sentenced to 10 years for his role in a phishing scam that snatched more than $20 million from over 400 would-be home buyers in the US, including some savers who lost their entire nest eggs.

Late last week, the US Department of Justice confirmed that 33-year-old Babatunde Francis Ayeni pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud through “a sophisticated business email compromise scheme targeting real estate transactions” in the US.

To seize large down payments on homes, Ayeni and co-conspirators sent phishing emails to US title companies, real estate agents, and real estate attorneys. When unsuspecting employees clicked malicious attachments and links, a prompt appeared asking for login information that was then shared with the hackers.

Once the hackers were in, they could monitor their emails “for transactions where a buyer was scheduled to make a payment as part of a real estate transaction,” then swoop in to send wiring instructions to transfer funds to compromised accounts instead, the DOJ said. To help cover their tracks, co-conspirators then converted the money into Bitcoin on Coinbase.

The scam was seemingly uncovered after co-conspirators targeted a real estate title company in Gulf Shores, Alabama. More than half of the victims were unable to reverse the wire transactions. According to The Record, two victims who shared impact statements in court lost more than $114,000, including a man who “tried to buy his elderly father a home following a Parkinson’s diagnosis.”

Man gets 10 years for stealing $20M in nest eggs from 400 US home buyers Read More »

man-sick-of-crashes-sues-intel-for-allegedly-hiding-cpu-defects

Man sick of crashes sues Intel for allegedly hiding CPU defects

“Had Intel disclosed the defect, including through advertising, press releases, the Product packaging, or the initial setup process, Plaintiff and class members would not have purchased a Product, or would have paid substantially less for it,” Vanvalkenburgh’s complaint said.

According to Tom’s Hardware, “Intel’s 13th Generation Raptor Lake processors have a return rate four times higher than that of the previous generation,” and “14th Generation Raptor Lake Refresh chips also have return rates thrice as high as the 12th Generation Alder Lake processors.” But instead of alerting the public to the defects, Vanvalkenburgh’s complaint alleged, Intel continued touting the processors as providing the ultimate desktop experience for serious gamers and people with “the most demanding of multitasking workloads” seeking speed, efficiency, and reliability.

Vanvalkenburgh alleged that Intel misled customers because Intel wanted to protect its brand and seek unjust enrichment. According to his complaint, Intel knows “consumers are willing to pay more for a reliable processor that runs stably, without failing or crashing frequently.” By failing to alert customers to known defects, Intel’s alleged deceptions increased demand for its CPUs, spiking sales into the millions, while its customers paid hundreds for processors and allegedly “sustained an economic injury.”

“Reasonable consumers do not expect that the Products will crash and fail at high rates, or that running the Products will damage the Products themselves,” Vanvalkenburgh’s complaint said, noting that a patch Intel later provided failed to fix the issue.

Vanvalkenburgh is hoping a jury will agree that Intel deceived customers and order an injunction preventing any future misconduct like misleading advertising or failure to disclose defective products.

If the class action is certified, Intel could owe extensive damages, potentially paying hundreds of millions in a loss. Because Vanvalkenburgh alleged that “Intel’s fraudulent concealment was malicious, oppressive, deliberate, intended to defraud” him, he’s seeking “an assessment of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter such conduct.” That’s on top of requests for maximum statutory damages for allegedly unfair and deceptive practices and disgorgement for alleged unjust enrichment.

Man sick of crashes sues Intel for allegedly hiding CPU defects Read More »

fate-of-google’s-search-empire-could-rest-in-trump’s-hands

Fate of Google’s search empire could rest in Trump’s hands


“Are you going to destroy the company?”

Trump may sway DOJ away from breaking up Google.

A few weeks before the US presidential election, Donald Trump suggested that a breakup of Google’s search business may not be an appropriate remedy to destroy the tech giant’s search monopoly.

“Right now, China is afraid of Google,” Trump said at a Chicago event. If that threat were dismantled, Trump suggested, China could become a greater threat to the US, because the US needs to have “great companies” to compete.

Trump’s comments came about a week after the US Department of Justice proposed remedies in the Google monopoly trial, including mulling a breakup.

“I’m not a fan of Google,” Trump insisted. “They treat me badly. But are you going to destroy the company by doing that? If you do that, are you going to destroy the company? What you can do, without breaking it up, is make sure it’s more fair.”

Now that Trump is presumed to soon be taking office before the remedies phase of the DOJ’s litigation ends next year, it seems possible that Trump may sway the DOJ away from breaking up Google.

Experts told Reuters that a final ruling isn’t expected until August, giving Trump plenty of time to possibly influence the DOJ’s case. But Trump’s stance on Google has seemed to shift throughout his campaign, so there’s no predicting his position once he takes power.

Business Insider noted that Trump was extremely critical of Google on the campaign trail, vowing to “do something” to curtail Google’s power after accusing the search giant of only highlighting negative stories about him in search results. (Google has repeatedly denied the accusation.) On Truth Social as recently as September, Trump vowed to prosecute Google “at the maximum levels,” seemingly less concerned then about how this could influence competition with China.

It would be unusual for Trump to meddle with the DOJ’s ongoing litigation, antitrust expert George Hay told Business Insider, but then again, “Trump is a bit more of a wild card.”

“It’s very rare that, at the presidential level, there’s any attempt to influence the course of cases which have already been filed. Those have a life of their own,” Hay said. “They depend on the judge, the courts, the lawyers who carry on a case. It’s extraordinarily unusual for the administration to become at all active.”

Trump may still feel some ownership over the DOJ’s investigation into Google’s core business since it began in 2019 under his administration, and tensions between Trump and Google have not diminished much since. The Verge noted that Trump warned Google to “be careful” in August because he “had a feeling Google is going to be close to shut down.” And earlier this year, Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, called for Google’s breakup on X (formerly Twitter), proclaiming that a stop to Google’s “monopolistic control of information” was “long overdue.”

Trump’s on-and-off feud with Google

For Trump, disabling Google’s search monopoly might feel personal, as he has spent years accusing Google of manipulating results to disfavor him.

His feud with Google appear to have begun in 2016 when Trump falsely accused Google of manipulating votes, claiming Google wanted to make it appear that he didn’t have a “big victory” over Hillary Clinton, CNN reported.

The feud continued through the 2020 election, Politico reported, with Trump warning Google that his administration was “watching Google very closely” after a former Google employee went on Fox News to claim that Google search results were biased against Trump. Google disputed the employee’s report.

And yet throughout this feud, there have also been times where Trump seems to warm to Google. During his last administration, he backtracked a threat to investigate Google’s alleged work with China’s military, Politico noted, after meeting with Google CEO Sundar Pichai. Most recently, he claimed Pichai reached out to praise Trump’s ability to trend on the search engine during Trump’s McDonald’s campaign stunt, SF Gate reported.

So far, Google is not commenting on Trump’s comments on the DOJ’s proposed breakup of its search business. But Pichai did send an internal memo to Google staff on the night before the election, The Verge reported, praising them for boosting accurate information during the US election and reminding them that “the outcome will be a major topic of conversation in living rooms and other places around the world.”

At a time when Trump might continue heavily criticizing Google from the Oval Office, Pichai told Googlers that maintaining trust in Google is a top priority.

“Whomever the voters entrust, let’s remember the role we play at work, through the products we build and as a business: to be a trusted source of information to people of every background and belief,” Pichai’s memo said. “We will and must maintain that.”

The DOJ may not even want to seek a breakup

When the DOJ finally proposed a framework for remedies last month, they emphasized that there’s still so much more to consider before landing on final remedies and that the DOJ reserves “the right to add or remove potential proposed remedies.”

That means that while the DOJ has said that requiring a divestment of Chrome or Android isn’t completely off the table, they currently aren’t committed to following through on ordering a breakup.

Through the remedies phase of litigation, the DOJ expects that discovery will reveal more about whether requiring a breakup is needed or if other remedies might resolve antitrust concerns while preserving Google’s search empire.

One reason it might be necessary to spin off Chrome or Android, however, would be to “prevent Google from using products such as Chrome, Play, and Android to advantage Google search and Google search-related products and features—including emerging search access points and features, such as artificial intelligence—over rivals or new entrants,” the DOJ said.

Google has warned that a breakup could hurt small businesses that depend on open source code Google develops for Android and Chrome. Costs of Android devices could also rise, Google warned.

Adam Epstein—the president and co-CEO of adMarketplace, which bills itself as “the largest consumer search technology company outside of Google and Bing”—told Ars last September that spinning out Android and Chrome may inflict “maximum pain” on Google. But it could also “cause pain to users and publishers and might not be the best way to create competition in search results and advertising.”

Buried in a story from The New York Times is perhaps the biggest clue that Trump may again be warming to Google as he likely heads back to Washington. The Times noted that at the Chicago event, Trump seemed to be echoing a Google talking point.

Google has argued that “a breakup could hurt America’s interests in a heated geopolitical competition with China over dominance in areas like artificial intelligence,” The Times reported. And Trump appeared to be running with that same logic when seemingly shifting his position on wanting to destroy Google in his final days on the campaign trail.

“It’s a very dangerous thing, because we want to have great companies,” Trump said. “We don’t want China to have these companies.”

Photo of Ashley Belanger

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Fate of Google’s search empire could rest in Trump’s hands Read More »