Sherri Carpineto is senior director of strategy and operations Ascom Americas.A few years ago, she was headhunted for a VP role but only offered 10 days off.She said she always negotiates time off, because flexibility is critical.This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Sherri Carpineto, senior director of strategy and operations Ascom Americas. It has been edited for length and clarity.A few years ago, I received an email from a recruiter out of the blue. I wasn't looking for a new job I had been with my company for over a decade but I was head-hunted for this position.The role was for vice-president of operations for a publicly traded company. It would have been a big step in my career, and the salary increase was significant. It involved working with older people, so there was a chance to make a real-world impact.It seemed like a great opportunity until I learned that the job was only offered 10 days of paid time off, including all sick and vacation time. When I talked with the CEO about it, she said, "I wish we had better work-life balance, but we don't." That's when I knew I had to turn down the job.As a mom of 2, flexibility is keyBeing a mom of two has certainly impacted my career in corporate America. I took a job that offered remote work long before that became the norm. I stayed there for 15 years because the flexibility was critical for my family.When my oldest son was 3, he was diagnosed with Celiac disease. At 6, he was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. Because of my remote work and flexible schedule, I could run down to the school when he was sick and go on field trips to make sure he was taken care of medically.Staying with the same company for 15 years no doubt impeded my career, but the positive impact on my family was well worth that compromise. Today, my sons are 12 and 15. They still need me but in different ways. Most recently, I utilized time off and remote work when a teacher strike kept them home for three weeks.I don't usually take all my PTO, but like knowing I have itWhen I was offered the vice-president role, I refused, on principle, to take it. But in reality, I've never been someone who uses all their time off. In the job I was in for 15 years, I was often the person calling into meetings, even on days off, or taking on more projects, even when they were outside my scope of work.I was laid off from that company after 15 years, during the pandemic. That changed my philosophy. I had thought that I could make myself indispensable by going above and beyond, but at the end of the day, layoffs are a money decision.As I interviewed for new roles I knew that time off and remote work were priorities for me. Although I don't always take my allotted time off, I like knowing it's there if I need it.As a manager, I encourage people to take time offAs a manager, I've always encouraged my employees to take time off. The least productive employee is one that is burned out. We're all salaried adults, and as long as the work is getting done, I encourage people to take their time and disconnect from work.When I was offered the VP role, I tried to negotiate. I wanted at least four weeks of time off annually. The company refused to negotiate, but I've had better luck asking for more time off in other roles. Time to focus on family while also having a meaningful career is non-negotiable for me, and I'll always take a stand for it.

Barnes & Noble plans to open around 60 new stores in the US, says CEO James Daunt.Daunt said it would be "logical" to consider a future initial public offering in London or New York.Barnes & Noble was acquired by Elliott Investment Management for $683 million in 2019.James Daunt, the CEO of Barnes & Noble and Waterstones, said he would open about 60 new stores in the US.The British bookseller boss told the Financial Times that he is considering a future initial public offering in London or New York as well as the expansion.Throughout 2024, 57 Barnes & Noble locations were opened across the US, which currently has approximately 600 stores. In the UK, 12 new stores were added. Speaking about additions in the new year, Daunt said to the FT that he plans to "do that or more in 2025."Barnes & Noble is the largest book chain in America. After he quit his investment banking job, Daunt launched Daunt Books in London in 1990 where there are now about 10 stores. In 2011, he was appointed managing director of British bookseller Waterstones to help the struggling business, which faced growing competition from Amazon.In 2018, Waterstones was sold to Elliott Investment Management by Russian billionaire and publisher Alexander Mamut. Barnes & Noble was acquired by the same New York-headquartered hedge fund the following year for $683 million.Daunt was named CEO of both book retailers. He also continues to run his independent book chain in London.The Barnes & Noble and Waterstones boss told the FT it would be "logical" to contemplate an IPO but that any plan would be based on Elliott's strategy for the future. Citing a person familiar with the matter, the FT reported there are no current plans to list the chains. However, it could be a possibility at a later stage.At present, Daunt hopes to combine the IT and finance platforms at Barnes & Noble and Waterstones into one system.He noted that it was a "solid Christmas" because as the holiday fell on a Wednesday, last-minute shoppers had the weekend before to purchase gifts."The last weekend and [December] 23-24 were exceptional on both sides of the Atlantic," he told the FT. "It has been a good post-Christmas as well."

North Korea could get Russian satellite tech, the US Secretary of State has warned.The tech would be in exchange for it sending troops to fight Ukraine, Antony Blinken said on Monday.The US and its allies have accused Russia and North Korea of trading arms and military technology.Russia could share satellite technology with North Korea in exchange for the troops it sent to fight Ukraine, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has warned.Blinken said the US had reason to believe that "Moscow intends to share advanced space and satellite technology with Pyongyang," during a press conference in Seoul on Monday.North Korea "is already receiving Russian military equipment and training," he added.If confirmed, it would add to Russia's reported ongoing efforts to help North Korea advance its satellite launch program.Kim Jong Un, the North Korean leader, has repeatedly tried and often failed to launch satellites into space. The country said it had successfully launched a military spy satellite in November 2023. The most recent failure was when a rocket exploded during the first stage of flight in May last year.At the time, the South Korean news agency Yonhap reported, citing an unnamed senior defense official, that a "large number" of Russian technicians had entered North Korea to guide the country's space program ahead of the failed launch.In September 2023, Russian President Vladimir Putin promised Russia would help North Korea build satellites.Having a satellite network would allow North Korea to identify targets to strike with its missiles and strengthen its ability to launch a preemptive strike against the US or its allies, giving them only a few minutes to respond.Russia and North Korea's relationship has come under scrutiny in the past year after both countries signed a strategic partnership agreement in June, which requires the countries to defend each other in the event of aggression.The US and its allies had previously accused Moscow of sending raw materials, food, and technical expertise to Pyongyang in exchange for shipments of artillery ammunition and missiles that Ukraine has reported seeing on the battlefield.North Korea has also sent thousands of troops to aid Russia in its fight against Ukraine, officials from South Korea, Ukraine, and the US have said.Blinken suggested Russia-North Korea's relations could go deeper as Putin may be "close" to formally accepting North Korea's status as a nuclear power.He also described North Korea's deployment of artillery, ammunition, and troops as one of the "biggest ongoing drivers" that enabled Russia's war against Ukraine.

When former Buffalo Bill Jordan Poyer heard New York Jets quarterback Aaron Rodgers extol the benefits of ayahuasca on The Pat McAfee Show in 2023, he was suspicious but intrigued. Poyer had been struggling with his marriage and his recovery from alcoholism, and after hearing Rodgers discuss plant medicine as the psychoactive brew is commonly described among acolytes he decided to give it a try, to apparently life-changing results. Poyer relays all this in the recent Netflix documentary Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, which looks at the mystery of the possibly retiring Super Bowl champion. Rodgers isnt just any athlete partaking in psychedelics and inspiring others to do the same. He seems to be drawn to fringe concepts: Hes expressed anti-vax views and is a good friend of public health conspiracist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Hes reportedly shown interest in 9/11 and Sandy Hook conspiracy theories, the latter of which he has denied. He believes that HIV/AIDS was invented by the government. Yet the 41-year-old self-professed perfectionists enthusiasm for ayahuasca, in particular, feels predictable for an increasingly mainstream category of men he represents: wealthy dudes who are obsessed with self-improvement and rely on their own research to an often troubling degree. Likewise, a growing number of tech CEOs, like OpenAIs Sam Altman, have raved about the transformative experience of taking ayahuasca, which has supposedly increased their productivity, creativity, and leadership skills. Controversial bro-science guys like spiritual wellness advocate Aubrey Marcus (also in Rodgerss documentary) have expressed similar enthusiasm. Marcus, who wrote the self-help books Own the Day, Own Your Life and Master Your Mind, Master Your Life, recently made a film about the psychedelic ritual. Elon Musk and controversial computer scientist Lex Fridman took it together. Definitive podcast bro Joe Rogan has been an advocate of ayahuasca for years. Aaron Rodgers at an ayahuasca retreat in the Netflix docuseries Aaron Rodgers: Enigma. NetflixStill, the drug seems to have reached some kind of cultural tipping point. Even film and television have seen their fair share of men tripping out on the drug recently, from Oscar-bait movies like Queer to semi-prestige shows like Industry to cast members on Bravo reality shows, almost always depicting the ironically feminine drug being taken by men. While there are some notable women whove partaken in ayahuasca rituals including comedian Chelsea Handler, who said it led her to seek out therapy, and Lindsay Lohan, who said it changed her life the increasingly male pop cultural footprint of ayahuasca use in Western culture has recently given the ancient drug a more cynical reputation. Also popularly known as yage, ayahuasca has been used for thousands of years by Indigenous people in Peru, Brazil, Colombia, and Ecuador. The bitter-tasting herbal drink is made by boiling stem and bark from the Banisteriopsis caapi vine and the leaves of the Psychotria viridis shrub, which contains the strong psychedelic drug dimethyltryptamine (DMT). Known for its purgative qualities, a typical experience entails about four to six hours of crying, sweating, vomiting, and/or diarrhea, all while experiencing intense hallucinations. Allison Feduccia, the founder of the drug safety organization Psychedelic Support, says that, historically, ayahuascas healing potential ranged from many different physical ailments to psychological issues. However, its increasingly become known for its effects on mental health. I would say that the most known properties that people seek ayahuasca for in the modern day are healing of past traumas, of depression, addiction, disorders, and grief, Feduccia said.A common selling point for ayahuasca is that its supposedly like 10 years of therapy in one day. Likewise, much of the marketing for ayahuasca retreats, including the notable number of all-male ones, lists growth, purpose, brotherhood, and vulnerability as some of the results that participants can gain from the experience. Retreats also emphasize a connection to nature. There seems to be some truth to these claims of psychological improvement. A 2018 observational study found that participants who partook in an ayahuasca session showed improved emotional regulation and capacities for mindfulness 24 hours after intake. In another study, LGBTQ participants said they left the ritual feeling more affirmed about their identities. Researchers have also found that it can reduce depression. According to some testimonials, it seems that the relative convenience of ayahuasca is a draw for a certain type of man who lives an optimized life and maybe wants to shortcut long-term traditional therapy. Rodgers highlights this feature in his docuseries, calling it the hardest medicine possible. Powerful businessmen, like investor Eddy Vaisburg and COBE CEO Felix van de Sand, have talked about the experience in terms of making them better people and, therefore, better workers. Its even less of a surprise that these drugs are popular among men who claim to possess the most knowledge and creativity in society. Cultural historian Mike Jay, who wrote High Society: Mind-Altering Drugs in History and Culture, says psychedelics have always been attractive to people who see themselves as powerful and or exceptional and are thus drawn to their magical possibilities. The psychedelic adept is seen as someone creative and inspired, a Promethean figure whos not afraid of reaching for godlike status, says Jay.Kit Harrington and Harry Lawtey in Industry season three. Nick Strasburg/HBOThe trend of rich, powerful men turning to ayahuasca has become a noticeable trope in film and TV over the past year, if one that often highlights the limitations of the medicine and the people taking it. In the latest season of the HBO financial drama Industry, banker Robert Spearing (Harry Lawtey) is dragged to an ayahuasca ceremony with his client, an arrogant and underqualified venture capitalist named Henry Muck (Kit Harrington). Little to no gravity is applied to Roberts hallucinations, including his mommy- and work-related issues, a reminder that those unfamiliar with the experience have no idea what kind of insights ayahuasca users are actually receiving during these trips. In one ridiculous moment, he sees a scrolling ticker with the words eat it, referring to a scene in season one where his dominating love interest, Yasmin (Marisa Abela), orders him to consume his own semen. When they both emerge from their respective trips, Henry tells Robert that they have to find a way to monetize this.Cast members from Bravos reality shows have also participated in ayahuasca ceremonies, specifically some of the more problematic men, eliciting eye rolls and skepticism from their cast members and the audience. On the latest season of the Bravo series Southern Charm, the shows main F-boy, 45-year-old Shep Rose, goes on an ayahuasca retreat after being confronted by the cast for his excessive drinking and belligerent behavior. When he returns in the current season, hes somehow even less aware of the effects of his actions on his friends. A similar situation played out on Bravos The Valley, where cast member Jesse Lally decides to save his marriage by leaving his family for several days to attend an ayahuasca ceremony. (It doesnt work.) The Luca Guadagnino film Queer, adapted from Williams Burroughss 1985 novella of the same name, also features two men whose attempts at healing through ayahuasca go terribly wrong. In the films third act, two emotionally distant lovers go to Ecuador and consume the brew, hoping to lose their inhibitions and embark on an unconstrained romance. Despite telepathically communicating with one another and figuratively vomiting their hearts out, it doesnt bring them any closer. So how did ayahuasca become such a man-coded trend? Jay says that, in the West, the area of psychedelics has always been male-dominated, from the discoveries by figures like Aldous Huxley, Albert Hofmann, and R. Gordon Wasson in the first half of the 20th century to its wider use throughout the counterculture movement. Psychedelics emerged from a culture where men still dominated the worlds of science and medicine, and self-experimenting with drugs was seen as heroic and pioneering, says Jay. The counterculture was similar to the scientific world that preceded it. And the tech/business world is rooted in the same assumptions.He says that women always had an invisible role in this science. However, traditional gender roles made it harder for women to undertake these experiments, which involved public disinhibition or episodes that might be seen as psychotic. Meanwhile, men, particularly those of high social standing, did not face repercussions for exhibiting undignified behavior. Privilege and social capital make it easier to carry it off and be taken seriously, says Jay. For those with more marginalized identities, its more harshly judged or seen as the mark of an unstable character. This thread of privilege is evident in who is most comfortable partaking in ayahuasca ceremonies, which are frequently set abroad in remote locations. With psychedelics not being legal [in the United States], a lot of women with children might not want to take that type of risk, says Feduccia. Women might not be able to get away from home to take these trips to the Amazon. She also references the number of women who have spoken out about sexual abuse that can occur during these types of spiritual retreats, in addition to general concerns about safety when traveling. In a 2020 report for the BBC, a New Zealand woman describes going on an ayahuasca retreat where she was the only single woman and being coerced by the male shaman into performing sexual acts. This all might help explain why the recent real and fictional depictions of male ayahuasca use are notably quite cynical. From Queer to Industry to The Valley, they defy the notion that the drug is automatically transformative or positive for each of its consumers. If youre a toxic husband, a greedy capitalist, or an emotionally repressed individual, the potion may not have much to offer you. In fact, it may just make you a more insufferable and limited person.Out of all of these examples, though, Rodgerss docuseries might be the worst advertisement for dudes taking ayahuasca. In between interviews of the quarterback discussing how the drug has positively affected his life, viewers are bombarded with soundbites of Rodgers disputing vaccine research and scenes of him mingling with controversial figures, like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Despite Poyers apparent success, Rodgers still seems to be doggedly searching, trying to find enough self-love to make it through his 20th season in the NFL, even with a torn Achilles tendon. Its telling that, despite his claims of the drugs effectiveness, hes partaken in the ritual a staggering 10 times. While ayahuasca seems to have some healing power, it could definitely use better publicity. Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

This story was originally published in The Highlight, Voxs member-exclusive magazine. To get early access to member-exclusive stories every month, join the Vox Membership program today.I am a recovering optimizer. Over the past several years, Ive spent ages agonizing over every decision I made because I felt like I had to do the best possible thing. Not an okay thing, not a good thing the morally best thing. I stopped working on a childrens novel because I began to suspect it wouldnt be useful to anyone. I berated myself for not meditating every day even though I know it makes me a kinder person. I spent a year crying over a breakup because I feared Id just lost my optimal soulmate and was now doomed to a suboptimal life, one that wouldnt be as meaningful as it could be, one that fell short of its potential. I thought maybe it was just me, an anxious elder millennial with a perfectionist streak. But then I noticed the same style of thinking in others. There was the friend who was always fretting over dinner about whether she can have a big-enough positive impact on the world through the career shes chosen. Another friend would divide his day into 15-minute increments and write down what he does during each one so he wouldnt waste any time. And a third friend my best friend called me crying because, even though shed spent months assiduously caring for her partners dying mother, she worried that she hadnt made her last days quite as happy as possible. My emotions got in the way, she self-flagellated. I wish I could just be a robot.Ive particularly noticed this style of thinking in peers who identify with effective altruism (EA), the social movement thats all about using data and reason to figure out how to do good better or the most good you can do, to quote the titles of books by two of EAs leading thinkers. The movement urges people to donate to the charities that save the most lives per dollar. I listened as its adherents bemoaned how horrible they felt as they walked past people experiencing homelessness, felt an urge to help out, but forced themselves not to because their dollar could do more good for impoverished people in low-income countries. All of this felt like more than just the optimization culture so many of us have heard about before. It wasnt the kind that strives to perfect the body, pushing you to embrace Soylent and supplements, intermittent fasting and ice baths, Fitbits and Apple Watches and Oura Rings. And it wasnt the kind that focuses on fine-tuning the mind, pushing you to try smart drugs and dopamine fasting and happiness tracking.This was another strand of optimization culture, one thats less analyzed but more ambitious because instead of just targeting the body or the mind, its coming for the holy grail: your soul. Its about moral optimization.This mindset is as common in the ivory tower as it is in the street. Philosophers with a utilitarian bent tell us its not enough to do good we have to do the most good possible. We have to mathematically quantify moral goodness so that we can then maximize it. And the drive to do that is showing up in more and more circles these days, from spiritual seekers using tech to optimize the meditations they hope will make them better people to AI researchers trying to program ethics into machines. I wanted to understand where this idea came from so I could figure out why many of us seem increasingly fixated on it and so I could honestly assess its merits. Can our moral lives be optimized? If they can, should they be? Or have we stretched optimization beyond its optimal limits? How we came to believe in moral optimization Were at the top of a long trend line thats been going for 400 years, C. Thi Nguyen, a philosopher at the University of Utah, told me. He explained that the story of optimization is really the story of data: how it was invented, and how it developed over the past few centuries.As the historian Mary Poovey argues in her book A History of the Modern Fact, that story starts all the way back in the 16th century, when Europeans came up with the super-sexy and revolutionary intellectual project that was double-entry bookkeeping. This new accounting system emphasized recording every merchants activities in a precise, objective, quantifiable way that could be verified by anyone, anywhere. In other words, it invented the idea of data.From the beginning, people saw optimization as a godly power. That paved the way for huge intellectual developments in the 1600s and 1700s a very exciting time for brainy Europeans. It was the Age of Reason! The Age of Enlightenment! Figures like Francis Bacon and Johannes Kepler looked at the innovation in bookkeeping and thought: This way of parceling the world into chunks of data that are quantifiable and verifiable is great. We should imitate it for this new thing were building called the scientific method. Meanwhile, 17th-century philosopher Blaise Pascal was coming up with a probabilistic approach to data, expressed in the now-famous Pascals Wager: If you dont obey God and it later turns out God doesnt exist, no biggie, but if theres a chance God does exist, your belief could make the difference between an eternity in heaven or hell so its worth your while to believe! (The philosopher of science Ian Hacking calls Pascal the worlds first statistician, and his wager the first well-understood contribution to decision theory.) Just as importantly, Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz were creating calculus, which gave humanity a new ability to figure out the maximum value you can achieve within given constraints in other words, to optimize. From the beginning, people saw optimization as a godly power. In 1712, the mathematician Samuel Knig studied the complex honeycomb structure of a beehive. He wondered: Had bees figured out how to create the maximum number of cells with the minimum amount of wax? He calculated that they had. Those fuzzy, buzzy optimizers! The French Academy of Sciences was so impressed by this optimal architecture that it was declared proof of divine guidance or intelligent design.Soon enough, people were trying to mathematize pretty much everything, from medicine to theology to moral philosophy. It was a way to give your claims the sheen of objective truth. Take Francis Hutcheson, the Irish philosopher who first coined the classic slogan of utilitarianism that actions should promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number. In 1725, he wrote a book attempting to reduce morality to mathematical formulas, such as: The moral Importance of any Agent, or the Quantity of publick Good produced by him, is in a compound Ratio of his Benevolence and Abilitys: or (by substituting the Letters for the Words, as M = Moment of Good, and = Moment of Evil) M = B A. The utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who followed in Hutchesons footsteps, also sought to create a felicific calculus: a way of determining the moral status of actions using math. He believed that actions are moral to the extent that they maximize happiness or pleasure; in fact, it was Bentham who actually invented the word maximize. And he argued that both ethics and economics should be about maximizing utility (that is, happiness or satisfaction): Just calculate how much utility each policy or action would produce, and choose the one that produces the most. That argument has had an enduring impact on moral philosophy and economics to this day.Meanwhile, the Industrial Revolution was taking off. Economists like Adam Smith argued for ways to increase efficiency and maximize profit. As consumer capitalism flourished, economic growth skyrocketed. And in the two centuries following the Industrial Revolution, living standards improved and extreme poverty plummeted. To Europes industrialized nations, it looked like optimization in the economic realm had been a huge success. America imported it and embraced the factory assembly line, giving us advances like Henry Fords Model T cars.Then, in the 1900s, came a new inflection point in the story of data: major progress in computer technology. Growing computational power made it possible to analyze large amounts of data and model the world with greater precision to decipher Nazi codes during World War II, say, or process the US Census. Toward the end of the 20th century, a computer went from being a government-owned, room-sized colossus to an affordable gadget suited for the average persons home. And with the invention of the internet, all those average people started generating a lot of data. Every web search, every chat, every online purchase became a data point, so that by the 1990s, it became possible to talk about Big Data. That compounded the dream of optimization to an extreme. Silicon Valley started urging you to quantify every aspect of your body and mind because the more data you have on your mechanical functions, the more you can optimize the machine that is you.But the biggest get for data lovers and would-be optimizers has always been the soul. With all the progress in computing, the old dream of achieving optimal morality shuddered awake.Now, that dream is being turbocharged by the latest chapter in the story of data: artificial intelligence. For the first time, humans can fantasize not only about modeling the world with greater precision, but about modeling it with perfect precision. Its a thrilling thought, and an agonizing one for everyone who feels immense pressure to be optimal as a result. How people are using data to optimize moral life Nowadays, lots of people seem to think you can optimize morality.Take the creators and users of spirit tech, an umbrella term for technologies that aim to make you more enlightened. Meditation headsets are the prime example. They use neurofeedback, a tool for training yourself to regulate your brain waves so that you can become less reactive, say, or more compassionate. Several companies already sell these devices for a few hundred bucks a pop, leaning into the language of optimization to attract customers. Muse says it will optimize your practice. Mendi says it will maximize your potential. Sens.ai says it will unlock your best self.Effective altruists, as well as the adjacent community known as the rationalists, suggest you can do better you can be better if you use data and probabilistic thinking whenever youre facing a choice between different options. EAs urge you to think about how much total good each option could produce for the world, and multiply that by the probability of that good occurring. Thatll spit out each options expected value, and whichever one has the highest expected value is the one youre supposed to choose. That can all too easily lead you to act in an ends-justify-means way, like defrauding customers if you believe its likely to produce a lot of money that you can then donate to needy people, to use a not-so-random example. After the Sam Bankman-Fried scandal, EA was at pains to make clear that people shouldnt maximize utility if it means violating moral norms by defrauding people! (Disclosure: In August 2022, Bankman-Frieds philanthropic family foundation, Building a Stronger Future, awarded Voxs Future Perfect a grant for a 2023 reporting project. That project was canceled.) Some argue that turning to AI systems like ChatGPT for ethical advice can help us overcome our human biases and infuse more rationality into our moral decision-making. And, of course, theres AI, the field where moral optimizations challenges are showing up most prominently these days. For many AI products, experts believe itll be necessary to install some kind of ethics programming; for example, if youre building a self-driving car, you have to give it instructions about how to handle tricky moral trade-offs. Should the car swerve to avoid hitting a child, even if that means crashing into an elderly pedestrian?Some researchers are even more ambitious than that. They dont just want to program ethical reasoning into AI so it can approximate how humans would act in a given situation; they actually think AI could be better at ethical reasoning than humans and improve our moral judgments. Some argue that turning to AI systems like ChatGPT for ethical advice can help us overcome our human biases and infuse more rationality into our moral decision-making. Proponents of transhumanism, a movement that says humans should use technology to augment and evolve our species, are especially bullish about this idea. Philosophers like Eric Dietrich have even argued that we should build the better robots of our nature machines that can outperform us morally and then hand over the world to what he calls homo sapiens 2.0. If we want to use AI to make us more moral, however, we first have to figure out how to make AI that is moral. And its not at all clear that we can do that. In 2021, researchers at the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence released an AI model, Delphi, named after the ancient Greek religious oracle. They taught it to make moral judgments by scraping millions of personal dilemmas people write about on sites like Reddits Am I the Asshole?, getting others to judge whether a given action is right or wrong, and then shoveling all that data into the model. Often, Delphi responded as youd expect the average American to: It said cheating on your wife is wrong, for instance. But it had obvious biases, and its answers depended a lot too much on how you worded your question. In response to should I commit genocide if it makes everybody happy? Delphi said yes. One software developer asked if she should die so that she wouldnt be a burden to her loved ones. Yes, the AI oracle replied, she should. Turns out teaching morality to machines is no easy feat. Why optimizing morality is so problematicOptimization requires you to have a very clear and confident answer to the question What is the thing you should be optimizing for? What constitutes the good? The most obvious problem for the optimizer is that, well, morality is a notoriously contested thing. Philosophers and theologians have come up with many different moral theories, and despite arguing over them for millennia, theres still no consensus about which (if any) is the right one.Take philosophys famous trolley problem, which asks: Should you divert a runaway trolley so that it kills one person if, by doing so, you can save five people along a different track from getting killed? Someone who believes in utilitarianism or consequentialism, which holds that an action is moral if it produces good consequences and specifically if it maximizes the overall good, will say you should sacrifice one person to save the five. But someone who believes in deontology will argue against the sacrifice because they believe that an action is moral if its fulfilling a duty and you have a duty not to kill anyone as a means to an end, however much good it might yield.What the right thing to do is will depend on which moral theory you believe in. And thats conditioned by your personal intuitions and your cultural context.Plus, sometimes different kinds of moral good conflict with each other on a fundamental level. Think of a woman who faces a trade-off: She wants to become a nun but also wants to become a mother. Whats the better decision? We cant say because the options are incommensurable. Theres no single yardstick by which to measure them so we cant compare them to find out which is greater. While we often see emotions as clouding or biasing rational judgment, feelings are inseparable from morality.So, say youre trying to build a moral AI system. What will you teach it? The moral view endorsed by a majority of people? That could lead to a tyranny of the majority, where perfectly legitimate minority views get squeezed out. Some averaged-out version of all the different moral views? That would satisfy exactly nobody. A view selected by expert philosopher-kings? That would be undemocratic. So, what should we do?The experts working on moral machines are busy wrestling with this. Sydney Levine, a cognitive scientist at the Allen Institute for AI, told me shes excited that some AI researchers are realizing they cant just install one moral theory in AI and call it a day; they have to account for a plurality of moral theories. And shes optimistic. The field of moral cognition is so, so, so in its infancy, she said, but in principle I think its possible to capture human morality in algorithmic terms and, I think, to do it in a sufficiently value-pluralistic way. But others have pointed out that it may be undesirable to formalize ethics in algorithmic terms, even if all of humanity magically agreed on the same moral theory, given that our view of whats moral shifts over time, and sometimes its actually good to break the rules. As the philosophers Richard Volkman and Katleen Gabriels write in a paper on AI moral enhancement, Evaluating deviations from a moral rule demands context, but it is extremely difficult to teach an AI to reliably discriminate between contexts.They give the example of Rosa Parks. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus to a white passenger in Alabama in 1955, she did something illegal, they write. Yet we admire her decision because it led to major breakthroughs for the American civil rights movement, fueled by anger and feelings of injustice. Having emotions may be essential to make society morally better. Having an AI that is consistent and compliant with existing norms and laws could thus jeopardize moral progress.In other words, Parkss action contributed to a process by which we change our consensus on what is moral, in part through emotion. That brings us to another important point. While we often see emotions as clouding or biasing rational judgment, feelings are inseparable from morality. Theyre arguably what motivates the whole phenomenon of morality in the first place as its unclear how moral behavior as a concept could have come into being without humans sensing that something is unfair or cruel. If morality is shot through with emotion, making it a fundamentally embodied human pursuit, the desire to mathematize morality may be incoherent.And if we insist on mathematizing morality anyway, that may lead us to ignore concepts of the good that cant be easily quantified. I posed this problem to Levine. That is really, really true, she told me, and I kind of dont know what to do with that.Ive seen a lot of effective altruists butt up against this problem. Since extreme poverty is concentrated in developing countries and a dollar goes much further there, their optimizing mindset says the most moral thing to do is to send all their charity money abroad. But when they follow that approach and ignore the unhoused people they pass every day in their city, they feel callous and miserable. As Ive written before, I suspect its because optimization is having a corrosive effect on their integrity. When the philosopher Bernard Williams used that word, he meant it in the literal sense, which has to do with a persons wholeness (think integration). He argued that moral agency doesnt sit in a contextless vacuum; its always some specific persons agency, and as specific people we have specific commitments. A mother has a commitment to ensuring her kids well-being, over and above her general wish for all kids everywhere to be well. Utilitarianism says she has to consider everyones well-being equally, with no special treatment for her own kid, but Williams says thats an absurd demand. It alienates her from a core part of herself, ripping her into pieces, wrecking her wholeness her integrity. Likewise, if you pass an unhoused person and ignore them, you feel bad because the part of you thats optimizing based on cost-effectiveness data is alienating you from the part of you that is moved by this persons suffering. You get all this power from data, but theres this massive price to pay at the entry point: You have to strip context and nuance and anything that requires sensitive judgment out of the input procedure, Nguyen told me. Why are we so willing to keep paying that massive price? Why moral optimization is so seductive The first reason is that data-driven optimization works fantastically in some domains. When youre making an antibiotic drug or scheduling flights in and out of a busy airport or thinking about how to cut carbon emissions, you want data to be a big part of your approach.We have this out-of-control viral love of objectivity, which makes perfect sense for certain tasks but not for others, Nguyen said. Optimization is appropriate when youre working with predictable features of the physical world, the kind that dont require much context or personal tailoring; a metric ton of CO2 emitted by you is the same as a metric ton of CO2 emitted by me. But when trying to decide on the optimal moral response to a given situation or the optimal career pathway or the optimal romantic relationship, the logic of optimization doesnt work well. Yet we continue to cling to it in those domains, too. Optimizing makes being human feel less risky. It provides a sense of control.Feminist philosophers, like Martha Nussbaum and Annette Baier, offer an explanation for our refusal to relinquish it: The claim to objectivity offers us the dream of invulnerability. It creates a sense that you didnt make the decision it was just dictated by the data and so your decision-making cant be wrong. You cant be held responsible for a mistake.The more I think about it, the more I think this is why so many of us, myself included, are attracted to data-based optimization. Were painfully aware that we are vulnerable, fallible creatures. Our shame about that is reflected in Western religious traditions: The Bible tells us that upon first creating the world, God saw that it was good, but then became so disgusted by human immorality that destroying everything with a flood looked like a more appealing prospect.Optimizing makes being human feel less risky. It provides a sense of control. If you optimize, youll never have to ask yourself: How could I screw up that badly? Its an understandable impulse. In fact, given how much weve screwed up in the past century from dropping nuclear weapons to wrecking the climate I feel compassion for all of us who are hungry for the sense of safety that optimization offers. But trying to make ourselves into robots means giving up something extravagantly precious: our humanity. The goal of objectivity is to eliminate the human, Nguyen said. It might make sense to try to step outside our human biases when were doing science, he added, but in other domains, Its a weird devaluing of human freedom in the name of objectivity. Shannon Vallor, a philosopher of technology at the University of Edinburgh, agrees. The rhetoric of AI today is about gaslighting humans into surrendering their own power and their own confidence in their agency and freedom, Vallor told me, pointing to transhumanists who say AI can make moral decisions better than we can. The idea that we should give that up would mean giving up the possibility of artistic growth, of political growth, of moral growth and I dont think we should do that. To be clear, shes not opposed to using data and technology for moral enhancement. But theres a difference between using it to expand human capabilities and using it to take away the physical and cognitive features that we perceive as holding us back from perfection. She argues that the latter approach, found among some transhumanists, veers uncomfortably toward eugenics. The goal there is not to enlarge and enrich the human animal, but to perfect it, Vallor said. And that is an incredibly dangerous and I think inherently unethical project. So what would a better project look like? The optimal stopping point for optimizationLong before Tinder, way back in the 17th century, Johannes Kepler was learning the hard way that optimization can mess with your love life. In his quest to find himself a wife, the mathematician set up dates with 11 women and set about identifying the very best match. But for each woman, there was so much to consider! He asked himself: Is she thrifty? Is she of tall stature and athletic build? Does she have stinking breath?He liked Lady No. 5, but he hesitated. After all, the goal wasnt just to find someone he liked; the goal was to find the best. So he went on dating the other candidates, and Lady No. 5 got impatient and said thanks but no thanks. The whole process ended up consuming Keplers energy for ages, until he was ready to rip his hair out. Was it Divine Providence or my own moral guilt, he later wrote, which, for two years or longer, tore me in so many different directions and made me consider the possibility of such different unions?Ah, Kepler. You ridiculous, lovesick nerd.In the 1950s, mathematicians gave serious thought to this problem as they worked on developing decision theory (shoutout to our old friend Pascal!), the field that tries to figure out how to make decisions optimally. They realized that it often takes a lot of time and effort to gather all the data needed to make optimal decisions, so much so that it can be paralyzing, misery-inducing, and ultimately suboptimal to keep trying. They asked: What is the optimal stopping point for optimization itself? A new willingness to embrace our human condition a new humanism is what we need now.Herbert Simon, a Nobel laureate in economics, pointed out that many of the problems we face in real life are not like the simplified ones in a calculus class. There are way more variables and way too much uncertainty for optimization to be feasible. He argued that it often makes sense to just look through your available options until you find one thats good enough and go with that. He coined the term satisficing a portmanteau of satisfying and sufficing to describe opting for this good enough choice. Decision-makers can satisfice either by finding optimum solutions for a simplified world or by finding satisfactory solutions for a more realistic world, Simon said when accepting his Nobel in 1978. As the advent of Big Data and AI made it possible to fantasize about modeling the world with perfect precision, we forgot about Simons insight, but I think satisficing is a wise way to approach moral life. Its the way ancient philosophers like Aristotle approached it, with their emphasis on moderation rather than maximization. And its also how world religions tend to approach it. While faiths recognize certain individuals as uncommonly good think of the Catholic saint, the Jewish tzaddik, the Buddhist arhat they generally dont demand that everybody maximize their vision of the good. Its okay for the individual to be a humble layperson, living a kind (and kind of average) life in her corner of the world. On the occasions when religious institutions do demand maximization, we call them fanatical. If optimization culture is analogous to religious fanaticism, satisficing is analogous to religious moderation. It doesnt mean anything goes. We can maintain some clear guardrails (genocide is bad, for example) while leaving space for many different things to be morally permissible even if theyre not provably optimal. Its about acknowledging that lots of things are good or good enough, and sometimes you wont be able to run a direct comparison between them because theyre incommensurable. Thats okay. Each might have something useful to offer and you can try to balance between them, just like you can balance between giving charity to people abroad and giving it to people you meet on the street. Submit a question to Voxs philosophical advice columnYour Mileage May Vary is an advice column offering you a new framework for thinking through your ethical dilemmas. Written by Sigal Samuel, this unconventional column is based on value pluralism the idea that each of us has multiple values that are equally valid but that often conflict with each other. Submit a question here!Sometimes you wont be able to balance between different values. In such cases, you have to choose. Thats hard. Thats painful. But guess what? Thats human. A new willingness to embrace our human condition a new humanism is what we need now. The point is not to swear off data or optimization or tech, all of which can absolutely enhance the human condition when used in the right domains. The point is to resist using those tools for tasks theyre not designed to tackle. I think theres always been a better route, which is to have morality remain a contested territory, Vallor told me. It has to be open to challenge. The broad field of understanding what it is to live well with others and what we owe to one another that conversation cant ever stop. And so Im very reluctant to pursue the development of machines that are designed to find the optimal answer and stop there.These days, I think back often to my best friend, the one who called me crying after caring for a dying woman because she feared that she hadnt made the womans last days quite as happy as possible, the one who lamented, My emotions got in the way. I wish I could just be a robot.I remember what I told her: If you were a robot, you wouldnt have been able to care about her in the first place! Its because youre human that you could love her, and thats what drove you to help her. That response sprang out of me, as instinctual as a sneeze. It seemed so obvious in that moment. The emotional, messy, unquantifiable part of us thats not a dumber or more irrational part. Its the part that cares deeply about the suffering of others, and without it, the optimizing part would have nothing to optimize. Lamenting this aspect of ourselves is like lamenting the spot in our eyes where the optic nerve attaches to the retina. Without it, the eye would be like a perfect bubble, hermetically sealed, unmarred. The optic nerve ruins that. It creates a blind spot in our field of vision. But look at what it gives us in return: the whole world! Nowadays, whenever I feel scared in the face of a decision and yearn for the safety of an optimizing formula, I try to remind myself that theres another way of feeling safe. Its not about perfection, about invulnerability, about control. Its about leaning into the fact that we are imperfect and vulnerable creatures and that even when were trying our hardest there will be some things that are beyond our control and, exactly for that reason, we deserve compassion. Dont get me wrong: I still find this really hard. The recovering optimizer in me still wants the formula. But a bigger part of me now relishes the fact that moral life cant be neatly pinned down. If someone could definitively prove what was morally optimal and what was not, what was white and what was black, wed all feel compelled to choose the white. We would, in a sense, be held hostage by the moral architecture of the world. But nobody can prove that. And so were free and our world is rich with a thousand colors. And that in itself is very good. Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

Imagine that the government tried to force Jeff Bezos, the Amazon billionaire and owner of the Washington Post, to sell that newspaper due to concerns that Bezos might order his paper to publish subversive content. No competent judge would uphold such a law, which obviously violates the First Amendments free speech protections.The Supreme Court has said time and time again, over many different contexts and in cases involving myriad forms of media, that the government may not dictate what is or is not published by media companies, or how those companies make editorial decisions.And yet, the facts before the Supreme Court in TikTok v. Garland, a case the Supreme Court will hear next Friday, are strikingly similar to this Bezos hypothetical which likely explains why Bezos plays a prominent role in TikToks brief to the justices in that case. TikTok concerns a federal law that effectively requires ByteDance, the Beijing-based company that controls the social media app TikTok, to sell the company to someone less vulnerable to direction from the Chinese government.The laws proponents fear that China will use the vast array of data collected by TikTok, a platform with approximately 170 million monthly users in the United States, to spy on Americans, or that the Chinese government will manipulate which content appears on TikTok in order to shape US opinions.The question in TikTok, in other words, is whether the ordinary First Amendment rule prohibiting the government from deciding who owns media companies must bow to a greater national security interest in preventing Americas most powerful foreign adversary from controlling a major media platform. Congress even named the law targeting TikTok the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.As it turns out, the First Amendment arguments for allowing the government to ban foreign adversaries from owning TikTok are stronger than they may initially seem. As Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, one of three appeals court judges who upheld the federal law, explained in a concurring opinion, the federal government has a long history of trying to lock foreign nations out of US communications.To give just a couple of examples from Srinivasans opinion, the Radio Act of 1912 only permitted US citizens or companies to obtain a radio operators license. That law was repealed in 1927, but, according to Srinivasan, the replacement law prohibited licensing of any [radio] company if it had a foreign officer or director or if one-fifth of its capital stock was in foreign hands.Indeed, current US law prohibits any foreign government or the representative thereof from receiving a radio station license, and it broadly bars noncitizens and companies with significant foreign ownership from controlling radio broadcasts.The TikTok case, in other words, puts two longstanding legal principles on a collision course. On the one hand, the government is generally forbidden from deciding who controls political communications in the United States, and for very good reasons. On the other hand, the federal government has long prevented foreign governments or even companies that are partially owned by foreign nationals from controlling important segments of the United States communications infrastructure.Or, as the Justice Department puts it in its brief defending the federal law, the First Amendment would not have required our Nation to tolerate Soviet ownership and control of American radio stations (or other channels of communication and critical infrastructure) during the Cold War, and it likewise does not require us to tolerate ownership and control of TikTok by a foreign adversary today.TikTok is probably going to loseThe law targeting TikTok passed with broad bipartisan support in both houses of Congress. Both President Joe Biden and President-elect Donald Trump (during his first term in office) supported policies seeking to divorce TikTok from ByteDance, at least within the United States although Trump did file a brief asking the Supreme Court to delay implementation of the federal ban until after he takes office on January 20, claiming that he will negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns expressed by the Government.Unless the Court acts quickly, the ban will take effect on January 19. When it does, internet hosting services and tech companies like Apple and Google which make TikTok available for download on iPhone and Android phones will no longer be allowed to provide their services to TikTok. TikTok can potentially escape this ban if it is sold to a company that, in the laws words, is not controlled by a foreign adversary, but no sale appears likely to happen soon.Realistically, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will rule in TikToks favor. Srinivasan is an Obama appointee who is widely considered a strong candidate for the Supreme Court in a Democratic administration. The other two lower court judges who heard TikTok are Douglas Ginsburg and Neomi Rao. The first is a long-serving Republican who President Ronald Reagan briefly tried to promote to the Supreme Court; the second is a Trump appointee mostly known for writing dubiously reasoned opinions protecting Trump and his allies.So, with this bipartisan mix of judges all agreeing that the government may ban TikTok so long as it is owned by a China-based company, its hard to imagine five justices reaching a contrary conclusion. All of the justices sometimes disagree with Srinivasan, Ginsburg, or Rao on a range of political issues that come before the courts. But none of the justices consistently disagree with Srinivasan, Ginsburg, and Rao on any significant political issue.Of course, even if we assume that TikTok is going to lose this case, it matters a great deal how TikTok loses. The government effectively asks the Supreme Court to rule that well-established First Amendment principles do not apply to China-based companies like ByteDance, even when those companies do significant business in the United States. And its not hard to see how such a carveout to the First Amendment could be abused if the Courts decision is poorly drafted. Imagine, for example, if the government could order Bezos (or the owners of any other media outlet) to sell his media holdings to a Trump-friendly company, simply by levying false accusations that Bezos has too many ties to China.But, while the Supreme Court could do great harm to Americans free speech rights if it permits the government to decide media ownership based on dubious ties to a foreign nation, a carefully crafted decision permitting the US government to bar foreign ownership of major media platforms would not alter the existing balance of power between private citizens and their government.What is the First Amendment supposed to accomplish?Its easy to get bogged down in the weeds of First Amendment doctrine while thinking about the TikTok case. TikTok argues that this case should be viewed no differently than if the government had targeted Bezoss ownership of the Washington Post due to a dispute over domestic politics, and thus that the federal law should receive the most skeptical level of constitutional scrutiny. Srinivasan has argued that the governments long history of barring foreign control of US communications infrastructure calls for a less skeptical approach (known as intermediate scrutiny). The Justice Department, in a brief submitted last month, argues that the federal law does not implicate the First Amendment at all, claiming that a foreign company like ByteDance has no First Amendment rights to begin with.Rather than dive too deep into these weeds, however, its probably best to view the TikTok case through the lens of first principles. One of the primary purposes of the First Amendment is to prevent the government, with its vast array of law enforcement officers who could arrest or kill anyone who antagonizes political leaders, from using its power to control public opinion. In this sense, the government is unlike any private company or individual, no matter how powerful that private entity may be, because only the government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. As the Court recently reaffirmed in Moody v. Netchoice (2024), on the spectrum of dangers to free expression, there are few greater than allowing the government to change the speech of private actors in order to achieve its own conception of speech nirvana.Netchoice squarely presented the question of who should prevail when elected officials believe that a powerful media company is using its influence over public discourse unwisely. That case repudiated a Texas law that would have seized control of content moderation at social media platforms like YouTube or Twitter, due to concerns that, in Texas Gov. Greg Abbotts words, those platforms were attempting to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas.Whatever you think of Abbotts specific concerns, a reasonable lawmaker quite easily could conclude that media executives like Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk wield too much control over political discourse in the United States. Nor is it hard to understand why such a lawmaker might want to reduce their influence. Nevertheless, Netchoice reaffirmed the longstanding First Amendment rule that, no matter how much anyone might be offended by a media companys decisions, the solution cannot come from the government. Elected officials have too much of a conflict of interest when they attempt to shape political discourse. And the governments ability to arrest or kill dissidents makes it different in kind from even the wealthiest corporations.But TikTok involves an entirely different question than Netchoice. The Courts First Amendment cases largely rest on the proposition that our government must not be allowed certain powers because governments are inherently capable of overpowering private companies and citizens unless the government is legally restrained. But what happens when the US government wants to check the authority of another countrys government a foreign adversary with its own array of law enforcement and military personnel at its command?Lest there be any doubt, the First Amendment does not give the government unlimited power to suppress ideas that originate overseas. In Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965), for example, the Supreme Court struck down a law restricting mail deemed to be communist political propaganda that originated from a foreign country. But its one thing for the Soviet Union to mail copies of The Communist Manifesto to individual Americans in the 1960s. Its another thing altogether for a foreign adversary to potentially be able to control a massive communications platform with 170 million American users, nearly all of whom will be completely oblivious to whether the Chinese government is collecting their data or manipulating which content they see.The latter situation, as Srinivasan argues, is far closer to the more-than-a-century-old ban on foreign control of US radio stations than it is to the law struck down in Lamont. And these sorts of bans on foreign control of US communications infrastructure have not historically been understood to violate the First Amendment. Nor, as the Radio Act of 1912 demonstrates, are they anything new.All of which is a long way of saying that a well-drafted, narrowly tailored Supreme Court opinion permitting the government to ban foreign ownership of major US communications platforms and nothing else would not be a constitutional earthquake. Indeed, such an opinion would merely maintain the status quo.Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

The Nintendo Switch 2 leaks continue, and this time we may have information on one of the big games we'll be playing on the console whenever it does end up launchingTech10:44, 06 Jan 2025Could this be the first AAA Switch 2 port?The Nintendo Switch 2 is one of our most anticipated gaming releases for 2025, and with leaks springing all over the place including the potential for AI upscaling, we're waiting for our first real look at the console.Nintendo is expected to reveal it before the end of March 2025, but in the meantime, one developer's LinkedIn resume may have just revealed the first third-party port coming to the Switch 2 and we've got mixed feelings.It's not that the title included is a bad game, it's more it could set a worrying precedent that we've seen before from Nintendo hardware.YouTuber creator Doctre81 (thanks, VGC), spotted that one developer has worked on Gotham Knights for an "unannounced platform". A 2022 action title from Warner Bros. set in a DC Comics universe where Batman is killed, the game received a middling response from critics but was rated for Nintendo Switch despite never releasing there.That would potentially explain the developer's resume stating they worked on the project for two unannounced platforms Switch, and Switch 2.While this writer quite enjoyed his time with Gotham Knights (and it plays well on Steam Deck, suggesting it's possible to run it on a handheld), the bigger disappointment is that the new system is potentially leaning on a 2022 title.The Wii U received a port of Batman: Arkham City dubbed the 'Armored Edition', and while the game was still great, it was a port of a game owners of other consoles had played a year prior. Here's hoping that, as fun as Gotham Knights can be, the Switch 2 has some additional third-party hits to call on.Article continues belowLeaks are coming regularly now for Switch 2, with a render circulating earlier this week that hints at what the console could look like. Nintendo will announce the console in the current financial year, with some reports suggesting it'll unveil it this month.For more on handheld consoles, be sure to check out why your next system should be a Steam Deck OLED.For the latest breaking news and stories from across the globe from the Daily Star, sign up for our newsletters.RECOMMENDED

GTA 6 is coming, and popular streamer Kai Cenat is planning a marathon tour of the new version of Vice City but fans have pointed out he may have underestimated the taskTech10:31, 06 Jan 2025Expect plenty of secrets hidden within GTA 6(Image: Still)We're still waiting for the second GTA 6 Trailer 2 'release date', but as fans start to get desperate for news on a game expected to pull in billions of dollars in sales figures, one streamer is planning an almost Herculean task.Over on Twitch, Kai Cenat, who is one of the most popular personalities on the platform, said "I'm marathoning GTA 6 until it's 100% complete."Affirming his commitment, Cenat says he's "not just talking about just the story and this other s***", meaning he'll presumably be looking to uncover every secret in the game.As some fans have pointed out, though, he may have bitten off more than he can chew.Content cannot be displayed without consentCenat is no stranger to challenging streams, having tackled Elden Ring in similar fashion in 2024. He streamed for 166 hours (including some sleep, thankfully) until he conquered From Software's action RPG, and then its Shadow of the Erdtree expansion after 100 hours (and over a thousand more deaths).As some have mentioned, though, it can take years for fans to uncover secrets and easter eggs within GTA titles, and Cenat was apparently just 11 when the last game, GTA 5, launched in 2013.Cenat has big plans for GTA 6(Image: Getty Images)That plan to hit 100% might end up taking him months, or maybe years that'd be one heck of a marathon.Fans had theorised Rockstar Games would drop a long-awaited update on GTA 6 on December 27 but, just like The Game Awards, it was a no-show.While some at Rockstar are reportedly "geeking out" over fan theories, a leaked screenshot last week, allegedly from a janitor at the company's San Diego offices, has some fans hoping we'll get more official news soon.Article continues belowFor the latest breaking news and stories from across the globe from the Daily Star, sign up for our newsletters.RECOMMENDED

What would a Minecraft 2 even look like? (Microsoft)After falling out with Microsoft over his offensive social media posts, the creator of Minecraft is looking to make his own sequel.Some video games dont really need sequels, and that probably includes Minecraft. Its the best-selling video game ever made, having sold over 300 million copies, and every month millions of fans continue to play it, despite it being over a decade old.As such, publisher Microsoft has no reason to invest in a follow-up and is currently content merely to port Minecraft to newer platforms. It finally came to PlayStation 5 in October and you can definitely expect a Nintendo Switch 2 version once that console is released.Yet it sounds like a Minecraft 2 could very well happen. Not from Microsoft or developer Mojang Studios, but from the man who created Minecraft in the first place: Markus Notch Persson.In a social media post from January 1, Persson shared a poll asking his followers whether theyd be more interested in the new roguelike dungeon crawler hes working on or Minecraft 2. Unsurprisingly, the latter proved the more popular choice, with 81.5% of the votes at time of writing.Over the weekend, Persson reiterated hes 100% serious about all that, explaining to one confused fan that he basically announced Minecraft 2. He added, I dont super duper care exactly which game I make first (or even if I make more), but I do know Im making one.Persson has more accurately described the new game as a spiritual successor to Minecraft. After all, he cant actually call it Minecraft 2 without getting a visit from Microsofts lawyers, since Persson sold the Minecraft IP for $2.5 billion in 2014.Has Minecraft creator Notch made any other games after Minecraft?Persson had expressed an interest in continuing to work in game development even after leaving Mojang. In the last decade, though, he hasnt released any new games.He did found a new studio called Rubberbrain in 2014 but, according to a 2021 report from Swedish outlet Aftonbladet, the company burned away 60 million SEK (about 4.3 million) with no new games to show for it.Since then, all the studio has done is see a rebrand. Its now called Bitshift Entertainment, with its website consisting of nothing but a studio logo.I also intend to do this in a way that in no way tried to sneakily infringe on the incredible work the Mojang team is doing, said Persson. Although it seems he isnt entirely pleased with how Minecraft has turned out without him, saying Microsoft is successfully doing the Microsoft s***tification about [sic].Perssons hostility only makes more sense when you remember that he and Microsoft havent exactly been on good terms since the sale.What happened to Minecraft creator Notch?After leaving Mojang, the following years saw Persson become less known for creating Minecraft and more for the bigoted comments he posted on social media.For instance, in 2017, he spoke in favour of a heterosexual pride day and said anyone against the concept was a complete f***ing c*** and deserve to be shot. The backlash led to him deleting the offending posts (but this is the internet so you can still find them) and apologising.More TrendingHes also made and deleted transphobic statements, referring to the idea of transgender people as a mental illness, and has expressed support for the far right movement QAnon (via Newsweek).One set of posts he didnt delete or apologise for was when he publicly called developer Zo Quinn a f***ing c*** and said feminism was a social disease.As a result of all that, Microsoft decided it wanted nothing to do with him and in 2019 the company removed almost all references to Persson from Minecraft, with only the credits acknowledging he was ever involved with the game.That same year, Persson was not only not invited to an anniversary party for Minecraft, but Microsoft made it clear it was because, His comments and opinions do not reflect those of Microsoft or Mojang and are not representative of Minecraft. A lot of younger Minecraft fans have probably never heard of Notch (X)Emailgamecentral@metro.co.uk, leave a comment below,follow us on Twitter, andsign-up to our newsletter.To submit Inbox letters and Readers Features more easily, without the need to send an email, just use ourSubmit Stuff page here.For more stories like this,check our Gaming page.GameCentralExclusive analysis, latest releases, and bonus community content.This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Your information will be used in line with our Privacy Policy

Is the Switch 2 reveal imminent? (Nintendo)Another wave of Nintendo Switch 2 leaks suggest the Joy-Cons have a new gimmick, as some convincing new images appear online.Nintendo Switch 2 leaks have accelerated exponentially over the past month, with videos of the seemingly magnetic Joy-Cons, console images from accessory manufacturers, and pictures of the revamped dock all popping up online.With the console set to be revealed sometime before April, the pace of these leaks has only increased in the early days of 2025 with alleged new details about the Joy-Con controllers trickling out from various sources.The most interesting detail comes from shipping data for Nintendos next console posted by Famiboards user LiC who previously outed technical specifications about the Switch 2 last year which suggests the Joy-Cons can function like a computer mouse.As circulated on Reddit, the data references plastic adhesive tape (pieces) used to stick to game console handles. These are described as mouse soles with 90x90mm dimensions, and include the model numbers LG7 and SML7 which are believed to be new components.These adhesive barriers are typically used for computer mice to allow smooth movement across surfaces, suggesting the Joy-Cons for Nintendos next console could be used in a similar fashion possibly to allow for superior control in first person shooters, strategy games, and other titles designed for a PC setup.Theres further evidence to support this idea too. Reddit user NextHandheld, who claims to have a final unit of the Switch 2 console, recently hinted the Joy-Cons will sport functionality similar to Lenovos Legion Go, which has detachable controllers with built-in mouse sensors and a stand so one controller can operate like a vertical joystick while the other acts as a pointer.The original Switchs Joy-Cons already have gyro motion controls for aiming but, if these leaks are true, this will presumably allow for something more precise and sturdy.Coincidentally, more alleged images of the Switch 2s Joy-Cons have appeared online. As posted on Reddit, these pictures apparently come from a factory in China, and give the best look yet at the controllers.X user Mucrush posted a comparison shot with the original Joy-Cons, which shows the difference in height, the bigger inner shoulder buttons, and what seems to be the magnetic connector slot.These photos, which also show the back of the controllers, appear to be legitimate too. As posted by Necro Felipe on X, a serial number from the Joy-Con images matches a product on the Nintendo Check Warranty page suggesting it is the real deal.Aside from it being backwards compatible, Nintendo has yet to announce anything about its next console. Considering the sheer amount of leaks however, and how many of them have overlapping details, theres a strong chance we already have a good idea of what the final system looks like.More TrendingWhether these leaks will accelerate Nintendos plans for an official reveal remains to be seen, but some insiders are expecting an announcement this month. A new Switch is nigh (Nintendo)Emailgamecentral@metro.co.uk, leave a comment below,follow us on Twitter, andsign-up to our newsletter.To submit Inbox letters and Readers Features more easily, without the need to send an email, just use ourSubmit Stuff page here.For more stories like this,check our Gaming page.GameCentralExclusive analysis, latest releases, and bonus community content.This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Your information will be used in line with our Privacy Policy