Lawyers, check your citations Mike Lindell’s lawyers used AI to write brief—judge finds nearly 30 mistakes Lindell brief has many defects including "cases that do not exist," judge says. Jon Brodkin – Apr 25, 2025 5:53 pm | 23 MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell speaks during the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on March 4, 2023, in National Harbor, Maryland. Credit: Getty Images | Alex Wong MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell speaks during the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on March 4, 2023, in National Harbor, Maryland. Credit: Getty Images | Alex Wong Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more A lawyer representing MyPillow and its CEO Mike Lindell in a defamation case admitted using artificial intelligence in a brief that has nearly 30 defective citations, including misquotes and citations to fictional cases, a federal judge said. "[T]he Court identified nearly thirty defective citations in the Opposition. These defects include but are not limited to misquotes of cited cases; misrepresentations of principles of law associated with cited cases, including discussions of legal principles that simply do not appear within such decisions; misstatements regarding whether case law originated from a binding authority such as the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; misattributions of case law to this District; and most egregiously, citation of cases that do not exist," US District Judge Nina Wang wrote in an order to show cause Wednesday. Wang ordered attorneys Christopher Kachouroff and Jennifer DeMaster to show cause as to why the court should not sanction the defendants, law firm, and individual attorneys. Kachouroff and DeMaster also have to explain why they should not be referred to disciplinary proceedings for violations of the rules of professional conduct. Kachouroff and DeMaster, who are defending Lindell against a lawsuit filed by former Dominion Voting Systems employee Eric Coomer, both signed the February 25 brief with the defective citations. Kachouroff, representing defendants as lead counsel, admitted using AI to write the brief at an April 21 hearing, the judge wrote. The case is in the US District Court for the District of Colorado. "Time and time again, when Mr. Kachouroff was asked for an explanation of why citations to legal authorities were inaccurate, he declined to offer any explanation, or suggested that it was a 'draft pleading,'" Wang wrote. "Not until this Court asked Mr. Kachouroff directly whether the Opposition was the product of generative artificial intelligence did Mr. Kachouroff admit that he did, in fact, use generative artificial intelligence." “Your honor, I may have made a mistake” Kachouroff admitted after further questioning that failed to check citations, but "represented that he personally outlined and wrote a draft of a brief before utilizing generative artificial intelligence," Wang wrote. "Given the pervasiveness of the errors in the legal authority provided to it, this Court treats this representation with skepticism." The judge's order quotes some of Kachouroff's responses at the hearing. When asked about one misquote, he said, "Your honor, I may have made a mistake and I may have paraphrased and put quotes by mistake. I wasn't intending to mislead the court. I don't think the quote is far off from what you read to me." The judge's order continued: When asked how a case from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky became attributable to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Mr. Kachouroff indicated that he "had given the cite checking to another person," later identified as Ms. DeMaster. When asked whether he would be surprised to find out that the citation Perkins v. Fed. Fruit & Produce Co., 945 F.3d 1242, 1251 (10th Cir. 2019) appearing on page 6 of Defendants' Opposition did not exist as an actual case, Mr. Kachouroff indicated that he would be surprised. The lawyers must explain themselves more fully by May 5. "Counsel will specifically address, under the oath subject to the penalty of perjury, the circumstances surrounding the preparation of the Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion in Limine, including but not limited to whether Defendants were advised and approved of their counsel's use of generative artificial intelligence," the order said. We contacted Kachouroff and DeMaster and will update this article if they respond. Kachouroff is with the law firm McSweeney Cynkar & Kachouroff in Virginia. DeMaster is an attorney in Wisconsin. Lawsuit against Lindell, MyPillow Coomer's lawsuit was filed against Lindell, the Lindell media company called FrankSpeech, and MyPillow. Lindell and his companies "have been among the most prolific vectors of baseless conspiracy theories claiming election fraud in the 2020 election," and Lindell falsely claimed that Coomer committed treason, the lawsuit said. Coomer is the former director of product strategy and security for Dominion. "Defendants have published these numerous false statements, defamatory interviews, and other dishonest content maligning Dr. Coomer on the website frankspeech.com often alongside a sales pitch for products from MyPillow," the lawsuit said. "In addition, Defendants further made claims against Dr. Coomer a centerpiece of a failed 'Cyber Symposium' that they organized and broadcast around the world." The February 25 brief that got Lindell's lawyers in trouble was an opposition to Coomer's motion asking the court to exclude certain evidence. Coomer's brief said "that Defendants will attempt to mislead and distract the jury with a smear campaign against Dr. Coomer based on completely or largely irrelevant attacks on his character instead of presenting proof that Dr. Coomer was involved in a criminal conspiracy to rig the 2020 presidential election. The Court should exercise its discretion to exclude the evidence set forth to avoid unfair character assassination and to ensure a fair trial on the merits." Coomer asked the court to exclude evidence related to a September 2021 motor vehicle accident, his sex life, alleged drug and alcohol use, religious beliefs, and political views. In their brief that apparently relies on incorrect and fictional citations, Lindell's lawyers argued that much of the evidence Coomer wants to exclude is relevant to his credibility, character, and reputation. Jon Brodkin Senior IT Reporter Jon Brodkin Senior IT Reporter 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. 23 Comments

All clear Weapons of war are launching from Cape Canaveral for the first time since 1988 Unlike a recent hypersonic missile test, officials didn't immediately confirm Friday's flight was a success. Stephen Clark – Apr 25, 2025 8:21 pm | 6 File photo of a previous launch of the Army's Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida, on December 12, 2024. Credit: Department of Defense File photo of a previous launch of the Army's Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida, on December 12, 2024. Credit: Department of Defense Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more The US military launched a long-range hypersonic missile Friday morning from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida on a test flight that, if successful, could pave the way for the weapon's operational deployment later this year. The Army's Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon fired out of a canister on a road-mobile trailer shortly after sunrise on Florida's Space Coast, then headed east over the Atlantic Ocean propelled by a solid-fueled rocket booster. Local residents shared images of the launch on social media. Designed for conventional munitions, the new missile is poised to become the first ground-based hypersonic weapon fielded by the US military. Russia has used hypersonic missiles in combat against Ukraine. China has "the world's leading hypersonic missile arsenal," according to a recent Pentagon report on Chinese military power. After a successful test flight from Cape Canaveral last year, the long-range hypersonic weapon (LRHW)—officially named "Dark Eagle" by the Army earlier this week—will give the United States the ability to strike targets with little or no warning. The Dark Eagle missile rapidly gained speed and altitude after launch Friday morning, then soon disappeared from the view of onlookers at Cape Canaveral. Warning notices advising pilots and mariners to steer clear of the test area indicated the missile and its hypersonic glide vehicle were supposed to splash down in the mid-Atlantic Ocean hundreds of miles north and northeast of Puerto Rico. Success not guaranteed A US defense official did not answer questions from Ars about the outcome of the test flight Friday. "A combined team of government, academic, and industry partners conducted a test on behalf of the Department of Defense from a test site at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station," the official said. "We are currently evaluating the results of the test." This missile launch and a similar one in December are the first tests of land-based offensive weapons at Cape Canaveral since 1988, when the military last tested Pershing ballistic missiles there. The launch range in Florida continues to support offshore tests of submarine-launched Trident missiles, and now is a center for hypersonic missile testing. The Pentagon has a long-standing policy of not publicizing hypersonic missile tests before they happen, except for safety notices for civilian airplanes and ships downrange. But the Defense Department declared the previous Dark Eagle test flight a success within a few hours of the launch, and did not do so this time. Hypersonic missiles offer several advantages over conventional ballistic missiles. These new kinds of weapons are more maneuverable and dimmer than other missiles, so they are more difficult for an aerial defense system to detect, track, and destroy. They are designed to evade an adversary's missile warning sensors. These sensors were originally activated to detect larger, brighter incoming ballistic missiles, which have a predictable trajectory toward their targets after boosting themselves out of the atmosphere and into space. A hypersonic weapon is different. It can skim through the upper atmosphere at blistering speeds, producing a much dimmer heat signature that is difficult to see with an infrared sensor on a conventional missile warning satellite. At these altitudes, the glide vehicle can take advantage of aerodynamic forces for maneuvers. This is why the Pentagon's Space Development Agency is spending billions of dollars to deploy a network of missile tracking satellites in low-Earth orbit, putting hundreds of sophisticated sensors closer to the flight path of hypersonic weapons. Dark Eagle is designed to fly at speeds exceeding Mach 5, or 3,800 mph, with a reported range of 1,725 miles (2,775 kilometers), sufficient to reach Taiwan from Guam, or NATO's borders with Russia from Western Europe. The US military says it has no plans to outfit its hypersonic weapons with nuclear warheads. In a statement on Thursday, the Department of Defense said the weapon's official name pays tribute to the eagle, known for its speed, stealth, and agility. Dark Eagle offers a similar mix of attributes: velocity, accuracy, maneuverability, survivability, and versatility, the Pentagon said. "The word 'dark' embodies the LRHW's ability to dis-integrate adversary capabilities," the statement said. "Hypersonic weapons will complicate adversaries' decision calculus, strengthening deterrence," said Patrick Mason, senior official performing the duties of the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics, and technology A US Army soldier lifts the hydraulic launching system on the new long-range hypersonic weapon (LRHW) during Operation Thunderbolt Strike at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida, on March 3, 2023. Credit: Spc. Chandler Coats, US Army Dark Eagle is the land-based component of the Pentagon's effort to field hypersonic missiles for combat. The Navy will use the same system on its ships to provide a sea-launched version of the hypersonic weapon called Conventional Prompt Strike, which will be placed on destroyers and submarines. The Army and Navy programs will use an identical two-stage missile, which will jettison after depleting its rocket motors, freeing a hypersonic glide vehicle to steer toward its target. The entire rocket and glide vehicle are collectively called an "All Up Round." "The use of a common hypersonic missile and joint test opportunities allow the services to pursue a more aggressive timeline for delivery and to realize cost savings," the Defense Department said in a statement. A long road to get here The Congressional Budget Office reported in 2023 that purchasing 300 intermediate-range hypersonic missiles would cost $41 million per missile. Dynetics, a subsidiary of the defense contractor Leidos, is responsible for developing the Common Hypersonic Glide Body for the Army's Dark Eagle and the Navy's Conventional Prompt Strike programs. Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor charged with integrating the entire weapon system. The military canceled an air-launched hypersonic weapon program in 2023 after it ran into problems during testing. The Pentagon said Army commanders will use Dark Eagle to "engage adversary high-payoff and time-sensitive targets." The hypersonic weapon could be used against an adversary's mobile missile forces if US officials determine they are preparing for launch, or it could strike well-defended targets out of reach of other weapons in the US arsenal. Once in the field, the missile's use will fall under the authority of US Strategic Command, with the direction of the president and the secretary of defense. Defense News, an industry trade publication, reported in February that the Army aimed to deliver the first Dark Eagle missiles to a combat unit before October 1, pending final decisions by the Pentagon's new leadership under the Trump administration. This illustration from the Government Accountability Office compares the trajectory of a ballistic missile with those of a hypersonic glide vehicle and a hypersonic cruise missile. Credit: GAO Dark Eagle suffered multiple test failures in 2021 and 2022, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service. Military crews aborted several attempts to launch the missile from Cape Canaveral in 2023 due to a problem with the weapon's launcher. The program achieved two successes last year with test flights from Hawaii and Florida. The December launch from Cape Canaveral was an important milestone. "This test builds on several flight tests in which the Common Hypersonic Glide Body achieved hypersonic speed at target distances and demonstrates that we can put this capability in the hands of the warfighter," said Christine Wormuth, then-secretary of the army, in a Pentagon statement announcing the result of the test flight. The Dark Eagle readiness tests build on more than a decade of experimental hypersonic flights by multiple US defense agencies. Hypersonic flight is an unforgiving environment, where the outer skin of glide vehicles must withstand temperatures of 3,000° Fahrenheit. It's impossible to re-create such an extreme environment through modeling or tests on the ground. While the Army and Navy hope to soon deploy the first US hypersonic missile for use in combat, the military continues pursuing more advanced hypersonic technology. In January, the Pentagon awarded a contract worth up to $1.45 billion to Kratos Defense & Security Solutions for the Multi-Service Advanced Capability Hypersonic Test Bed (MACH-TB) program. Kratos partners with other companies, like Leidos, Rocket Lab, Firefly Aerospace, and Stratolaunch, to test hypersonic technologies in their operating environment. The program aims for a rapid cadence of suborbital test flights, some of which have already launched with Rocket Lab's Electron rocket. With these experiments, engineers can see how individual components and technologies work in flight before using them on real weapons. The Biden administration requested $6.9 billion for the Pentagon's hypersonic research programs in fiscal year 2025, up from $4.7 billion in 2023. The Trump administration's budget request for fiscal year 2026 is scheduled for release next month. Stephen Clark Space Reporter Stephen Clark Space Reporter Stephen Clark is a space reporter at Ars Technica, covering private space companies and the world’s space agencies. Stephen writes about the nexus of technology, science, policy, and business on and off the planet. 6 Comments

moving Backward With over 900 US measles cases so far this year, things are looking bleak US hasn't seen this many cases this early in a year since the 1990s before we hit "elimination." Beth Mole – Apr 25, 2025 6:03 pm | 2 Measles rash on the body of the child. Credit: Getty | Povorozniuk Liudmyla Measles rash on the body of the child. Credit: Getty | Povorozniuk Liudmyla Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more As of Friday, April 25, the US has confirmed over 900 measles cases since the start of the year. The cases are across 29 states, but most are in or near Texas, where a massive outbreak continues to mushroom in close-knit, undervaccinated communities. On April 24, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had tallied 884 cases across the country. Today, the Texas health department updated its outbreak total, adding 22 cases to its last count from Tuesday. That brings the national total to at least 906 confirmed cases. Most of the cases are in unvaccinated children and teens. Overall, Texas has identified 664 cases since late January. Of those, 64 patients have been hospitalized, and two unvaccinated school-aged children with no underlying medical conditions have died of the disease. An unvaccinated adult in New Mexico also died from the infection, bringing this year's measles death toll to three. The cases and deaths are breaking records. In the past 30 years, the only year with more measles cases than the current tally was 2019, which saw 1,274 cases. Most of those cases were linked to large, extended outbreaks in New York City that took 11 months to quell. The US was just weeks away from losing its elimination status, an achievement earned in 2000 when the country first went 12 months without continuous transmission. Since 2019, vaccination coverage of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine among US kindergartners has only fallen. National rates fell from 95 percent in 2019—the threshold considered necessary to keep measles from spreading—to 92.7 percent in the 2023–24 school year, the most recent year for which there's data. On the brink In 2019, amid the record annual case tally, cases had only reached a total of 704 by April 26. With this year's tally already over 900, the country is on track to record a new high. Before 2019, the next highest case total for measles was in 1994. That year, the country saw 899 cases, which 2025 has already surpassed. In terms of deaths, the US last saw a measles fatality in 2015, when an immunocompromised adult died of the infection. The last time the country saw the death of a child was in 2003, when there were two deaths. The second death that year was a 75-year-old. Experts are understandably concerned that the US is at risk of losing its elimination status this year and that measles will once again circulate endemically in the country. In a modeling study published Thursday in JAMA, Stanford University researchers and colleagues concluded that measles "may be likely to return to endemic levels within the next 20 years, driven by states with routine vaccination coverage below historical levels and below the threshold needed to maintain elimination of transmission." If current vaccination levels are maintained, the model estimated that the US will see around 850,000 measles cases over the next 25 years, with about 170,000 hospitalizations and 2,500 deaths. If vaccination levels fall by 10 percent, estimated cases in the next 25 years would rise to 11 million. In a measles update published Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, agency researchers also warned that the US is heading backward to an era where measles is constantly present and spreading in the US. "[R]ecent increasing global measles incidence in areas frequently visited by US travelers, coupled with declines in MMR vaccination coverage in many U.S. jurisdictions to <95% ... and spread of measles from ongoing domestic outbreaks to other jurisdictions, have increased the risk for ongoing measles transmission within the United States," the researchers wrote. They called for more vaccination: "Increasing national and local MMR vaccination coverage is essential to preventing measles cases and outbreaks." Beth Mole Senior Health Reporter Beth Mole Senior Health Reporter Beth is Ars Technica’s Senior Health Reporter. Beth has a Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and attended the Science Communication program at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She specializes in covering infectious diseases, public health, and microbes. 2 Comments

The Dumb Home Google announces 1st and 2nd gen Nest Thermostats will lose support in October 2025 Affected units will work locally, but smart features will shut down in October. Ryan Whitwam – Apr 25, 2025 2:58 pm | 8 Credit: Google Credit: Google Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Google's oldest smart thermostats have an expiration date. The company has announced that the first and second generation Nest Learning Thermostats will lose support in October 2025, disabling most of the connected features. Google is offering some compensation for anyone still using these devices, but there's no Google upgrade for European users. Google is also discontinuing its only European model, and it's not planning to release another. Both affected North American thermostats predate Google's ownership of the company, which it acquired in 2014. Nest released the original Learning Thermostat to almost universal praise in 2011, with the sequel arriving a year later. Google's second-gen Euro unit launched in 2014. Since launch, all these devices have been getting regular software updates and have migrated across multiple app redesigns. However, all good things must come to an end. As Google points out, these products have had a long life, and they're not being rendered totally inoperable. Come October 25, 2025, these devices will no longer receive software updates or connect to Google's cloud services. That means you won't be able to control them from the Google Home app or via Assistant (or more likely Gemini by that point). The devices will still work as a regular dumb thermostat to control temperature, and scheduling will remain accessible from the thermostat's screen. If you have one of these units, Google will be reaching out via email with some deals to soften the blow. In the US, owners can get a $130 discount if they upgrade to the fourth-gen Nest, which was released just last year for $280. In Canada, the discount will be CA$160. Google is offering a discount on the fourth-gen Learning Thermostat for those still using the soon-to-be unsupported models. Credit: Ryan Whitwam Google is offering a discount on the fourth-gen Learning Thermostat for those still using the soon-to-be unsupported models. Credit: Ryan Whitwam The situation is a bit more frustrating for owners of the European thermostat—Google doesn't have any newer units to sell. Heating and cooling systems in Europe have various quirks that set them apart from North American systems, and consequently, it has been more than a decade since Nest released a smart thermostat adapted to the continent. And it never will again, the company confirms. The European seconnd-gen Nest Learning Thermostat will be the last from Google. For anyone in Europe deeply embedded in the Google ecosystem. Google recommends picking up a third-party unit that works with Google Home. In compensation for the inconvenience, owners of the old second-gen device can get a 50 percent discount on the Tado Smart Thermostat X, which works with Euro systems and Google Home. This move comes just weeks after Google confirmed it had discontinued the Nest Protect smoke and carbon monoxide alarm, as well as the Nest x Yale Lock. Google Nest isn't making a replacement, so Nest fans were directed to third-party First Alert and Yale devices that will work with Google Home. Google has been shedding jobs in the Platform and Devices division that includes Nest. With fewer workers, it's not surprising the team would look to drop support for its older products. And in fairness, these devices have lasted far beyond Google's measly five-year commitment. So you can't say they didn't warn you. Ryan Whitwam Senior Technology Reporter Ryan Whitwam Senior Technology Reporter Ryan Whitwam is a senior technology reporter at Ars Technica, covering the ways Google, AI, and mobile technology continue to change the world. Over his 20-year career, he's written for Android Police, ExtremeTech, Wirecutter, NY Times, and more. He has reviewed more phones than most people will ever own. You can follow him on Bluesky, where you will see photos of his dozens of mechanical keyboards. 8 Comments

it's not terrible “We’re in a race with China”—DOT eases autonomous car rules Domestic AVs can now get FMVSS exemptions for no rearview mirrors or steering wheels. Jonathan M. Gitlin – Apr 25, 2025 10:12 am | 64 Credit: Getty Images Credit: Getty Images Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more The US Department of Transportation issued revised rules for autonomous and partially automated vehicles on Thursday. Despite fears that the Trump administration would roll back safety regulations as it has for air and water standards, crashes involving autonomous or partially automated vehicles must still be reported to the government. And now, domestic autonomous vehicle developers will be able to benefit from exemptions previously only offered to foreign companies. "This administration understands that we're in a race with China to out-innovate, and the stakes couldn’t be higher," said US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy in a statement. "As part of DOT's innovation agenda, our new framework will slash red tape and move us closer to a single national standard that spurs innovation and prioritizes safety," Duffy said. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is keeping its Standing General Order, which requires manufacturers of autonomous or partially automated vehicles to report crashes that occur with such systems on public roads. Crashes using either autonomous driving systems or a partially automated system like GM's Super Cruise or Tesla's Autopilot must be reported within 10 days if anyone involved was killed or taken to hospital, if a vulnerable road user was hit, if the airbags deployed, or if the vehicle had to be towed away from the crash. For crashes where none of those conditions are satisfied, NHTSA has to be notified within 15 days if other conditions are met, including a property damage threshold, as well as if another vehicle was involved. NHTSA is also opening up exemptions for some federal motor vehicle safety standards for US-based manufacturers. "This exemption promotes innovative designs, such as prototype vehicles, through an iterative review process that considers the overall safety of the vehicle along with the purposes for which the exemption is requested," NHTSA wrote in a letter to the industry. So robotaxis without side-view mirrors or a steering wheel should now be easier to deploy on US streets. The news was welcomed by the automotive industry. "This technology works. It will help improve safety on the roads and increase mobility," said Alliance for Automotive Innovation President and CEO John Bozzella. "But the ability of AV developers, investors, automakers and consumers to reach their full potential has been hamstrung by government inaction. It’s time to move to the next phase of autonomous driving in America, and that requires—urgently requires—a regulatory framework and a pathway to finally and fully deploy AVs in the country." Hopefully there are still enough experts left at NHTSA to handle the paperwork. Earlier this month, dozens of people directly responsible for regulating autonomous vehicle safety were dismissed at the order of Elon Musk, who counts being CEO of Tesla—which is subject to numerous NHTSA safety investigations, many involving partially automated driving—among his many day jobs. Jonathan M. Gitlin Automotive Editor Jonathan M. Gitlin Automotive Editor Jonathan is the Automotive Editor at Ars Technica. He has a BSc and PhD in Pharmacology. In 2014 he decided to indulge his lifelong passion for the car by leaving the National Human Genome Research Institute and launching Ars Technica's automotive coverage. He lives in Washington, DC. 64 Comments

Silent Spring In the age of AI, we must protect human creativity as a natural resource Op-ed: As AI outputs flood the Internet, diverse human perspectives are our most valuable resource. Benj Edwards – Apr 25, 2025 7:00 am | 11 Credit: Kenny McCartney via Getty Images Credit: Kenny McCartney via Getty Images Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Ironically, our present AI age has shone a bright spotlight on the immense value of human creativity as breakthroughs in technology threaten to undermine it. As tech giants rush to build newer AI models, their web crawlers vacuum up creative content, and those same models spew floods of synthetic media, risking drowning out the human creative spark in an ocean of pablum. Given this trajectory, AI-generated content may soon exceed the entire corpus of historical human creative works, making the preservation of the human creative ecosystem not just an ethical concern but an urgent imperative. The alternative is nothing less than a gradual homogenization of our cultural landscape, where machine learning flattens the richness of human expression into a mediocre statistical average. A limited resource By ingesting billions of creations, chatbots learn to talk, and image synthesizers learn to draw. Along the way, the AI companies behind them treat our shared culture like an inexhaustible resource to be strip-mined, with little thought for the consequences. But human creativity isn't the product of an industrial process; it's inherently throttled precisely because we are finite biological beings who draw inspiration from real lived experiences while balancing creativity with the necessities of life—sleep, emotional recovery, and limited lifespans. Creativity comes from making connections, and it takes energy, time, and insight for those connections to be meaningful. Until recently, a human brain was a prerequisite for making those kinds of connections, and there's a reason why that is valuable. Every human brain isn't just a store of data—it's a knowledge engine that thinks in a unique way, creating novel combinations of ideas. Instead of having one "connection machine" (an AI model) duplicated a million times, we have seven billion neural networks, each with a unique perspective. Relying on the diversity of thought derived from human cognition helps us escape the monolithic thinking that may emerge if everyone were to draw from the same AI-generated sources. Today, the AI industry's business models unintentionally echo the ways in which early industrialists approached forests and fisheries—as free inputs to exploit without considering ecological limits. Just as pollution from early factories unexpectedly damaged the environment, AI systems risk polluting the digital environment by flooding the Internet with synthetic content. Like a forest that needs careful management to thrive or a fishery vulnerable to collapse from overexploitation, the creative ecosystem can be degraded even if the potential for imagination remains. Depleting our creative diversity may become one of the hidden costs of AI, but that diversity is worth preserving. If we let AI systems deplete or pollute the human outputs they depend on, what happens to AI models—and ultimately to human society—over the long term? AI’s creative debt Every AI chatbot or image generator exists only because of human works, and many traditional artists argue strongly against current AI training approaches, labeling them plagiarism. Tech companies tend to disagree, although their positions vary. For example, in 2023, imaging giant Adobe took an unusual step by training its Firefly AI models solely on licensed stock photos and public domain works, demonstrating that alternative approaches are possible. Adobe's licensing model offers a contrast to companies like OpenAI, which rely heavily on scraping vast amounts of Internet content without always distinguishing between licensed and unlicensed works. Credit: drcooke via Getty Images OpenAI has argued that this type of scraping constitutes "fair use" and effectively claims that competitive AI models at current performance levels cannot be developed without relying on unlicensed training data, despite Adobe's alternative approach. The "fair use" argument often hinges on the legal concept of "transformative use," the idea that using works for a fundamentally different purpose from creative expression—such as identifying patterns for AI—does not violate copyright. Generative AI proponents often argue that their approach is how human artists learn from the world around them. Meanwhile, artists are expressing growing concern about losing their livelihoods as corporations turn to cheap, instantaneously generated AI content. They also call for clear boundaries and consent-driven models rather than allowing developers to extract value from their creations without acknowledgment or remuneration. Copyright as crop rotation This tension between artists and AI reveals a deeper ecological perspective on creativity itself. Copyright's time-limited nature was designed as a form of resource management, like crop rotation or regulated fishing seasons that allow for regeneration. Copyright expiration isn't a bug; its designers hoped it would ensure a steady replenishment of the public domain, feeding the ecosystem from which future creativity springs. On the other hand, purely AI-generated outputs cannot be copyrighted in the US, potentially brewing an unprecedented explosion in public domain content, although it's content that contains smoothed-over imitations of human perspectives. Treating human-generated content solely as raw material for AI training disrupts this ecological balance between "artist as consumer of creative ideas" and "artist as producer." Repeated legislative extensions of copyright terms have already significantly delayed the replenishment cycle, keeping works out of the public domain for much longer than originally envisioned. Now, AI's wholesale extraction approach further threatens this delicate balance. The resource under strain Our creative ecosystem is already showing measurable strain from AI's impact, from tangible present-day infrastructure burdens to concerning future possibilities. Aggressive AI crawlers already effectively function as denial-of-service attacks on certain sites, with Cloudflare documenting GPTBot's immediate impact on traffic patterns. Wikimedia's experience provides clear evidence of current costs: AI crawlers caused a documented 50 percent bandwidth surge, forcing the nonprofit to divert limited resources to defensive measures rather than to its core mission of knowledge sharing. As Wikimedia says, "Our content is free, our infrastructure is not.” Many of these crawlers demonstrably ignore established technical boundaries like robots.txt files. Beyond infrastructure strain, our information environment also shows signs of degradation. Google has publicly acknowledged rising volumes of "spammy, low-quality," often auto-generated content appearing in search results. A Wired investigation found concrete examples of AI-generated plagiarism sometimes outranking original reporting in search results. This kind of digital pollution led Ross Anderson of Cambridge University to compare it to filling oceans with plastic—it’s a contamination of our shared information spaces. Looking to the future, more risks may emerge. Ted Chiang's comparison of LLMs to lossy JPEGs offers a framework for understanding potential problems, as each AI generation summarizes web information into an increasingly "blurry" facsimile of human knowledge. The logical extension of this process—what some researchers term "model collapse"—presents a risk of degradation in our collective knowledge ecosystem if models are trained indiscriminately on their own outputs. (However, this differs from carefully designed synthetic data that can actually improve model efficiency.) This downward spiral of AI pollution may soon resemble a classic "tragedy of the commons," in which organizations act from self-interest at the expense of shared resources. If AI developers continue extracting data without limits or meaningful contributions, the shared resource of human creativity could eventually degrade for everyone. Protecting the human spark While AI models that simulate creativity in writing, coding, images, audio, or video can achieve remarkable imitations of human works, this sophisticated mimicry currently lacks the full depth of the human experience. For example, AI models lack a body that endures the pain and travails of human life. They don't grow over the course of a human lifespan in real time. When an AI-generated output happens to connect with us emotionally, it often does so by imitating patterns learned from a human artist who has actually lived that pain or joy. Credit: Thana Prasongsin via Getty Images Even if future AI systems develop more sophisticated simulations of emotional states or embodied experiences, they would still fundamentally differ from human creativity, which emerges organically from lived biological experience, cultural context, and social interaction. That's because the world constantly changes. New types of human experience emerge. If an ethically trained AI model is to remain useful, researchers must train it on recent human experiences, such as viral trends, evolving slang, and cultural shifts. Current AI solutions, like retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), address this challenge somewhat by retrieving up-to-date, external information to supplement their static training data. Yet even RAG methods depend heavily on validated, high-quality human-generated content—the very kind of data at risk if our digital environment becomes overwhelmed with low-quality AI-produced output. This need for high-quality, human-generated data is a major reason why companies like OpenAI have pursued media deals (including a deal signed with Ars Technica parent Condé Nast last August). Yet paradoxically, the same models fed on valuable human data often produce the low-quality spam and slop that floods public areas of the Internet, degrading the very ecosystem they rely on. AI as creative support When used carelessly or excessively, generative AI is a threat to the creative ecosystem, but we can't wholly discount the tech as a tool in a human creative's arsenal. The history of art is full of technological changes (new pigments, brushes, typewriters, word processors) that transform the nature of artistic production while augmenting human creativity. Bear with me because there's a great deal of nuance here that is easy to miss among today's more impassioned reactions to people using AI as a blunt instrument of creating mediocrity. While many artists rightfully worry about AI's extractive tendencies, research published in Harvard Business Review indicates that AI tools can potentially amplify rather than merely extract creative capacity, suggesting that a symbiotic relationship is possible under the right conditions. Inherent in this argument is that the responsible use of AI is reflected in the skill of the user. You can use a paintbrush to paint a wall or paint the Mona Lisa. Similarly, generative AI can mindlessly fill a canvas with slop, or a human can utilize it to express their own ideas. Machine learning tools (such as those in Adobe Photoshop) already help human creatives prototype concepts faster, iterate on variations they wouldn't have considered, or handle some repetitive production tasks like object removal or audio transcription, freeing humans to focus on conceptual direction and emotional resonance. These potential positives, however, don't negate the need for responsible stewardship and respecting human creativity as a precious resource. Cultivating the future So what might a sustainable ecosystem for human creativity actually involve? Legal and economic approaches will likely be key. Governments could legislate that AI training must be opt-in, or at the very least, provide a collective opt-out registry (as the EU's “AI Act” does). Other potential mechanisms include robust licensing or royalty systems, such as creating a royalty clearinghouse (like the music industry's BMI or ASCAP) for efficient licensing and fair compensation. Those fees could help compensate human creatives and encourage them to keep creating well into the future. Deeper shifts may involve cultural values and governance. Inspired by models like Japan's "Living National Treasures"—where the government funds artisans to preserve vital skills and support their work. Could we establish programs that similarly support human creators while also designating certain works or practices as "creative reserves," funding the further creation of certain creative works even if the economic market for them dries up? Or a more radical shift might involve an "AI commons"—legally declaring that any AI model trained on publicly scraped data should be owned collectively as a shared public domain, ensuring that its benefits flow back to society and don’t just enrich corporations. Credit: Tom Werner via Getty Images Meanwhile, Internet platforms have already been experimenting with technical defenses against industrial-scale AI demands. Examples include proof-of-work challenges, slowdown "tarpits" (e.g., Nepenthes), shared crawler blocklists ("ai.robots.txt"), commercial tools (Cloudflare's AI Labyrinth), and Wikimedia's "WE5: Responsible Use of Infrastructure" initiative. These solutions aren't perfect, and implementing any of them would require overcoming significant practical hurdles. Strict regulations might slow beneficial AI development; opt-out systems burden creators, while opt-in models can be complex to track. Meanwhile, tech defenses often invite arms races. Finding a sustainable, equitable balance remains the core challenge. The issue won't be solved in a day. Invest in people While navigating these complex systemic challenges will take time and collective effort, there is a surprisingly direct strategy that organizations can adopt now: investing in people. Don't sacrifice human connection and insight to save money with mediocre AI outputs. Organizations that cultivate unique human perspectives and integrate them with thoughtful AI augmentation will likely outperform those that pursue cost-cutting through wholesale creative automation. Investing in people acknowledges that while AI can generate content at scale, the distinctiveness of human insight, experience, and connection remains priceless. Benj Edwards Senior AI Reporter Benj Edwards Senior AI Reporter Benj Edwards is Ars Technica's Senior AI Reporter and founder of the site's dedicated AI beat in 2022. He's also a tech historian with almost two decades of experience. In his free time, he writes and records music, collects vintage computers, and enjoys nature. He lives in Raleigh, NC. 11 Comments

"Hard to reconcile" Trump orders Ed Dept to make AI a national priority while plotting agency’s death States could mess with Trump’s AI education plan if the Education Department dies. Ashley Belanger – Apr 24, 2025 4:56 pm | 31 Credit: breakermaximus | iStock / Getty Images Plus Credit: breakermaximus | iStock / Getty Images Plus Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Donald Trump's executive order requiring artificial intelligence training in education as a national priority has been met with enthusiasm and confusion. On the one hand, his plans to promote early AI training in K–12 schools appear to be "critical," as Trump says, to "maintain America’s global dominance in this technological revolution for future generations." To that end, the order established an AI Presidential Challenge to highlight significant student and educator achievements and encourage innovative thinking. "It is the policy of the United States to promote AI literacy and proficiency among Americans by promoting the appropriate integration of AI into education, providing comprehensive AI training for educators, and fostering early exposure to AI concepts and technology to develop an AI-ready workforce and the next generation of American AI innovators," Trump's order said. But on the other hand, Trump's plan depends on staffing and funding after several rounds of severe cuts in agencies he hopes will somehow find existing funding for his initiative. His plan also hinges on the existence of the Department of Education, which Trump is simultaneously seeking to eliminate. Only about half the staff are left at the DOE, EdWeek reported. John Bailey, a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former director of the Office of Educational Technology under George W. Bush, told EdWeek that "it’s hard to kind of understand at a time when they’re deprioritizing federal education policy and priorities, how to reconcile that with establishing a national priority in this area." But possibly, he suggested, a sleeker department could streamline adoption of AI initiatives. However, perhaps critically, EdWeek pointed out, Trump recently cut "the team at the Education Department that was tasked with framing a national educational technology plan under multiple administrations and assisting states and districts in implementing technology in schools." Trump pushes for industry involvement It seems clear that Trump's executive order was a reaction to China's announcement about AI education reforms last week, as Reuters reported. Elsewhere, Singapore and Estonia have laid out their AI education initiatives, Forbes reported, indicating that AI education is increasingly considered critical to any nation's success. Trump's vision for the US requires training teachers and students about what AI is and what it can do. He offers no new appropriations to fund the initiative; instead, he directs a new AI Education Task Force to find existing funding to cover both research into how to implement AI in education and the resources needed to deliver on the executive order's promises. Although AI advocates applauded Trump's initiative, the executive order's vagueness makes it uncertain how AI education tools will be assessed as Trump pushes for AI to be integrated into "all subject areas." Possibly using AI in certain educational contexts could disrupt learning by confabulating misinformation, a concern that the Biden administration had in its more cautious approach to AI education initiatives. Trump also seems to push for much more private sector involvement than Biden did. The order recommended that education institutions collaborate with industry partners and other organizations to "collaboratively develop online resources focused on teaching K–12 students foundational AI literacy and critical thinking skills." These partnerships will be announced on a "rolling basis," the order said. It also pushed students and teachers to partner with industry for the Presidential AI Challenge to foster collaboration. For Trump's AI education plan to work, he will seemingly need the DOE to stay intact. However, so far, Trump has not acknowledged this tension. In March, he ordered the DOE to dissolve, with power returned to states to ensure "the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely." Were that to happen, at least 27 states and Puerto Rico—which EdWeek reported have already laid out their own AI education guidelines—might push back, using their power to control federal education funding to pursue their own AI education priorities and potentially messing with Trump's plan. Ashley Belanger Senior Policy Reporter Ashley Belanger Senior Policy Reporter 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. 31 Comments

Comcast's got problems Comcast president bemoans broadband customer losses: “We are not winning” Exec says lack of "price transparency and predictability" drove customers away. Jon Brodkin – Apr 24, 2025 5:08 pm | 61 Credit: Getty Images | Cheng Xin Credit: Getty Images | Cheng Xin Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Comcast executives apparently realized something that customers have known and complained about for years: The Internet provider's prices aren't transparent enough and rise too frequently. This might not have mattered much to cable executives as long as the total number of subscribers met their targets. But after reporting a net loss of 183,000 residential broadband customers in Q1 2025, Comcast President Mike Cavanagh said the company isn't "winning in the marketplace" during an earnings call today. The Q1 2025 customer loss was over three times larger than the net loss in Q1 2024. While customers often have few viable options for broadband and the availability of alternatives varies widely by location, Comcast faces competition from fiber and fixed wireless ISPs. "In this intensely competitive environment, we are not winning in the marketplace in a way that is commensurate with the strength of the network and connectivity products that I just described," Cavanagh said. "[Cable division CEO] Dave [Watson] and his team have worked hard to understand the reasons for this disconnect and have identified two primary causes. One is price transparency and predictability and the other is the level of ease of doing business with us. The good news is that both are fixable and we are already underway with execution plans to address these challenges." The 183,000-subscriber loss lowered Comcast's residential Internet subscribers to 29.19 million. Comcast also reported a first-quarter drop of 17,000 business broadband subscribers, lowering that category's total to 2.45 million. Comcast's stock price fell 3.7 percent today even though its overall profit beat analyst expectations and domestic broadband revenue rose 1.7 percent year over year to $6.56 billion—a sign that Comcast is extracting more money from customers on average. "Analysts peppered Comcast executives with questions on Thursday regarding its Xfinity-branded broadband and mobile, and how the company will pivot the business," CNBC wrote. “We are simplifying our pricing” Cavanagh said that Comcast plans to make changes in marketing and operations "with the highest urgency." This means that "we are simplifying our pricing construct to make our price-to-value proposition clearer to consumers across all broadband segments," he said. Comcast last week announced a five-year price guarantee for broadband customers who sign up for a new package. Comcast said customers will get a "simple monthly price starting as low as $55 per month," without having to enter a contract, giving them "freedom and flexibility to cancel at any time without penalty." The five-year guarantee also comes with one year of Xfinity Mobile at no charge, Comcast said. The price guarantee is for new residential broadband customers only. The fine print notes that taxes and fees are extra and "subject to change" during the five-year period. A CNET article said the prices for plans with a five-year lock range from $55 to $105, which is higher than the 12-month promotional prices for the same plans. But the price rises significantly after the promotional period, so the five-year lock should be a better deal in the long term. Additional offers are in the works, Cavanagh said. "We are not done. Providing more value to our customers with less complexity and friction is a top priority and you will see our go-to-market approach continue to evolve over the coming months," he said. Comcast investors shouldn't expect an immediate turnaround, though. "We anticipate that it will take several quarters for our new approach to gain traction and impact the business in a meaningful way," Cavanagh said. Mobile rises, video falls Many Comcast customer complaints center on unexpected price increases. Comcast's FAQ on price changes advises customers facing price increases that their bills rose because Comcast needs to invest in network upgrades, and that even promotional prices can rise because of changes to fees that are in addition to the base price. Comcast is also focused on growing the number of subscribers in its mobile business, Cavanagh said. Comcast added 323,000 mobile lines in the first quarter, raising its total to 8.15 million. Comcast offers wireless connectivity through the Verizon network and markets mobile service in bundles with home Internet. Comcast lost 427,000 video customers in the first quarter, dropping the total to 12.1 million and continuing a long downward trend. While Comcast seems more focused on reversing the broadband customer losses, the lack of pricing transparency can be even more frustrating for Comcast's cable TV users. Comcast and other TV providers have for many years tacked on Broadcast TV and Regional Sports Network fees that make a customer's bill much higher than the advertised price. The Federal Communications Commission voted last year to require cable and satellite TV companies to start advertising "all-in" prices instead of using hidden fees to conceal the full cost of video service. But that rule could be put on the chopping block as the new FCC leadership plans to eliminate many regulations, and the cable lobby identified the rule as one that should be axed. Jon Brodkin Senior IT Reporter Jon Brodkin Senior IT Reporter 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. 61 Comments

time to put up or shut up, internet A $20,000 electric truck with manual windows and no screens? Meet Slate Auto. Owners can buy kits to add accessories and features to the Slate Truck. Abigail Bassett – Apr 24, 2025 10:20 pm | 23 Slate Auto is a new American EV startup. Credit: Slate Auto Slate Auto is a new American EV startup. Credit: Slate Auto Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more In one of the strangest launches we’ve seen in a while, Slate Auto, the reportedly Jeff Bezos-backed electric vehicle startup, unveiled its first EV, the Slate Truck. Notably, the vehicle is capable of a claimed 150 miles (241 km) of range at a starting price of less than $20,000, assuming federal clean vehicle tax credits continue to exist. Slate caused a lot of social media froth when it parked a pair of styling concepts (not functional vehicles) in Venice, California, advertising bizarre fake businesses. Today, the company unveiled the vehicle to the press at an event near the Long Beach Airport. You wanted a bare-bones EV? Here it is. The Blank Slate, as the company calls it, is "all about accessible personalization" and includes a "flat-pack accessory SUV Kit" that turns the truck from a pickup into a five-seat SUV and another that turns it into an "open air" truck. The aim, according to a spokesperson for Slate Auto, is to make the new vehicle repairable and customizable while adhering to safety and crash standards. If you've ever said you'd buy a bare-bones truck with no infotainment and manual windows if only they'd build one, it's time to get out your wallet. Credit: Slate Auto The truck will come with a choice of two battery packs: a 57.2 kWh battery pack with rear-wheel drive and a target range of 150 miles and an 84.3 kWh battery pack with a target of 240 miles (386 km). The truck has a NACS charging port and will charge to 80 percent in under 30 minutes, peaking at 120 kW, we're told. The wheels are modest 17-inch steelies, and the truck is no speed demon—zero to 60 mph (0–97 km/h) will take 8 seconds thanks to the 201 hp (150 kW), 195 lb-ft (264 Nm) motor, and it tops out at 90 mph (145 km/h). Because the truck will be built in just a single configuration from the factory, Slate Auto will offer body wraps instead of different paint colors. Rather than relying on a built-in infotainment system, you'll use your phone plugged into a USB outlet or a dedicated tablet inside the cabin for your entertainment and navigation needs. The Slate Truck will also aim for a 5-star crash rating, according to a company spokesperson, and will feature active emergency braking, forward collision warning, and as many as eight airbags. It sounds good on paper (and it looks good in person), but the spec sheet is littered with things that give us pause from a production and safety standpoint. They present hurdles the startup will have to surmount before these trucks start landing in people’s driveways. Legally, there has to be some way to show a backup camera feed in here, but you could do that in the rearview mirror. Credit: Slate Auto For example, the truck has manual crank windows, steel wheels, HVAC knobs, and an optional do-it-yourself "flat-pack accessory SUV kit." All of these low-tech features are quite cool, and they're available on other vehicles like the Bronco and the Jeep, but there are a number of supplier, tariff, and safety hurdles they present for an upstart company. There is plenty of Kool-Aid for the automotive press to get drunk on—and if this truck becomes a real thing, we’ll be fully on board—but we have a lot of questions. Can Slate really build an EV that cheap? First, there's the price. The myth of the sub-$25,000 electric vehicle has been around for more than 10 years now, thanks to Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s perpetual promise of an affordable EV. That vehicle may never exist due to the cost of the current battery and manufacturing technology that we use to make modern EVs. While much of that cost is tied up in the battery, prices have improved as components have come down in price. That combination has led companies like Rivian and Scout to promise SUVs that could start at around $40,000, which is much more attainable for the average buyer. But $40,000 is still wide of that $25,000 marker. Slate Auto Slate Auto A flat-pack kit converts the truck into an SUV. Slate Auto A flat-pack kit converts the truck into an SUV. Slate Auto Slate Auto A flat-pack kit converts the truck into an SUV. Slate Auto There’s also the issue of federal incentives. Without the full clean vehicle tax credit, the new Slate Truck will actually cost at least $27,500 before tax, title, and so on. Bezos’ team seems to be betting that Trump won't get rid of the incentives, despite abundant signals that he intends to do just that. "Whether or not the incentive goes away, our truck will be a high-value, desirable vehicle," a spokesperson for Slate Auto told Ars. Then there are the retro and basic components Slate Auto says it will use for the truck, many of which are made in China and are thus subject to the Trump tariffs. Even though the company says it will manufacture the vehicles in the US, that doesn’t mean that the components (battery, motors, steel wheels, window cranks, and HVAC knobs) will be made stateside. If the tariffs stick, that sub $30,000 vehicle will become measurably more expensive. For example, the last automaker to use manual crank windows was Jeep in the JL Wrangler, and as of 2025, the company no longer offers them as an option. Ford also recently phased out hand-wound windows from its Super Duty trucks. That’s because electric switches are cheaper and readily available from suppliers—who are mostly located in China—and because automakers that offer manual and powered windows had to have two different door assembly lines to accommodate the different tech. That made building both options more expensive. Power windows are also somewhat safer for families with younger children in the backseat, as parents can lock the roll-down feature. It's an ambitious idea, and we hope it works. Credit: Slate Auto Slate Auto’s spokesperson declined to talk about partners or suppliers but did say the company will manufacture its new truck in a "reindustrialized" factory in the Midwest. A quick look at the plethora of job listings at SlateAuto on LinkedIn shows that that factory will be in Troy, Michigan, where there are around 40 jobs listed, including body closure engineers (for the flat-pack kit), prototype engineers, seating buyers/engineers, controls and automation engineers, a head of powertrain and propulsion, wheels and suspension engineers, plant managers, and more. Those are all very pivotal, high-level positions that Slate will need to fill immediately to bring this vehicle to market on the timeline it has set. Slate Auto also hasn’t said how it will ensure that these DIY vehicle add-ons will be certified to be safe on the road without the company taking on the liability. It will likely work the way Jeep and Bronco handle their accessories, but both Stellantis and Ford have robust service networks they can count on, with dealerships around the country able to help owners who get into a pickle trying to install accessories. Slate doesn't have that, at least at the moment. Slate’s SUV kit, for example, will include a roll cage, rear seat, and airbags. It will be interesting to see how the company ensures the airbags are installed safely—if it allows DIY-ers to do it. Will young people actually want it? Finally, there's the biggest question: Will younger generations actually plunk down $20,000 or more to own a Slate vehicle that won't go into production until the fourth quarter of 2026—more than a year and a half out—especially in the face of the economic upheaval and global uncertainty that has taken hold under the second Trump administration? Tesla, Rivian, and Lucid have all been at the mercy of their suppliers, sinking deadlines and making prices rise. How will Slate Auto avoid that trap? Credit: Slate Auto Data shows that while some young people have started to opt for devices like dumbphones and may prefer the novelty of no tech, they may also prefer to rent a car or rideshare instead of owning a vehicle. Given Slate Auto’s Bezos backing, I’d imagine that the company would be willing to, say, rent out a Slate Truck for a weekend and charge you a subscription fee for its use. It’s also conceivable that these could become fleet vehicles for Amazon and other companies. Slate Auto says it will sell directly to consumers (which will anger dealers) and offer a nationwide service network. A spokesperson at Slate Auto declined to give more details about how that might all work but said the company will have more to announce about partners who will enable service and installation in the future. Even with all the unanswered questions, it's good to see a company making a real effort to build a truly affordable electric vehicle with funky retro styling. There are a number of things Slate Auto will have to address moving forward, but if the company can deliver a consumer vehicle under that magic $25,000 marker, we’ll be roundly impressed. 23 Comments

Adding up Reusable rockets are here, so why is NASA paying more to launch stuff to space? Something appears to be broken in how NASA procures launch services. Stephen Clark – Apr 24, 2025 7:15 pm | 15 File photo of a Falcon 9 rocket launch with NASA's Crew-6 mission. Credit: SpaceX File photo of a Falcon 9 rocket launch with NASA's Crew-6 mission. Credit: SpaceX Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more In an era of reusable rockets and near-daily access to space, NASA is still paying more than it did 30 years ago to launch missions into orbit, according to a study soon to be published in the scientific journal Acta Astronautica. Launch is becoming more routine. Every few days, SpaceX is sending another batch of Starlink Internet satellites to orbit, and other kinds of missions fill up the rest of SpaceX's launch schedule. SpaceX, alone, has ample capacity to launch the handful of science missions NASA puts into space each year. If supply outpaces demand, shouldn't prices go down? It's not so simple. NASA is one of many customers jockeying for a slot on SpaceX's launch manifest. The US military is launching more missions than ever before, and SpaceX is about to become the Pentagon's top launch provider. SpaceX already launches more missions for NASA than any other rocket company. Commercial satellites and SpaceX's own Starlink missions also fill up the launch schedule. So far this year, more than 70 percent of SpaceX's launches have deployed Starlink satellites or Starshield spacecraft, a military version of the Starlink platform for the US government. So, there's a lot of demand, even if NASA's missions make up only a fraction of SpaceX's launch business. Cost vs. price Financial information from NASA suggests the agency's payments for launch services are increasing, according to a paper authored by Moon Kim, a research analyst for NASA's strategic investments division. The report is set to be published in the July issue of Acta Astronautica, a peer-reviewed journal sponsored by the International Academy of Astronautics. Adjusted for inflation, the prices NASA pays for launch services rose at an annual average rate of 2.82 percent from 1996 to 2024, the report says. "Furthermore, there is no evidence of shift in the launch service costs trend after the introduction of a new launch service provider in 2016." The new launch service provider mentioned here is SpaceX. NASA's Launch Services Program, which books rocket launches for the agency's science missions, used a Falcon 9 rocket for the first time in January 2016. Before then, United Launch Alliance was the only launch provider capable of hauling NASA's heaviest satellites to orbit. The Launch Services Program brokers launch contracts for NASA's interplanetary probes, space telescopes, and climate research satellites. Launches to transport crews and cargo to the International Space Station are booked through a separate account. For nearly 40 years, NASA's policy has been to launch its robotic science probes on commercial rockets whenever possible. Government officials realized in the 1980s that NASA's Space Shuttle would be more expensive to fly than anticipated. After the Challenger accident in 1986, NASA launched most of its satellites on expendable rockets, like the Atlas, Delta, and Titan launch vehicles that traced their lineages to the 1950s. A Delta II rocket built by Boeing lifts off June 10, 2003, with NASA's Spirit rover heading for Mars. Credit: NASA Newcomers entered the launch business in the 1990s. Orbital Sciences debuted its air-launched Pegasus vehicle, which became the first privately developed rocket to reach orbit. SpaceX introduced its small liquid-fueled Falcon 1 rocket in the 2000s, and then the larger Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets in 2010 and 2018. The Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are partially reusable, holding the promise that SpaceX's rockets would bring about a sharp reduction in the cost of launch. Indeed, they have. SpaceX is the first company to recover and reuse an orbital rocket's first stage booster and payload fairings. These two elements represent about 70 percent of the total cost of a Falcon 9 launcher. Reusability and processing improvements at SpaceX's factory and launch sites have significantly reduced the cost of each Falcon 9 launch. "At one point, SpaceX had publicly said that it was $28 million," said Caleb Henry, director of research at Quilty Space, in a live event hosted by Ars last year. "We believe today that they are below $20 million per launch and actually lower than that... I would put it in the mid-teens for how much it costs them internally." SpaceX launched a Falcon 9 booster for a record 27th mission earlier this month. "As they can amortize the cost of the booster over a greater number of missions, that only helps them with their business case," Henry said. Kim uses NASA's pricing data as the benchmark in his paper because the exact costs incurred by launch providers for each flight are proprietary. "For the launch industry, privatization was expected to lead to more efficient resource allocation, resulting in lower launch prices and thus increasing launch demand," Kim writes in a summary of his report. These efficiencies include economies of scale, increased production, and competitive pressures, all of which were expected to drive down prices as the industry reached an "equilibrium." These expectations have not borne out. "The results indicate that NASA's launch service cost is not decreasing," Kim writes. Let’s get to the numbers Over the last few years, SpaceX cited inflation as the reason for steadily increasing the price of a dedicated Falcon 9 launch, from $62 million, to $67 million, and now to $70 million. This suggests SpaceX is selling launches at a significant markup, although the Falcon 9's list price still undercuts the company's competitors. The complete text of Kim's paper hasn't been published yet, but a summary of the report is available online. The study results "show limited effects of the competitive market" on launch prices, and recommends NASA reassess its policies to foster more competition. Companies charge the US government more for launch services than they do for commercial customers. By paying more, NASA and the Space Force get priority on launch schedules, and government engineers have access to internal company data for oversight purposes. NASA and Space Force missions sometimes have special requirements, such as strict payload cleanliness specifications or augmentations to place satellites into unique orbits, meaning they often can't launch on rideshare missions, which offer cut-rate prices for missions that can fly on them. NASA's Europa Clipper mission began with a fiery launch on SpaceX's Falcon Heavy rocket. Credit: SpaceX While launch prices are not publicly available for every NASA mission since 1996, Ars found launch prices paid by NASA for most of the agency's mediun and large science missions from the late 1990s through the mid-2000s. Today, these missions would likely launch on SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets. Here's a sample with contract values adjusted for inflation from the date of launch to reflect 2025 dollars: • 1998: Deep Space 1 — Delta II rocket — $86 million • 1999: Mars Polar Lander — Delta II rocket — $88 million • 2001: Mars Odyssey — Delta II rocket — $96 million • 2003: Spirit and Opportunity Mars rovers — two Delta II rockets — $87 million per launch • 2004: Swift — Delta II rocket — $90 million • 2005: Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter — Atlas V rocket — $147 million • 2007: Phoenix Mars lander — Delta II rocket — $132 million Launch prices for NASA missions soared after the late 2000s, following the creation of United Launch Alliance through a merger of the Atlas and Delta rocket programs developed by Lockheed Martin and Boeing. The merger eliminated competition for most of NASA's launch contracts until SpaceX's Falcon 9 became available for NASA science missions in the mid-2010s. Here's a sample of missions as examples of the rising costs, with contract values adjusted for inflation from the time of their award to reflect 2025 dollars: • 2009: Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter — Atlas V rocket — $220 million • 2012: Radiation Belt Storm Probes — Atlas V rocket — $226 million (averaged from a bulk buy) • 2014: Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 — Delta II rocket — $191 million (averaged from a bulk buy) • 2016: OSIRIS-REx asteroid mission — Atlas V rocket — $252 million • 2017: TDRS-M data relay satellite — Atlas V rocket — $179 million • 2017: JPSS-2 weather satellite — Atlas V rocket — $224 million • 2018: InSight Mars lander — Atlas V rocket — $220 million • 2018: ICESAT-2 — Delta II rocket — $134 million Again, the missions listed above would likely launch on SpaceX's Falcon 9 rockets if NASA awarded these contracts today. So, how do SpaceX's more recent Falcon 9 prices compare? Let's take a look. These contract values are adjusted for inflation from the time of their award to reflect 2025 dollars: • 2016: Jason 3 oceanography satellite — Falcon 9 rocket — $114 million • 2018: Transiting Exoplanets Survey Satellite — Falcon 9 rocket — $118 million • 2020: Sentinel-6A — Falcon 9 rocket — $126 million • 2021: Double Asteroid Redirection Test — Falcon 9 rocket — $86 million • 2021: Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer — Falcon 9 rocket — $62 million • 2022: Surface Water and Ocean Topography — Falcon 9 rocket — $148 million • 2024: PACE Earth sciences mission — Falcon 9 rocket — $99 million • 2025: SPHEREx astronomy mission — Falcon 9 rocket — $99 million And here are a few future launches NASA has booked to fly on SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket. Some of these contracts were awarded in the last 12 months, and those have not been adjusted for inflation. The others reflect 2025 dollars: • 2025: Interstellar Mapping and Acceleration Probe — Falcon 9 rocket — $134 million • 2025: Sentinel-6B — Falcon 9 rocket — $101 million • 2027: NEO Surveyor — Falcon 9 rocket — $100 million • 2027: JPSS-4 weather satellite — Falcon 9 rocket — $113 million • 2027: Compton Spectrometer and Imager — Falcon 9 rocket — $69 million There are a few other things worth noting when we chart NASA's launch prices. One is that SpaceX's Falcon Heavy, used for NASA's heaviest missions, costs more than a Falcon 9 rocket. For example, two identical weather satellites launched in 2022 and 2024 on ULA's Atlas V and SpaceX's Falcon Heavy rocket for $207 million and $178 million, respectively, again adjusted for inflation. It's also instructive to compare NASA's launch prices for the agency's three newest nuclear-powered space missions. These spacecraft use plutonium power generators, and their launch vehicles require an additional level of safety certification. NASA paid ULA the equivalent of $307 million in 2025 dollars for the launch of the Curiosity Mars rover in 2011. NASA's Perseverance Mars rover launched on an Atlas V rocket in 2020 under a launch contract with ULA valued at $323 million in 2025 dollars. NASA is developing the Dragonfly helicopter for launch to Saturn's moon Titan in 2028, and the agency awarded SpaceX a $257 million contract last year to launch it on a Falcon Heavy rocket. A reusable Falcon 9 booster after landing on a SpaceX drone ship in the Atlantic Ocean. Credit: SpaceX Reaching an equilibrium NASA is paying SpaceX less to launch its newest missions than the agency would have paid ULA to launch them on Delta II or Atlas V rockets a decade ago. That's the good news. However, despite its mastery of rocket reuse, SpaceX is charging NASA nearly as much for future Falcon 9 launches (an average of $103 million) as it did over the last decade (an average of $107 million). And the latest average Falcon 9 prices for NASA are higher than those of the expendable Delta II rocket more than 20 years ago. Meanwhile, ULA hasn't launched a NASA science mission since 2022, and hasn't won a contract with NASA's Launch Services Program since 2019. ULA's Atlas V rocket is nearing retirement, and the company's replacement, the Vulcan, only became eligible to compete for NASA launch contracts last year. This means NASA has lacked competition among US launch providers for several years. ULA's Vulcan and Blue Origin's New Glenn rockets are now operational, and they should soon contest SpaceX for NASA launch contracts. But Vulcan and New Glenn lack the long record of reliability of SpaceX's Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, and their prices are murky. The best data available on ULA's Vulcan launch prices comes from the US Space Force. Between 2020 and 2023, the Space Force awarded dozens of launch contracts to ULA and SpaceX. Those deals average out to $120 million for ULA and $114 million for SpaceX. Earlier this month, the Space Force doled out nine more launch orders for an average of $214 million to ULA and $121 million to SpaceX. These numbers are comparable to NASA's recent launch prices and likely foretell SpaceX and ULA pricing trends for the rest of the decade. Despite the promise of competition, NASA may have to wait for the next generation of launchers, such as SpaceX's Starship, to come online for another step-change in launch prices. Stephen Clark Space Reporter Stephen Clark Space Reporter Stephen Clark is a space reporter at Ars Technica, covering private space companies and the world’s space agencies. Stephen writes about the nexus of technology, science, policy, and business on and off the planet. 15 Comments

Only the Han Emperor can prevent forest fires A 2,000-year-old battle ended in fire, and a tree species never recovered An ancient Chinese army set fire to an enemy capital, but things got out of hand. Kiona N. Smith – Apr 24, 2025 5:55 pm | 1 The Chinese swamp cypress is critically endangered. This one seems pretty chill about it, though. Credit: Daderot The Chinese swamp cypress is critically endangered. This one seems pretty chill about it, though. Credit: Daderot Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more The buried roots and stumps of an ancient forest in southern China are the charred remains of an ancient war and the burning of a capital city, according to a recent study from researchers who carbon-dated the stumps and measured charcoal and pollen in the layers of peat surrounding them. It may not be obvious today, but there’s an ancient forest hidden beneath the farmland of southern China’s Pearl River Delta. Spread across 2,000 square kilometers are thick layers of waterlogged peat, now covered by agriculture. It’s all that is left of what used to be a thriving wetland ecosystem, home to forests of Chinese swamp cypress along with elephants, tigers, crocodiles, and tropical birds. But the peat hides the buried, preserved stumps and roots of cypress trees; some of the largest stumps are almost 2 meters wide, and many have burn marks on their tops. “These peat layers are locally known as ‘buried ancient forest,’ because many buried trees appear fresh and most stumps are found still standing,” writes Ning Wang of the Chinese Academy of Scientists, who along with colleagues, authored the recent paper. It turns out that the eerie buried forest is the last echo of the Han army’s invasion during a war about 2,100 years ago. Today, the ruins of the palace from which Nanyue's kings ruled is an archaeological site in Guangzhou. Credit: Windmemories When the Fire Nation attacked Wang and colleagues radiocarbon dated the stumps’ outermost rings to find out when the trees had stopped growing, and the answer is around 2,100 years ago (give or take about 70 years). It looks like the cypress trees died at roughly the same time across a broad swath of swampland, in some kind of ecological calamity. Based on the burn marks scarring the tops of many of the stumps, the forest ended in fire. As it happens, history does record a fiery calamity in the Pearl River Delta around 111 BCE. The delta was home to an ancient kingdom called Nanyue, which ruled most of what are now the southern Chinese provinces of Guangdong and Guangxi, along with what’s now the northern part of Vietnam. Nanyue rose to power around 204 BCE, just as the Qin Empire (which had united most of China under its rule) was beginning to crumble. A former Qin general, Zhao Tuo, took advantage of the chaos to turn a former Qin province into an independent kingdom, which his descendants ruled for the next century. Then everything changed when the Fire Nation—sorry, the Han Empire—attacked. Han rose to power in the wake of Qin’s collapse, after a short war with a rival dynasty called Chu, and spent the next century smugly referring to Nanyue as a vassal state and occasionally demanding tribute. At times, the rulers of Nanyue played along, but it all came to a head around 111 BCE, in the wake of an attempted coup and a series of assassinations. The Han Emperor sent an army of between 100,000 and 200,000 soldiers to invade Nanyue under a general named Lu Bode. The troops marched across the countryside from five directions, converging outside Nanyue’s capital city of Panyou, which stood in the Pearl River Delta, near the modern city of Guangzhou. An enterprising company commander named Yang Pu got the bright idea to set the city on fire, and it ended badly. “The fire not only destroyed the city but also ran out of control to the surrounding forests,” write Wang and colleagues. The cypress trees burned down to the waterline, leaving only their submerged stumps behind. The brown dots mark the known sites of buried forests, and the orange diamonds mark those confirmed to be ancient. The two yellow diamonds are Wang and colleagues' study sites. Credit: Wang et al. 2025 After war came fire and rice At the time of the invasion, the land around Panyou was mostly swamp, forested with cypress trees. People had lived there for thousands of years, and had been growing rice for about 2,000 years. Bits of charcoal in the peat layers Wang and colleagues sampled reveal that they practiced slash-and-burn agriculture, but on a small scale, rotating their fields so the cypress forest could start to recover after a season or two. The small burns are nothing like the forest fire Yang Pu unleashed, or the massive burning and reworking of the landscape that came after. The stumps of the burned cypress trees slowly disappeared under several meters of peat, while above the buried ancient forest, life went on. Tigers, elephants, rhinos, and green peafowl no longer walked here. Instead, grains of pollen from the layers of clay above the peat reveal a sudden influx of plants from the grassy Poaceae family, which includes rice, wheat, and barley. That pollen, along with thicker-than-usual deposits of charcoal, suggests that people were burning the remaining trees on a massive scale to make room for more rice fields. Combined with historical records, Wang and colleagues say the pollen and charcoal buried in those sediments point to a dramatic increase in the local population and the scale of their agricultural industry. That was probably an effort to feed the huge invading army at first, but was followed by what Wang and colleagues describe as “a government action aimed at consolidating the results of the victory”—in other words, moving more people into the region and putting them to work on farms. Nearby ocean sediments reveal that around the same time, about 2,100 years ago, more copper and lead started washing into the sea from the Pearl River Delta, suggesting that people were making copper farming tools and coins and using lead in cosmetics and metalware (always a fantastically healthy idea). Biodiversity as a casualty of war Meanwhile, the cypress trees that had once grown across thousands of square kilometers had been burned out of their home as surely as the Nanyue rulers had been burned out of theirs. The Han army’s out-of-control fire attack, followed by the years of burning and farming that followed, pushed the species (Chinese swamp cypress, formally called Glyptostrobus pensilis) to the brink of extinction. Most of southeast China is still technically good habitat for the trees today, but no wild Chinese swamp cypress trees grow anywhere in China. In northern Vietnam, its numbers are small and dwindling, confined to a few remote patches of land. The problem is not climate or environmental change; it’s that so many of the trees were destroyed. “Most G. pensilis populations are small and scattered, unable to provide the ecosystem services they once did,” write Wang and colleagues. G. pensilis is a critically endangered species, and according to Wang and colleagues, that’s mostly due to the Han invasion of Nanyue more than 2,000 years ago. Science Advances, 2025 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adt1736; (About DOIs). Kiona N. Smith Science correspondent Kiona N. Smith Science correspondent Kiona is a freelance science journalist and resident archaeology nerd at Ars Technica. 1 Comments

Most Metal Caterpillar Ever Bone collector caterpillar adorns itself in insect body parts The caterpillars even tailor the body parts, nibbling away at excess material to ensure a proper fit. Jennifer Ouellette – Apr 24, 2025 2:00 pm | 12 "If you're going to live in Smaug's lair, you'd better look like treasure." Credit: Rubinoff lab/University of Hawaii, Manoa "If you're going to live in Smaug's lair, you'd better look like treasure." Credit: Rubinoff lab/University of Hawaii, Manoa Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more This Hawaiian caterpillar raids spiderwebs camouflaged in insect prey’s body parts, and it's not above cannibalism in a pinch. Credit: Rubinoff lab/University of Hawaii, Manoa. We think of moths and butterflies as relatively harmless creatures, but there are certain species with a darker side—for example, carnivorous caterpillars that eat aphids, butterflies that drink alligator tears, or "vampire" moths that feed on livestock blood. Add to that list the newly discovered "bone collector" caterpillar, which conducts daring raids on spider webs for sustenance, camouflaging itself in the body parts of already-consumed insects to avoid being eaten. Not only that, but according to a new paper published in the journal Science, the caterpillars can tailor those insect parts, nibbling away at any excess material to ensure a proper fit. Daniel Rubinoff, an entomologist at the University of Hawaii, Manoa, studies a genus of moths found in Hawaii called Hyposcoma, or as he has dubbed their larval form, "Hawaiian Fancy Case" caterpillars, so named because they spin their own casings, adding to them as they grow, although the materials used can vary widely.  There are now more than 600 species within this genus, many of them not yet officially described, so it was a rich research area to explore. The discovery of the bone collector species was serendipitous. "You never forget your first bone collector," Rubinoff told Ars. His team was on Oa'hu looking for Hyposcoma when they came across a little tree hollow and spotted something at the bottom that at first glance just looked like "a bag of bug bits." The caterpillar then stuck its head out, and the researchers realized it was a new kind of case. Rubinoff assumed that the spider web also found in the tree hollow was a coincidence; the caterpillar just used the materials readily available in the tree hollow to make its fancy case. But then the team started finding more of these caterpillars, all covered in the body parts of other insects and shed spider skins, and all in the vicinity of spider webs. "We started realizing these things are only hanging out where there are spiders," said Rubinoff, who spent several years verifying that this was, indeed, a rare new species. "It's the sort of thing you really want to be sure of because it's not just incredible, it's unimaginable." A genomic analysis confirmed the researchers' suspicions and shed some light on the bone collector's possible evolutionary pathway. The bone caterpillar may have only just been discovered by humans, but it's at least 5 million years old and possibly as old as 12 million years, predating the island of O'ahu on which it now exclusively resides in an area of about 15 square kilometers in the Wai'anae Mountains. No other known member of the same lineage has yet been found, suggesting that the species originated on an early island in a chain that has since subsided. Dressed for success Why do the caterpillars do this? "It's a decorate or die situation," said Rubinoff. "In evolutionary history, the ones that didn't decorate their cases were probably removed from the gene pool pretty quickly. But a few of them started incorporating bug and spider bits in their cases and survived. Selection would drive them toward having the sensory capacity to detect those bits and use them as camouflage. If you're going to live in Smaug's lair, you'd better look like treasure." Bone collector larva in web. Rubinoff lab/University of Hawaii, Manoa Bone collector larva in web. Rubinoff lab/University of Hawaii, Manoa Pinned adult female (left) of the bone collector caterpillar and portable case (right) in which the larva resides decorated with body parts from ants, bark beetles, weevils, and flies. D. Rubinoff et al., 2025 Pinned adult female (left) of the bone collector caterpillar and portable case (right) in which the larva resides decorated with body parts from ants, bark beetles, weevils, and flies. D. Rubinoff et al., 2025 Bone collector cases. Rubinoff lab/University of Hawaii, Manoa Bone collector cases. Rubinoff lab/University of Hawaii, Manoa Pinned adult female (left) of the bone collector caterpillar and portable case (right) in which the larva resides decorated with body parts from ants, bark beetles, weevils, and flies. D. Rubinoff et al., 2025 Bone collector cases. Rubinoff lab/University of Hawaii, Manoa It's a jumbled-up, messy kind of treasure, since arranging the body parts in too orderly a fashion would defeat the purpose of camouflage as they crawl around the three-dimensional cobwebs they favor. "They're not going to do a tightrope walk between two trees; they're hiding in a little hole in a log where there are cobwebs," said Rubinoff. "A spider detects vibrations in the web, rushes out to grab its prey, smells itself and prey it's already eaten, and assumes there is nothing new to eat." The next step is to take a closer look at the caterpillar genome to find an underlying mechanism for this unusual behavior, as well as details on how the caterpillars can distinguish between bug bits and, say, dirt, and how they are able to perceive size for tailoring purposes. A bone collector can be quite selective, picking up potential body parts among the web detritus and probing them with its mandibles, chewing larger pieces down to the desired size. Nor will the caterpillars accept other materials when they spin their cases: It's the discarded corpses of their enemies or nothing, even in captivity. Rubinoff has already brought several into the lab, where the caterpillars can gorge themselves on Drosophila pupae with no fear of spiders interrupting the feast. This confirmed that bone collectors are no mere scavengers; they are predatory, chewing right through the silk to eat the live pupae. They will even cannibalize each other, "which is why you don't see more than one at each spiderweb," said Rubinoff. The clock is ticking, however, as the bone collector is extremely rare and in danger of extinction, due to the large number of invasive species—especially non-native ants and parasitic wasps—that have found their way to Hawaii. Thus far, the bone collector has been able to adapt and raid the cobwebs of non-native spiders to survive. "I don't want to say it's on the verge of winking out, but in the context, it seems likely," said Rubinoff. "We've lost entire genera of endemic insects [in Hawaii]. It could be one new ant species away from being obliterated." Science, 2025. DOI: 10.1126/science.ads4243  (About DOIs). Jennifer Ouellette Senior Writer Jennifer Ouellette Senior Writer Jennifer is a senior writer 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. 12 Comments

can we stop spreading that $90 rumor, please Nintendo Switch 2’s gameless Game-Key cards are going to be very common Switch 2 game upgrades for original Switch games also range from $10 to $20. Andrew Cunningham – Apr 24, 2025 11:03 am | 27 A Nintendo Switch Game-Key card. Credit: Nintendo A Nintendo Switch Game-Key card. Credit: Nintendo Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more US preorders for the Nintendo Switch 2 console went live at Best Buy, Target, and Walmart at midnight Eastern time last night (though the rush of orders caused problems and delays across all three retailers' websites). The console listings came with a wave of other retail listings for games and accessories, and those listings either fill small gaps in our knowledge about Switch 2 game packaging and pricing or confirm facts that were previously implied. First, $80 Switch 2 games like Mario Kart World will not cost $90 as physical releases. This is worth repeating over and over again because of how pernicious the rumors about $90 physical releases have been; as recently as this morning, typing "Switch 2 $90" into Google would show you videos, Reddit threads, news posts, and even Google's own AI summaries all confidently and incorrectly proclaiming that physical Switch 2 releases will cost $90 when they actually won't. Google's AI-generated search summary about $90 Switch 2 games as of this morning. Credit: Andrew Cunningham While physical game releases in the EU sometimes cost more than their digital counterparts, there was actually no indication that US releases of physical games would cost $90. The Mario Kart World website listed an $80 MSRP from the start, as did early retail listings that were published before preorders actually began, and this price didn't change when Nintendo increased accessory pricing in response to import tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. But now that actual order confirmation emails are going out, we can (even more) confidently say that Switch 2 physical releases cost the same amount as digital releases, just like original Switch games and most physical releases for other consoles. For example, the physical release for the upcoming Donkey Kong Bananza is $70, also the same as the digital version. Third-party releases run a wider pricing gamut, from as little as $40 (Square Enix's Bravely Default remaster) to as much as $100 (a special edition release of Daemon X Machina: Titanic Scion, also available at $70 for the standard release). Lots of third-party games are getting Game-Key card releases A Game-Key card disclaimer. It tells you you'll need to download the game and approximately how large that download will be. Credit: Nintendo/Sega When preorders opened in Japan yesterday, all physical releases of third-party games had Nintendo's Game-Key card disclaimer printed on them. And it looks like a whole lot of physical third-party Switch 2 game releases in the US will also be Game-Key cards, based on the box art accompanying the listings. These have been controversial among physical media holdouts because they're not physical game releases in the traditional sense—they don't have any actual game data stored on them. When you insert them into a Switch 2, they allow you to download the game content from Nintendo's online store, but unlike a pure digital release, you'll still need to have the Game-Key card inserted every time you want to play the game. We believe these are better than nothing for people who prefer physical games since you can still lend or resell them freely, but they do have significant downsides for game archivists, people with slow Internet connections, or systems whose internal storage is nearly full. Nintendo Everything has taken a crack at compiling a comprehensive list of all Game-Key card releases; you can find games like Cyberpunk 2077 and No Sleep for Kaname Date that don't use the Game-Key card disclaimer on the boxes, but they're definitely less common for third-party games. The Switch 2 repackagings of Switch games include the original Switch game plus an upgrade pack and, at least in some cases, will be playable on the original Switch. Credit: Nintendo The main exception to this rule is for Switch 2 game releases that are actually original Switch games plus a Switch 2 Upgrade Pack—the terminology Nintendo uses for paid updates that add significant visual upgrades or other content to Switch games running on the Switch 2. Those releases appear to have a totally different block of fine print on the front of the box: Includes the Nintendo Switch game and the Nintendo Switch 2 Edition upgrade pack. Upgrade pack also available separately. For details, visit support.nintendo.com/switch2/upgradepack At least some of these physical cards appear to be playable on the original Switch, though it's not clear whether that will be the norm for all Switch 2 Edition releases. Two kinds of upgrade pack Standalone upgrade packs for original Switch games will cost $10 or $20, distinguishing between upgrade packs that simply enhance visuals and packs that add significant new DLC-style content. Credit: Nintendo As for those Switch 2 upgrade packs, it looks like Nintendo has settled on a two-tiered system for upgrade pricing for those who already own the original Switch game in some form. For games like The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom, where the upgrade pack primarily enhances visuals without adding significant new content, pricing will be $10. For games like Super Mario Party Jamboree and Kirby and the Forgotten Land, where the upgrade packs also include extra game modes or other post-release-DLC-style content upgrades, the price will be $20. What Nintendo charges for the full Switch 2 Editions of those games also reflects this pricing—the MSRP for the original Switch game, plus the price of the standalone upgrade pack. So Kirby and Mario Party are $80 (a $60 game plus a $20 upgrade pack), Breath of the Wild is $70 ($60 game, $10 upgrade pack), and Tears of the Kingdom is also $80 ($70 game, $10 upgrade pack). For original Switch games that have been out for a while, buying the original game on sale or used and adding an upgrade pack is an easy way to save a bit of money. Kirby and both Zelda games are available in brand new condition from eBay for $50 or less, just to pick a couple of examples. Andrew Cunningham Senior Technology Reporter Andrew Cunningham Senior Technology Reporter Andrew is a Senior Technology Reporter at Ars Technica, with a focus on consumer tech including computer hardware and in-depth reviews of operating systems like Windows and macOS. Andrew lives in Philadelphia and co-hosts a weekly book podcast called Overdue. 27 Comments

another round Review: Ryzen AI CPU makes this the fastest the Framework Laptop 13 has ever been With great power comes great responsibility and subpar battery life. Andrew Cunningham – Apr 24, 2025 6:30 am | 17 The latest Framework Laptop 13, which asks you to take the good with the bad. Credit: Andrew Cunningham The latest Framework Laptop 13, which asks you to take the good with the bad. Credit: Andrew Cunningham Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more At this point, the Framework Laptop 13 is a familiar face, an old friend. We have reviewed this laptop five other times, and in that time, the idea of a repairable and upgradeable laptop has gone from a "sounds great if they can pull it off" idea to one that's become pretty reliable and predictable. And nearly four years out from the original version—which shipped with an 11th-generation Intel Core processor—we're at the point where an upgrade will get you significant boosts to CPU and GPU performance, plus some other things. We're looking at the Ryzen AI 300 version of the Framework Laptop today, currently available for preorder and shipping in Q2 for people who buy one now. The laptop starts at $1,099 for a pre-built version and $899 for a RAM-less, SSD-less, Windows-less DIY version, and we've tested the Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 version that starts at $1,659 before you add RAM, an SSD, or an OS. This board is a direct upgrade to Framework's Ryzen 7040-series board from mid-2023, with most of the same performance benefits we saw last year when we first took a look at the Ryzen AI 300 series. It's also, if this matters to you, the first Framework Laptop to meet Microsoft's requirements for its Copilot+ PC initiative, giving users access to some extra locally processed AI features (including but not limited to Recall) with the promise of more to come. For this upgrade, Ryzen AI giveth, and Ryzen AI taketh away. This is the fastest the Framework Laptop 13 has ever been (at least, if you spring for the Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 chip that our review unit shipped with). If you're looking to do some light gaming (or non-Nvidia GPU-accelerated computing), the Radeon 890M GPU is about as good as it gets. But you'll pay for it in battery life—never a particularly strong point for Framework, and less so here than in most of the Intel versions. What’s new, Framework? This Framework update brings the return of colorful translucent accessories, parts you can also add to an older Framework Laptop if you want. Credit: Andrew Cunningham We're going to focus on what makes this particular Framework Laptop 13 different from the past iterations. We talk more about the build process and the internals in our review of the 12th-generation Intel Core version, and we ran lots of battery tests with the new screen in our review of the Intel Core Ultra version. We also have coverage of the original Ryzen version of the laptop, with the Ryzen 7 7840U and Radeon 780M GPU installed. Per usual, every internal refresh of the Framework Laptop 13 comes with another slate of external parts. Functionally, there's not a ton of exciting stuff this time around—certainly nothing as interesting as the higher-resolution 120 Hz screen option we got with last year's Intel Meteor Lake update—but there's a handful of things worth paying attention to. Functionally, Framework has slightly improved the keyboard, with "a new key structure" on the spacebar and shift keys that "reduce buzzing when your speakers are cranked up." I can't really discern a difference in the feel of the keyboard, so this isn't a part I'd run out to add to my own Framework Laptop, but it's a fringe benefit if you're buying an all-new laptop or replacing your keyboard for some other reason. Keyboard legends have also been tweaked; pre-built Windows versions get Microsoft's dedicated (and, within limits, customizable) Copilot key, while DIY editions come with a Framework logo on the Windows/Super key (instead of the word "super") and no Copilot key. Pre-built Windows laptops will come with a Windows logo key and Copilot key, but DIY and Linux editions get a Framework logo instead of a Super button. Andrew Cunningham Pre-built Windows laptops will come with a Windows logo key and Copilot key, but DIY and Linux editions get a Framework logo instead of a Super button. Andrew Cunningham Framework has lightly modified its keyboard, but there's nothing here that existing Framework users need to run out and buy unless your current keyboard breaks for some other reason. Andrew Cunningham Framework has lightly modified its keyboard, but there's nothing here that existing Framework users need to run out and buy unless your current keyboard breaks for some other reason. Andrew Cunningham Pre-built Windows laptops will come with a Windows logo key and Copilot key, but DIY and Linux editions get a Framework logo instead of a Super button. Andrew Cunningham Framework has lightly modified its keyboard, but there's nothing here that existing Framework users need to run out and buy unless your current keyboard breaks for some other reason. Andrew Cunningham Cosmetically, Framework is keeping the dream of the late '90s alive with translucent plastic parts, namely the bezel around the display and the USB-C Expansion Modules. I'll never say no to additional customization options, though I still think that "silver body/lid with colorful bezel/ports" gives the laptop a rougher, unfinished-looking vibe. Like the other Ryzen Framework Laptops (both 13 and 16), not all of the Ryzen AI board's four USB-C ports support all the same capabilities, so you'll want to arrange your ports carefully. Framework's recommendations for how to configure the Ryzen AI laptop's expansion modules. Credit: Framework Framework publishes a graphic to show you which ports do what; if you're looking at the laptop from the front, ports 1 and 3 are on the back, and ports 2 and 4 are toward the front. Generally, ports 1 and 3 are the "better" ones, supporting full USB4 speeds instead of USB 3.2 and DisplayPort 2.0 instead of 1.4. But USB-A modules should go in ports 2 or 4 because they'll consume extra power in bays 1 and 3. All four do support display output, though, which isn't the case for the Ryzen 7040 Framework board, and all four continue to support USB-C charging. The situation has improved from the 7040 version of the Framework board, where not all of the ports could do any kind of display output. But it still somewhat complicates the laptop's customizability story relative to the Intel versions, where any expansion card can go into any port. The Ryzen AI board uses a modified heatsink design with one large heatpipe instead of two smaller ones and a heatsink that extends to cover more motherboard components. Andrew Cunningham The Ryzen AI board uses a modified heatsink design with one large heatpipe instead of two smaller ones and a heatsink that extends to cover more motherboard components. Andrew Cunningham The old heatsink design in the Ryzen 7040 version of the laptop, for reference. Andrew Cunningham The old heatsink design in the Ryzen 7040 version of the laptop, for reference. Andrew Cunningham The Ryzen AI board uses a modified heatsink design with one large heatpipe instead of two smaller ones and a heatsink that extends to cover more motherboard components. Andrew Cunningham The old heatsink design in the Ryzen 7040 version of the laptop, for reference. Andrew Cunningham I will also say that this iteration of the Framework laptop hasn't been perfectly stable for me. The problems are intermittent but persistent, despite using the latest BIOS version (3.03 as of this writing) and driver package available from Framework. I had a couple of total-system freezes/crashes, occasional problems waking from sleep, and sporadic rendering glitches in Microsoft Edge. These weren't problems I've had with the other Ryzen AI laptops I've used so far or with the Ryzen 7040 version of the Framework 13. They also persisted across two separate clean installs of Windows. It's possible/probable that some combination of firmware and driver updates can iron out these problems, and they generally didn't prevent me from using the laptop the way I wanted to use it, but I thought it was worth mentioning since my experience with new Framework boards has usually been a bit better than this. Internals and performance "Ryzen AI" is AMD's most recent branding update for its high-end laptop chips, but you don't actually need to care about AI to appreciate the solid CPU and GPU speed upgrades compared to the last-generation Ryzen Framework or older Intel versions of the laptop. CPU performance tests. CPU performance tests. CPU performance tests. Power efficiency tests under heavy load using the Handbrake transcoding tool. Test uses CPU for encoding and not hardware-accelerated GPU-assisted encoding. Power efficiency tests under heavy load using the Handbrake transcoding tool. Test uses CPU for encoding and not hardware-accelerated GPU-assisted encoding. Power efficiency tests under heavy load using the Handbrake transcoding tool. Test uses CPU for encoding and not hardware-accelerated GPU-assisted encoding. Our Framework Laptop board uses the fastest processor offering: a Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 with four of AMD's Zen 5 CPU cores, eight of the smaller, more power-efficient Zen 5c cores, and a Radeon 890M integrated GPU with 16 of AMD's RDNA 3.5 graphics cores. There are places where the Intel Arc graphics in the Core Ultra 7/Meteor Lake version of the Framework Laptop are still faster than what AMD can offer, though your experience may vary depending on the games or apps you're trying to use. Generally, our benchmarks show the Arc GPU ahead by a small amount, but it's not faster across the board. Relative to other Ryzen AI systems, the Framework Laptop's graphics performance also suffers somewhat because socketed DDR5 DIMMs don't run as fast as RAM that's been soldered to the motherboard. This is one of the trade-offs you're probably OK with making if you're looking at a Framework Laptop in the first place, but it's worth mentioning. Graphics benchmarks. Graphics benchmarks. Graphics benchmarks. A few actual game benchmarks. Ones with ray-tracing features enabled tend to favor Intel's Arc GPU, while the Radeon 890M pulls ahead in some other games. A few actual game benchmarks. Ones with ray-tracing features enabled tend to favor Intel's Arc GPU, while the Radeon 890M pulls ahead in some other games. But the new Ryzen chip's CPU is dramatically faster than Meteor Lake at just about everything, as well as the older Ryzen 7 7840U in the older Framework board. This is the fastest the Framework Laptop has ever been, and it's not particularly close (but if you're waffling between the Ryzen AI version, the older AMD version that Framework sells for a bit less money or the Core Ultra 7 version, wait to see the battery life results before you spend any money). Power efficiency has also improved for heavy workloads, as demonstrated by our Handbrake video encoding tests—the Ryzen AI chip used a bit less power under heavy load and took less time to transcode our test video, so it uses quite a bit less power overall to do the same work. Power efficiency tests under heavy load using the Handbrake transcoding tool. Test uses CPU for encoding and not hardware-accelerated GPU-assisted encoding. Power efficiency tests under heavy load using the Handbrake transcoding tool. Test uses CPU for encoding and not hardware-accelerated GPU-assisted encoding. We didn't run specific performance tests on the Ryzen AI NPU, but it's worth noting that this is also Framework's first laptop with a neural processing unit (NPU) fast enough to support the full range of Microsoft's Copilot+ PC features—this was one of the systems I used to test Microsoft's near-final version of Windows Recall, for example. Intel's other Core Ultra 100 chips, all 200-series Core Ultra chips other than the 200V series (codenamed Lunar Lake), and AMD's Ryzen 7000- and 8000-series processors often include NPUs, but they don't meet Microsoft's performance requirements. The Ryzen AI chips are also the only Copilot+ compatible processors on the market that Framework could have used while maintaining the Laptop's current level of upgradeability. Qualcomm's Snapdragon X Elite and Plus chips don't support external RAM—at least, Qualcomm only lists support for soldered-down LPDDR5X in its product sheets—and Intel's Core Ultra 200V processors use RAM integrated into the processor package itself. So if any of those features appeal to you, this is the only Framework Laptop you can buy to take advantage of them. Battery and power Battery tests. The Ryzen AI 300 doesn't do great, though it's similar to the last-gen Ryzen Framework. When paired with the higher-resolution screen option and Framework's 61 WHr battery, the Ryzen AI version of the laptop lasted around 8.5 hours in a PCMark Modern Office battery life test with the screen brightness set to a static 200 nits. This is a fair bit lower than the Intel Core Ultra version of the board, and it's even worse when compared to what a MacBook Air or a more typical PC laptop will give you. But it's holding roughly even with the older Ryzen version of the Framework board despite being much faster. You can improve this situation somewhat by opting for the cheaper, lower-resolution screen; we didn't test it with the Ryzen AI board, and Framework won't sell you the lower-resolution screen with the higher-end chip. But for upgraders using the older panel, the higher-res screen reduced battery life by between 5 and 15 percent in past testing of older Framework Laptops. The slower Ryzen AI 5 and Ryzen AI 7 versions will also likely last a little longer, though Framework usually only sends us the highest-end versions of its boards to test. A routine update This combo screwdriver-and-spudger is still the only tool you need to take a Framework Laptop apart. Credit: Andrew Cunningham It's weird that my two favorite laptops right now are probably Apple's MacBook Air and the Framework Laptop 13, but that's where I am. They represent opposite visions of computing, each of which appeals to a different part of my brain: The MacBook Air is the personal computer at its most appliance-like, the thing you buy (or recommend) if you just don't want to think about your computer that much. Framework embraces a more traditionally PC-like approach, favoring open standards and interoperable parts; the result is more complicated and chaotic but also more flexible. It's the thing you buy when you like thinking about your computer. Framework Laptop buyers continue to pay a price for getting a more repairable and modular laptop. Battery life remains OK at best, and Framework doesn't seem to have substantially sped up its firmware or driver releases since we talked with them about it last summer. You'll need to be comfortable taking things apart, and you'll need to make sure you put the right expansion modules in the right bays. And you may end up paying more than you would to get the same specs from a different laptop manufacturer. But what you get in return still feels kind of magical, and all the more so because Framework has now been shipping product for four years. The Ryzen AI version of the laptop is probably the one I'd recommend if you were buying a new one, and it's also a huge leap forward for anyone who bought into the first-generation Framework Laptop a few years ago and is ready for an upgrade. It's by far the fastest CPU (and, depending on the app, the fastest or second-fastest GPU) Framework has shipped in the Laptop 13. And it's nice to at least have the option of using Copilot+ features, even if you're not actually interested in the ones Microsoft is currently offering. If none of the other Framework Laptops have interested you yet, this one probably won't, either. But it's yet another improvement in what has become a steady, consistent sequence of improvements. Mediocre battery life is hard to excuse in a laptop, but if that's not what's most important to you, Framework is still offering something laudable and unique. The good Framework still gets all of the basics right—a matte 3:2 LCD that's pleasant to look at, a nice-feeling keyboard and trackpad, and a design Fastest CPU ever in the Framework Laptop 13, and the fastest or second-fastest integrated GPU First Framework Laptop to support Copilot+ features in Windows, if those appeal to you at all Fun translucent customization options Modular, upgradeable, and repairable—more so than with most laptops, you're buying a laptop that can change along with your needs and which will be easy to refurbish or hand down to someone else when you're ready to replace it Official support for both Windows and Linux The bad Occasional glitchiness that may or may not be fixed with future firmware or driver updates Some expansion modules are slower or have higher power draw if you put them in the wrong place Costs more than similarly specced laptops from other OEMs Still lacks certain display features some users might require or prefer—in particular, there are no OLED, touchscreen, or wide-color-gamut options The ugly Battery life remains an enduring weak point. Andrew Cunningham Senior Technology Reporter Andrew Cunningham Senior Technology Reporter Andrew is a Senior Technology Reporter at Ars Technica, with a focus on consumer tech including computer hardware and in-depth reviews of operating systems like Windows and macOS. Andrew lives in Philadelphia and co-hosts a weekly book podcast called Overdue. 17 Comments

Free as in speech, not just as in mead Everything but the Beholders: D&D updates core rules, sticks with CC license Campaigns and spinoffs, even commercial, can use basic pieces for free. Kevin Purdy – Apr 23, 2025 1:49 pm | 33 Credit: WotC/Hasbro Credit: WotC/Hasbro Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Wizards of the Coast has released the System Reference Document, the heart of the three core rule books that constitute Dungeons & Dragons' 2024 gameplay, under a Creative Commons license. This means the company cannot alter the deal further, like it almost did in early 2023, leading to considerable pushback and, eventually, a retreat. It was a long quest, but the lawful good party has earned some long-term rewards, including a new, similarly licensed reference book. Dungeons & Dragons owner Wizards of the Coast (WotC) put the core D&D rules into an Open Gaming License in the early 2000s, inspired by Richard Stallman's GNU General Public License. The idea was that by making the core mechanics, classes, spells, races, and monsters available for anyone to build on, royalty-free, more versions of games would draw more people into the tabletop roleplaying sphere, and perhaps back to the core D&D games and rule books. It also likely didn't do much harm to WotC's properties, as these basic aspects of the game, and bits taken from existing fantasy works, were going to be difficult to copyright. WotC considered that the Open Gaming License (OGL) was open to revisions, however, and the company proposed changes to the OGL that would require that anyone making certain amounts of money had to report it (over $50,000 per year) or start paying royalties (over $750,000). A leaked version of that license put the higher-level royalties at 25 percent, and only covered printed materials and static PDFs, leaving virtual tabletop and software makers questioning where they might fit in. Because the OGL was "perpetual," but not "irrevocable," there was debate on the legality of WotC's proposed changes and revocation of the 1.0 version of the OGL. After receiving survey feedback that WotC characterized as "in such high volume," with "direction [so] plain," it released its D&D One System Reference Document under a Creative Commons 4.0 Attribution 4.0 International License. That meant that not only were D&D's core mechanics free to use and reference, so long as proper credit was given, but that the license could not be changed at a later date. Same licensing, now with more hippos Version 5.2 of the SRD, all 360-plus pages of it, has now been released under the same Creative Commons license. The major change is that it includes more 2024 5th edition (i.e., D&D One) rules and content, while version 5.1 focused on 2014 rules. Legally, you can now design and publish campaigns under the 2024 5th edition rule set. More importantly, more aspects of the newest D&D rule books are available under a free license: "Rhythm of Play" and "Exploration" documentation More character origins and backgrounds, including criminal, sage, soldier, and the goliath and orc species. 16 feats, including archery, great weapon fighting, and seven boons Five bits of equipment, 20 spells, 15 magic items, and 17 monsters, including the hippopotamus There are some aspects of D&D you still can't really touch without bumping up against copyrights. Certain monsters from the Monster Manual, like the Kraken, are in the public domain, but their specific stats in the D&D rulebook are copyrighted. Iconic creatures and species like the Beholder, Displacer Beast, Illithid, Githyanki, Yuan-Ti, and others remain the property of WotC (and thereby Hasbro). As a creator, you'll still need to do some History (or is it Arcana?) checks before you publish and sell. Kevin Purdy Senior Technology Reporter Kevin Purdy Senior Technology Reporter Kevin is a senior technology reporter at Ars Technica, covering open-source software, PC gaming, home automation, repairability, e-bikes, and tech history. He has previously worked at Lifehacker, Wirecutter, iFixit, and Carbon Switch. 33 Comments

Gaining traction Google reveals sky-high Gemini usage numbers in antitrust case Google revealed in court that Gemini now sees 350 million monthly users. Ryan Whitwam – Apr 23, 2025 2:05 pm | 28 Credit: Ryan Whitwam Credit: Ryan Whitwam Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more You may not use Gemini or other AI products, but many people do, and their ranks are growing. During day three of Google's antitrust remedies trial, the company presented a slide showing that Gemini reached 350 million monthly active users as of March 2025. That's a massive increase from last year, showing that Google is beginning to gain traction among competing chatbots, but Google's estimation of ChatGPT's traffic shows it still has a long climb ahead of it. The slide was presented during the testimony of Sissie Hsiao, who until recently was leading Google's Gemini efforts. She was replaced earlier this month by Josh Woodward, who also runs Google Labs. The slide listed Gemini's 350 million monthly users, along with daily traffic of 35 million users. These numbers represent a huge increase for Gemini, which languished in the tens of millions of monthly users late last year. Gemini's daily user count at the time was a mere 9 million, according to Google. Since then, Google has released its Gemini 2.0 and 2.5 models, both of which have shown demonstrable improvements over the previous iterations. It has also begun adding Gemini features to more parts of the Google ecosystem, even though some of those integrations can be more frustrating than useful. Despite the uptick in Gemini usage, Google is still far from catching OpenAI. Naturally, Google has been keeping a close eye on ChatGPT traffic. OpenAI has also seen traffic increase, putting ChatGPT around 600 million monthly active users, according to Google's analysis. Early this year, reports pegged ChatGPT usage at around 400 million users per month. There are many ways to measure web traffic, and not all of them tell you what you might think. For example, OpenAI has recently claimed weekly traffic as high as 400 million, but companies can choose the seven-day period in a given month they report as weekly active users. A monthly metric is more straightforward, and we have some degree of trust that Google isn't using fake or unreliable numbers in a case where the company's past conduct has already harmed its legal position. While all AI firms strive to lock in as many users as possible, this is not the total win it would be for a retail site or social media platform—each person using Gemini or ChatGPT costs the company money because generative AI is so computationally expensive. Google doesn't talk about how much it earns (more likely loses) from Gemini subscriptions, but OpenAI has noted that it loses money even on its $200 monthly plan. So while having a broad user base is essential to make these products viable in the long term, it just means higher costs unless the cost of running massive AI models comes down. Ryan Whitwam Senior Technology Reporter Ryan Whitwam Senior Technology Reporter Ryan Whitwam is a senior technology reporter at Ars Technica, covering the ways Google, AI, and mobile technology continue to change the world. Over his 20-year career, he's written for Android Police, ExtremeTech, Wirecutter, NY Times, and more. He has reviewed more phones than most people will ever own. You can follow him on Bluesky, where you will see photos of his dozens of mechanical keyboards. 28 Comments

FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez FCC Democrat slams chairman for aiding Trump’s “campaign of censorship” Biggest threat to free speech "is coming from our own government," Gomez says. Jon Brodkin – Apr 23, 2025 4:23 pm | 13 FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez. Credit: FCC FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez. Credit: FCC Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more A Democratic member of the Federal Communications Commission plans what she calls a First Amendment tour to fight the Trump administration's "ongoing campaign of censorship and control." "Since the founding of our country, the First Amendment has protected our fundamental right to speak freely and hold power to account. Today, the greatest threat to that freedom is coming from our own government," Commissioner Anna Gomez said yesterday. Gomez plans to focus on FCC Chairman Brendan Carr's actions against news broadcasters and tech firms. Under Carr, "the FCC is being weaponized to attack freedom of speech in the media and telecommunications sector instead of focusing on its core mission—connecting the public, protecting consumers, and supporting competition," Gomez's announcement said. Gomez's office said "she is partnering with consumer and civil society organizations across the ideological spectrum to participate in speaking engagements and listening sessions focused on protecting the rights and freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment." The first event is scheduled for Thursday and will be hosted by the Center for Democracy and Technology. The events will be open to the public and livestreamed when possible, and feature various speakers on free speech, media, and telecommunications issues. With Democrat Geoffrey Starks planning to leave the commission soon, Republicans will gain a 2–1 majority, and Gomez is set to be the only Democrat on the FCC for at least a while. Carr is meanwhile pursuing news distortion investigations into CBS and ABC, and he has threatened Comcast with a similar probe into its subsidiary NBC. Gomez's press release criticized Carr for these and other actions. "From investigating broadcasters for editorial decisions in their newsrooms, to harassing private companies for their fair hiring practices, to threatening tech companies that respond to consumer demand for fact-checking tools, the FCC's actions have focused on weaponizing the agency's authority to silence critics," Gomez's office said. Gomez previously criticized Carr for reviving news distortion complaints that were dismissed shortly before Trump's inauguration. "We cannot allow our licensing authority to be weaponized to curtail freedom of the press," she said at the time. Jon Brodkin Senior IT Reporter Jon Brodkin Senior IT Reporter 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. 13 Comments

That's a bit pricey Can the legal system catch up with climate science? New estimate: Fossil fuel companies have caused trillions of dollars in damages. John Timmer – Apr 23, 2025 5:00 pm | 21 Credit: Marc Guitard Credit: Marc Guitard Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more A few decades ago, it wasn't realistic to attribute individual events—even heat waves—to the general warming trend driven by human-caused climate change. Now, there are peer-reviewed methods of rapidly detecting humanity's fingerprints in the wake of weather disasters like hurricanes or climate-driven wildfires. In today's issue of Nature, Dartmouth's Christopher Callahan and Justin Mankin argue that we've reached a similar level of sophistication regarding another key question: What are the economic damages caused by individual climate events? They argue that we can now assign monetary values to the damage caused by emissions that can be traced back to individual companies. They found that "The global economy would be $28 trillion richer ... were it not for the extreme heat caused by the emissions from the 111 carbon majors." They argue that this method might provide legal ammunition for those interested in seeking climate damages in court: "By revealing the human fingerprint on events previously thought to be ‘acts of God,’ attribution science has helped make climate change legally legible." How attribution works The method used by Callahan and Mankin is a variant on standard climate attribution studies. In the standard studies, climate models are run with and without the carbon dioxide that humanity has pumped into the atmosphere through fossil fuels and land use changes. You can then compare the frequency of specific weather events, like the intensity of rainfall from a hurricane or the peak temperatures of a heatwave, both with and without the added CO2. The difference in frequency is an indication of the impact of climate change. But it's possible to repeat the analysis with arbitrary amounts of carbon dioxide. So, the researchers could calculate the estimated emissions from different companies and compare the probabilities of events with and without those emissions. So, for example, Callahan and Mankin calculate the individual contributions of the companies responsible for the most carbon emissions (the "carbon majors" mentioned earlier), such as Chevron or Saudi Aramco. These include both the direct emissions during fossil fuel production, as well as the emissions that result when the products are burned. Similarly, it's possible to calculate the impact of emissions within a limited number of years. For example, Callahan and Mankin note that internal oil company research suggested that climate change would be a problem back around 1980, and calculated the impact of emissions that occurred after people knew they were an issue. So, the approach is extremely flexible. From there, the researchers could use empirical information that links elevated temperatures to economic damage. "Recent peer-reviewed work has used econometrics to infer causal relationships between climate hazards and outcomes such as income loss, reduced agricultural yields, increased human mortality, and depressed economic growth," Callahan and Mankin write. These metrics can be used to estimate the cost of things like flooding, crop losses, and other economic damages. Alternately, the researchers could analyze the impact on individual climate events where the financial costs have been calculated separately. Massive damages To implement their method, the researchers perform lots of individual models, collectively providing the most probable costs and the likely range around them. First, they translate each company's emissions into the impact on the global mean surface temperature. That gets translated to an impact on extreme temperatures, producing an estimate of what the days with the five most extreme temperatures would look like. That, in turn, is translated to economic damages associated with extreme heat. Callahan and Mankin use Chevron as an example. By 2020, Chevron's emissions were responsible for 0.025° C of the warming that year. If you perform a similar analysis for the ears between 1991 and 2020, the researchers come up with a range of damages that runs from a low of about $800 billion all the way up to $3.6 trillion. Most of the damage affected nations in the tropics. Carrying on through the five companies that have led to the most carbon emissions, they calculate that Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, Chevron, and Exxon Mobile have all produced damages of about $2 trillion. BP brings up the rear, with "just" $1.45 trillion in damage. For the full list of 111 carbon majors, Callahan and Mankin place the total damages at roughly $28 trillion. To look at the differences between separate periods, the researchers analyze the impacts in terms of an entity that's responsible for 5 percent of the total carbon emissions—that's roughly a quarter of the US's contributions, or a bit more than the entire contribution of Brazil. For the full period with global temperature records starting in 1850, the damages would be $4.2 trillion. If you start when Exxon's internal research work first highlighted the risk of climate change in 1977, the damage would be $3.3 trillion. If you wait until a clear scientific consensus that it was happening emerged (1990), then the damages would still be $2.5 trillion. (Note that this analysis does not attempt to quantify the benefits of burning fossil fuels during this period. And it also leaves out various non-climate costs, such as the impact of pollution on health.) The analysis of individual events produces smaller, but still striking numbers. For a 2012 heat wave in North America, the researchers place Chevron's share of the damages at just shy of $30 billion. Smaller losses ($28.8 and $3 billion) were associated with heat waves that struck Russia in 2010 and France in 2003. Legal impacts? Callahan and Mankin directly relate this to potential legal liability, arguing that science has progressed to the point where it has something to say about potential liabilities. "To sue over an injury, a litigant typically must demonstrate a causal connection between the action of the defendant and the plaintiff’s injury, sometimes through meeting a ‘but for’ standard: 'but for the actions of the defendant, the plaintiff would not have been injured.'” As they note, this matches up very well with the structure of their analysis, which compares the present climate to one that includes all the emissions "but for" the ones associated with specific companies. But they also note that we're still figuring out what legal standards should be applied, and who should be held liable. For example, a suit in Montana targeted the state for failing to provide its residents with a healthful environment. Other suits have targeted emissions as creating a public nuisance, or companies for misleading their investors by failing to account for climate-related risks. The liability that this study speaks to is not the only option for seeking legal redress. Still, with this work as a guideline, it seems inevitable that someone will attempt to use this to hold oil companies to account. Nature, 2025. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-025-08751-3  (About DOIs). John Timmer Senior Science Editor John Timmer Senior Science Editor John is Ars Technica's science editor. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California, Berkeley. When physically separated from his keyboard, he tends to seek out a bicycle, or a scenic location for communing with his hiking boots. 21 Comments

Get to da choppa Elle Fanning teams up with a predator in first Predator: Badlands trailer Live action film is directed by Dan Trachtenberg of Prey fame. Samuel Axon – Apr 23, 2025 5:14 pm | 10 The trailer offers glimpses at a planet that could be the Predators' home world. Credit: 20th Century Studios The trailer offers glimpses at a planet that could be the Predators' home world. Credit: 20th Century Studios Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more It's not every day you get a trailer for a new, live-action Predator movie, but today is one of those days. 20th Century Studios just released the first teaser for Predator: Badlands, a feature film that unconventionally makes the classic movie monster a protagonist. The film follows Dek (Dimitrius Schuster-Koloamatangi), a young member of the predator species and society who has been banished. He'll work closely with a Weyland-Yutani Android named Thia (Elle Fanning) to take down "the ultimate adversary," which the trailer dubs a creature that "can't be killed." The adversary looks like a very large monster we haven't seen before, judging from a few shots in the trailer. Some or all of the film is rumored to take place on the Predator home world, and the movie intends to greatly expand on the mythology around the Predators' culture, language, and customs. It's intended as a standalone movie in the Predator/Alien universe. Predator: Badlands teaser trailer. The trailer depicts sequences involving multiple predators fighting or threatening one another, Elle Fanning looking very strange and cool as an android, and glimpses of new monsters and the alien world the movie focuses on. Predator: Badlands' director and co-writer is Dan Trachtenberg, who directed another recent, highly acclaimed, standalone Predator movie: Prey. That film put a predator in the usual antagonist role, and had a historical setting, following a young Native American woman who went up against it. Trachtenberg has also recently been working on an animated anthology series called Predator: Killer of Killers, which is due to premiere on Hulu (which also carried Prey) on June 6. Predator: Badlands will debut in theaters on November 7. This is just the first teaser trailer, so we'll learn more in subsequent trailers—though we know quite a bit already, it seems. Samuel Axon Senior Editor Samuel Axon Senior Editor Samuel Axon is a senior editor at Ars Technica, where he is the editorial director for tech and gaming coverage. He covers AI, software development, gaming, entertainment, and mixed reality. He has been writing about gaming and technology for nearly two decades at Engadget, PC World, Mashable, Vice, Polygon, Wired, and others. He previously ran a marketing and PR agency in the gaming industry, led editorial for the TV network CBS, and worked on social media marketing strategy for Samsung Mobile at the creative agency SPCSHP. He also is an independent software and game developer for iOS, Windows, and other platforms, and he is a graduate of DePaul University, where he studied interactive media and software development. 10 Comments

The bright side Tapeworm in fox poop that will slowly destroy your organs is on the rise The worm indefinitely proliferates into cystic masses in organs, mimicking cancer. Beth Mole – Apr 23, 2025 5:46 pm | 7 This is a portrait taken of a red fox kit in Lake Clark National Park, Alaska Credit: Getty | Vincent Balsamo This is a portrait taken of a red fox kit in Lake Clark National Park, Alaska Credit: Getty | Vincent Balsamo Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more No matter how bad things might seem, at least you haven't accidentally eaten fox poop and developed an insidious tapeworm infection that masquerades as a cancerous liver tumor while it slowly destroys your organs and eventually kills you—or, you probably haven't done that. What's more, according to a newly published study in Emerging Infectious Diseases, even if you have somehow feasted on fox feces and acquired this nightmare parasite, it's looking less likely that doctors will need to hack out chunks of your organs to try to stop it. That's the good news from the new study. The bad news is that, while this infection is fairly rare, it appears to be increasing. And, if you do get it, you might have a shorter lifespan than the uninfected and may be sicker in general. Meet the fox tapeworm The new study is a retrospective one, in which a group of doctors in Switzerland examined medical records of 334 patients who developed the disease alveolar echinococcosis (AE) over a 50-year span (1973–2022). AE is an understudied, life-threatening infection caused by the fox tapeworm, Echinococcus multilocularis. The parasite is not common, but can be found throughout the Northern Hemisphere, particularly regions of China and Russia, and countries in continental Europe and North America. In the parasite's intended lifecycle, adult intestinal worms release eggs into the feces of their primary host—foxes, or sometimes coyotes, dogs, or other canids. The eggs then get ingested by an intermediate host, such as voles. There, eggs develop into a spherical embryo with six hooks that pierce through the intestinal wall to migrate to the animal's organs, primarily the liver. Once nestled into an organ, the parasites develop into multi-chambered, thin-walled cysts—a proliferative life stage that lasts indefinitely. As more cysts develop, the mass looks and acts like cancer, forming necrotic cavities and sometimes metastasizing to other organs, such as the lungs and brain. The parasite remains in these cancerous-like masses, waiting for a fox to eat the cyst-riddled organs of its host. Back in a fox, the worms attach to the intestines and grow into adults. Humans crash this vile cycle by accidentally eating the eggs excreted by infected foxes or other primary hosts. This generally happens by a delightful "hand-to-mouth" transfer or contamination of food. In humans, the parasites invade organs much like they do in voles, forming cancer-like masses in organs. In the liver, the infection closely resembles liver cancer and cirrhosis. The tumor-like parasites can also spread to the lungs, brain, heart, bone, and other organs. In humans, the infection is insidious, with an asymptomatic incubation period of between 5 and 15 years. Once the disease develops, about 90 percent of people will die within 10 years if they are not treated. The most common treatment in the past has been surgically removing sections of organs where the cysts are endlessly proliferating, which doesn't always catch all the parasites. However, modern treatment has turned more toward using benzimidazole drugs that fight parasitic worms, namely albendazole or mebendazole. Insights from Zurich Of the 334 patients with AE in the Swiss study—who were all treated at the University Hospital of Zurich between 1973 and 2022—the median age at diagnosis was 57.5 years. Of the 334 patients, 151 had some type of surgery to remove the parasites, and 315 received benzimidazole drug therapy. Over the 50-year study period, 90 patients died, but most of the deaths were from causes other than the parasitic infection. Only 13 deaths were caused by AE. Survival analyses showed that those with AE had lower survival rates compared with the general population five years after diagnosis, especially those who were diagnosed with AE later in life. But, AE did not appear to be the main driver of their shortened life expectancy. The reasons for this aren't entirely clear, but the authors speculate that "the gradual decline of relative survival 5 years after diagnosis could reflect a generally sicker population." Further, those who had curative surgery did not have a statistically significant boost in survival compared with infected patients who didn't have curative surgery. The authors attributed this finding to the "excellent disease control with benzimidazole drug therapy." They recommend that clinicians rethink the optimal treatment for AE. "Today, treatment decisions should be made on the basis of the patient’s expected remaining years with the disease and the potential complications and cost-effectiveness of either a surgical or conservative approach," they write. "Although younger patients will most likely benefit from radical resection, older patients may not." Like other previous studies, the Swiss analysis found a jump in infections starting around 2000. It's unclear what's causing this, but researchers have speculated that habitat expansion of primary host populations, an increased use of imaging in health care, and a more susceptible population may be possible explanations. In the current study, the increase in the number of cases was linked to a "substantial" increase in incidental findings of AE—that is, asymptomatic parasitic cysts were detected inadvertently during medical care. That points to increased imaging. But, in 2021, researchers in Canada reported AE as an emerging disease in Alberta, which they partly attributed to the growing urbanization of coyotes. Beth Mole Senior Health Reporter Beth Mole Senior Health Reporter Beth is Ars Technica’s Senior Health Reporter. Beth has a Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and attended the Science Communication program at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She specializes in covering infectious diseases, public health, and microbes. 7 Comments

BAR NONE AI secretly helped write California bar exam, sparking uproar A contractor used AI to create 23 out of the 171 scored multiple-choice questions. Benj Edwards – Apr 23, 2025 3:05 pm | 7 A computer-generated gavel hovers over a laptop. Credit: Getty Images A computer-generated gavel hovers over a laptop. Credit: Getty Images Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more On Monday, the State Bar of California revealed that it used AI to develop a portion of multiple-choice questions on its February 2025 bar exam, causing outrage among law school faculty and test takers. The admission comes after weeks of complaints about technical problems and irregularities during the exam administration, reports the Los Angeles Times. The State Bar disclosed that its psychometrician (a person skilled in administrating psychological tests), ACS Ventures, created 23 of the 171 scored multiple-choice questions with AI assistance. Another 48 questions came from a first-year law student exam, while Kaplan Exam Services developed the remaining 100 questions. The State Bar defended its practices, telling the LA Times that all questions underwent review by content validation panels and subject matter experts before the exam. "The ACS questions were developed with the assistance of AI and subsequently reviewed by content validation panels and a subject matter expert in advance of the exam," wrote State Bar Executive Director Leah Wilson in a press release. According to the LA Times, the revelation has drawn strong criticism from several legal education experts. "The debacle that was the February 2025 bar exam is worse than we imagined," said Mary Basick, assistant dean of academic skills at the University of California, Irvine School of Law. "I'm almost speechless. Having the questions drafted by non-lawyers using artificial intelligence is just unbelievable." Katie Moran, an associate professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law who specializes in bar exam preparation, called it "a staggering admission." She pointed out that the same company that drafted AI-generated questions also evaluated and approved them for use on the exam. State bar defends AI-assisted questions amid criticism Alex Chan, chair of the State Bar's Committee of Bar Examiners, noted that the California Supreme Court had urged the State Bar to explore "new technologies, such as artificial intelligence" to improve testing reliability and cost-effectiveness. However, the California Supreme Court told the LA Times that it "was unaware that AI had been used to draft any of the multiple-choice questions" until the State Bar's Monday press release. The AI disclosure follows other problems with the February exam. Test takers reported being kicked off online testing platforms, experiencing screen lag and error messages, and encountering typos and confusing questions. These issues prompted a federal lawsuit against Meazure Learning, the exam administrator, and calls for an audit of the State Bar. A unique test of dubious quality The State Bar of California switched from the National Conference of Bar Examiners' Multistate Bar Examination to its own hybrid in-person and remote testing model last year while facing a $22 million deficit. It contracted with Kaplan Exam Services for $8.25 million to create test questions. According to the LA Times, law professors Basick and Moran had previously raised concerns about the quality of the February exam questions, noting that the 50 practice questions released before the exam "still contain numerous errors" even after editing. Basick expressed additional concerns about the use of first-year law exam questions, arguing that an exam determining minimal competence to practice law requires a different standard than one assessing first-year law school learning. The State Bar plans to ask the California Supreme Court to adjust test scores for February exam takers but has resisted returning to the National Conference of Bar Examiners exams for July, citing test security concerns with remote testing options. The Committee of Bar Examiners will meet on May 5 to discuss remedies, but Chan said the State Bar is unlikely to release all 200 exam questions or return to National Conference of Bar Examiners tests soon, as nearly half of California bar applicants want to keep the remote testing option. Benj Edwards Senior AI Reporter Benj Edwards Senior AI Reporter Benj Edwards is Ars Technica's Senior AI Reporter and founder of the site's dedicated AI beat in 2022. He's also a tech historian with almost two decades of experience. In his free time, he writes and records music, collects vintage computers, and enjoys nature. He lives in Raleigh, NC. 7 Comments

What's old is new again Backward compatible: Many old Oblivion mods still work on Oblivion Remastered The modding community is already hard at work despite lack of "official" support. Kyle Orland – Apr 23, 2025 3:16 pm | 0 Thanks to a circa 2008 mod, I have a ton of armor and weapons from the jump in Oblivion Remastered Credit: Kyle Orland / Bethesda Thanks to a circa 2008 mod, I have a ton of armor and weapons from the jump in Oblivion Remastered Credit: Kyle Orland / Bethesda

This town is big enough for the two of us Bethesda isn’t shutting down ambitious fan-made “Skyblivion” remaster project "Bethesda has always been supportive of community projects like ours..." Kyle Orland – Apr 23, 2025 11:19 am | 11 The future looks bright for the team behind the Skyblivion modding project. Credit: Skyblivion Team The future looks bright for the team behind the Skyblivion modding project. Credit: Skyblivion Team Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Bethesda fans are understandably excited about the opportunity to revisit the world of Cyrodiil with yesterday's heavily telegraphed release of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Remastered. But that excitement may have been tinged with at least a little bit of trepidation for the team behind Skyblivion, a volunteer-run project that has spent years trying to "port and rebuild" 2007's Oblivion into the updated engine from 2016's remastered Skyrim: Special Edition. Fortunately for the Skyblivion team, Bethesda has apparently decided there's room enough in this world for both official and unofficial remakes of Oblivion. The team took to social media Tuesday to thank Bethesda for "their continued support" and for "the generous gift of Oblivion Remastered game keys for our entire modding team." "To clear up any confusion Bethesda made it clear that they have no intention of shutting down our project," the team added in a social media reply. Not everyone is so supportive Earlier this month, when credible rumors of the official Oblivion remaster were running rampant, the Skyblivion team posted that it was "eagerly aniticipating" the official release and that there was "no need for comparisons or a sense of competition between Skyblivion and a potential official remaster." That's particularly true, the team wrote, because Skyblivion's PC mod won't be available for console players, who will be able to enjoy Bethesda's official version instead "Bethesda has always been supportive of community projects like ours, and we don't see that changing anytime soon," the team wrote at the time. The latest "making of" trailer for the ambitious Skyblivion modding project. Other publishers aren't always similarly open to competition from fans, though. Nintendo has long taken a legal scorched earth approach to a wide variety of fan games that use its licensed characters or trademarks. And last year, Valve also took steps to shut down a number of fan remakes of its legacy games. In 2016, Blizzard shut down a couple of fan-run "classic" World of Warcraft servers in the run-up to its announcement of official World of Warcraft Classic servers. Activision and EA have similarly shut down modded servers for legacy online titles. Some publishers have mirrored Bethesda's more open approach to modders, though. Sega actively encouraged official Steamworks modding for some Sega Genesis classics released as PC downloads back in 2016. And the heavily Halo-inspired Installation 01 continues to thrive with something close to official support from Microsoft and developer 343 Industries, as long as it remains a non-commercial project. As for Skyblivion, while the project's last public Roadmap update is months old at this point, the team is still confident it will be able to release a version of its ambitious mod later this year. "We are confident that players will be the true winners, having the opportunity to experience both a community-driven reimagining and a professional, modern version of this beloved game." Kyle Orland Senior Gaming Editor Kyle Orland Senior Gaming Editor Kyle Orland has been the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica since 2012, writing primarily about the business, tech, and culture behind video games. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He once wrote a whole book about Minesweeper. 11 Comments

Letting feelings get in the way? Zuckerberg stifled Instagram because he loves Facebook, Instagram founder says Before acquiring Instagram, Mark Zuckerberg swore Facebook had “no agenda.” Ashley Belanger – Apr 23, 2025 12:14 pm | 1 Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg listens to Kevin Systrom (not shown), Instagram CEO and co-founder, speak during a press event at Facebook headquarters where a video feature for Instagram was announced. Credit: San Francisco Chronicle/Hearst Newspapers / Contributor | Hearst Newspapers Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg listens to Kevin Systrom (not shown), Instagram CEO and co-founder, speak during a press event at Facebook headquarters where a video feature for Instagram was announced. Credit: San Francisco Chronicle/Hearst Newspapers / Contributor | Hearst Newspapers Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more At the Meta monopoly trial, Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom accused Mark Zuckerberg of draining Instagram resources to stifle growth out of sheer jealousy. According to Systrom, Zuckerberg may have been directly involved in yanking resources after integrating Instagram and Facebook because "as the founder of Facebook, he felt a lot of emotion around which one was better—Instagram or Facebook," The Financial Times reported. In 2025, Instagram is projected to account for more than half of Meta's ad revenue, according to eMarketer's forecast. Since 2019, Instagram has generated more ad revenue per user than Facebook, eMarketer noted, and today makes Meta twice as much per user as the closest rival that Meta claims it fears most, TikTok. Seeming to back up Systrom's claim that Zuckerberg acted irrationally in suppressing Instagram was a 2018 email in which Zuckerberg considered selling off Instagram to "immediately stop artificially growing Instagram in a way that undermines the Facebook networks." That email came right at the moment when Instagram was overtaking Facebook's ad revenue per user, the data suggests, and Systrom testified that he felt Zuckerberg's strategy seemed so fishy that he left the company that year. "Every company needs to make trade-offs, but... [it] felt like something else was going on," Systrom testified. Some of Zuckerberg's interviews from 2012—the year that Facebook bought Instagram—suggest that Systrom may be onto something. In a talk with Y Combinator's Startup School, Zuckerberg passionately explained that Facebook's services are about "what makes humans human" and made a mission of expanding the social capacity of humanity beyond Dunbar's number, which claims that the human brain can only handle maintaining about 150 relationships. At that time, the average Facebook user had about 150 connections, Zuckerberg said, and he fervently wanted the service to essentially train human brains to manage even more social interactions than ever before. "There had to be a service that gave people the power to share the things they wanted and control it in the way they wanted, and Facebook did that," Zuckerberg said. And about his ambition to multiply Dunbar's number, he said, "it was fundamental for me. I felt this need really acutely; I really wanted this." Systrom testified that Zuckerberg favored Facebook so much that he began starving Instagram of resources, including denying any additional staffing to help build out Instagram's video tools in 2017. "We were given zero of 300 incremental video heads, which is an unacceptable and offensive outcome," Systrom testified. Systrom's testimony, the FT reported, "hit at the heart" of the Federal Trade Commission's case, as the FTC has alleged that Meta cut off Instagram's growth to avoid Facebook’s "network collapse." Antitrust lawyer, Brendan Benedict, who is monitoring the trial, wrote on X that Systrom was "a really effective witness" who appeared "justifiably upset with how Zuckerberg didn't seem to be keeping his end of their bargain." By 2018, Systrom testified that Meta viewed Instagram as a "threat" to Facebook's growth, The Verge reported. "If Instagram didn’t grow as quickly, Facebook wouldn’t shrink as quickly or plateau as quickly," Systrom testified. "I don’t think he [Zuckerberg] ever said it out loud that way, but that was the only reason we were having this discussion" about ending feature integrations between Facebook and Instagram—which was one of the primary ways Meta had fueled Instagram's growth. On Tuesday, Meta issued a statement following Systrom's testimony that maintained Meta's argument that the FTC is rehashing old deals that the agency long ago approved. "Out-of-context and years-old documents about acquisitions that were reviewed by the FTC more than a decade ago will not obscure the realities of the competition we face or overcome the FTC’s weak case," Meta said. “We have no agenda,” Zuckerberg said in 2012 Tensions between Zuckerberg and Instagram co-founders Systrom and Mike Krieger started before the acquisition, Zuckerberg told attendees at the 2012 TechCrunch Disrupt conference. Explaining that then-Facebook was impressed by Instagram's use of its open graph to make sharing Instagram's appealing photos on Facebook easier, Zuckerberg said that the decision to acquire Instagram came after realizing that Facebook wasn't deriving value from supporting the popular camera app. "There's this question of, OK, well, we can help them grow," Zuckerberg said. "But without the value occurring to us," so I just brought up the idea to Kevin—hey, maybe we should just join and become one company." Listening to Zuckerberg at that time, it's easy to see why Systrom so defiantly pushed back on the stand against Meta's claims that its choices were made purely to fuel Instagram's growth. Zuckerberg insisted early on that Instagram wouldn't be forced to integrate with Facebook, which, of course, eventually happened. "We think Instagram is amazing, and we want to help it grow to hundreds of millions of users," Zuckerberg said in 2012. "We want to help them out with whatever we can, but we have no agenda in terms of making them go into our infrastructure or something. I know a lot of times companies force companies that they're integrating to do stuff like that. I think it's primarily a waste of time." Systrom testified that rather than support Instagram, Meta quickly pulled Facebook growth team staff off Instagram, crippling its growth, The Verge reported. Instagram's "first slowdown that we had was maybe a year into being at Facebook," Systrom testified, saying that "Meta had the 'best' growth team, 'if you could work with them,'" the FT reported. On X, Benedict reported that Meta's lawyer scored "some points" by getting Systrom to admit that Instagram pre-acquisition decided "not to compete" with Facebook and had no intentions of ever becoming a social network (seeing itself more as an interests-based app focused on sharing photography). That could undercut the FTC's argument that Facebook shut down a rival's growth. Court must determine who Meta’s real rivals are The FTC needs to convince the court that Meta holds a monopoly in a market for personal social networks after foreclosing competition, partly by acquiring Instagram. Meta is hoping to broaden the market definition to pull in other social media rivals, like TikTok, that would significantly reduce Meta's market share below monopoly levels. If the FTC wins, Instagram may be spun off from Meta's "family of apps," which the FTC believes would, for the first time ever, force Meta to face competition as a social media company focused on connecting friends and family. Some critics think that Meta has never really had rivals. Back in 2012, Zuckerberg claimed in his talk with the Startup School that Facebook had no beef with MySpace, for example, which crumpled in the face of Facebook's competition. Instead, he insisted that for Facebook, "it's not about winning and losing. It's about doing something that's valuable." But when Zuckerberg tried to claim that there was "more than one" social network in 2012, the Startup School interviewer abruptly interrupted him. "More than one social network? Not really," the interviewer joked, stirring loud laughter from the audience by pointing out the obvious. Rather than point to any Facebook rivals, Zuckerberg dodged by saying that Facebook's integration into a wide range of apps had made nearly everything people did online social. "My view of the world is almost every product and category is going to get transformed and reimagined to be social," Zuckerberg said, almost paving the way for Meta's argument today that it faces vast competition in every direction, including from video apps like YouTube or professional social networks like LinkedIn. Similarly, at the 2012 TechCrunch conference, Zuckerberg explained that Facebook isn't about dominating markets but is instead about fulfilling his vision of expanding the way that humans connect in the world. "We don't build services to make money," Zuckerberg said. "We make money to build better services." And that "really goes to the heart of the philosophy that we have in running the company," he said. "We exist and we wake up in the morning, and the thing that gets us excited is making a world more open and connected." Systrom alleged to the court that, in reality, Zuckerberg ran Facebook based on his personal desire to have his flagship product remain on top. When confronted with an email in which Systrom praised Instagram's seemingly inevitable integration with Facebook for driving growth, Systrom claimed "he was only emphasizing the benefit to appease Zuckerberg," The Verge reported, amid rising tensions between the founders. And when Meta's lawyer asked if that meant he was lying in the email, Systrom appeared to run out of patience for Meta's line of questioning, responding only with a terse "Sir." On X, Benedict joked that for everyone closely watching the testimony from one of the FTC's star witnesses, it was " the 'Sir' heard round the world." Ashley Belanger Senior Policy Reporter Ashley Belanger Senior Policy Reporter 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. 1 Comments

number go up Tesla’s death is “not close” says Musk, as operating margin drops to 2% As Elon Musk helps undo regulations, regulatory credits keep Tesla profitable. Jonathan M. Gitlin – Apr 23, 2025 8:47 am | 43 Tesla stores across the US continue to be the site of anti-Elon Musk protests. Credit: hoto by Joseph Prezioso / AFP via Getty Images Tesla stores across the US continue to be the site of anti-Elon Musk protests. Credit: hoto by Joseph Prezioso / AFP via Getty Images Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Tesla managed to hold onto profitability in the first quarter of 2025. Just. Earlier this month the automaker reported double-digit declines in both production and delivery numbers thanks to the impact of CEO Elon Musk's central role in the Trump administration, a global trade war, and an increasingly outdated and tiny product lineup. Yesterday, we saw the true cost of those factors when Tesla published its profit and loss statement for Q1 2025. Total revenues fell by nine percent year-over-year to $19.3 billion in Q1. Selling cars accounts for 72 percent of Tesla's revenue, but these automotive revenues fell by 20 percent year-over-year. Strong growth (67 percent) in Tesla's storage battery and solar division helped the bottom line, as did a modest 15 percent increase in revenue from services, which includes its Supercharger stations, which are now opening to other car brands. But Tesla's expenses grew slightly in Q1 2025, and more importantly its profitability shrank. Income from operations fell by two-thirds to $399 million, and its operating margin—once as high as 20 percent—has fallen to just 2.1 percent. Now the third successive fall in a row, the company will start to lose money on every car it sells should this trend continue. Still making money Despite all this bad news, the bottom line remains in the black. Ironically, given Musk's role in tearing up environmental protections, it's regulatory credits that have kept the company profitable. Last year, Tesla increased the amount of credits it pulled in by 54 percent to more than $2.7 billion. That trend may accelerate for 2025 as new rules in the European Union incentivize other automakers like Stellantis to pay Tesla to count its electric vehicles as part of their own pool for emissions. But for this quarter, you can thank the changing headwinds here at home. This "was driven by demand for credits in North America as other automobile manufacturers have scaled back on their battery electric vehicle plans," Tesla wrote in its 10-Q. For Q1 2025, Tesla took in $595 million in regulatory credits. Net income amounted to just $409 million. None of this should be cause for concern, unlike the many times in the past that Tesla almost went out of business, Musk told investors on a call last night. "It's been so many times. This is not one of those times. We're not on the ragged edge of death, not even close," he said. I’m coming back! The good news—if you're a Tesla investor, at least—is that Musk says he will be spending more time at the electric car company in the coming months. He was hired by President Trump as a "special government employee," a loophole that allows someone to be appointed to a senior government position without any of the congressional scrutiny that would normally accompany such a significant job. The proviso is that such positions can legally only be for 130 days, and Musk should reach that total in the next few weeks. The flip side is that his secretive involvement with the DOGE wrecking ball looks set to continue. "I'll have to continue doing it for, I think, probably the remainder of the President's term, just to make sure that the waste and fraud that we stop does not come roaring back, which will do if it has the chance," Musk told investors last night. Earlier this month the New York Times reported that Musk said his DOGE group would now generate just 15 percent of the vast savings he originally claimed—even this smaller amount was disputed by the Times. Musk says he expects to still devote 20 to 40 percent of his working time to the government, meaning Tesla must still fight for his attention together with SpaceX and other, lesser ventures. Autonomous, real soon now Tesla remains "absolutely hardcore about safety," Musk said, despite the Cybertruck being more likely than the infamous Ford Pinto to burst into flames. "We go to great lengths to make the safest car in the world and have the lowest accidents per mile in. So—and look, fewest lives lost," Musk said on last night's call. In 2024, an analysis of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's vehicle fatality rate data found that actually Tesla was in fact the deadliest brand of car currently on sale in the US. Musk and the other Tesla executives on the call continued to tout the importance of artificial intelligence and autonomous driving to the company's future. Musk described a "convoy of Teslas" driving in circles around its base in Austin, Texas, to "figure out long-tail things," Musk said. Autonomous or even partially automated driving systems never make it into the list of "must-haves" for American car buyers, but Tesla is pinning its hopes on selling such systems here and abroad. In China, Musk described bold user behavior. "They have a lot of fun with the cars. I saw one guy take a Tesla on—autonomous on a narrow road across like a mountain. And I'm like, very brave person. And the Tesla's driving along on a road with no barriers where he makes a mistake, he's going to plunge to his doom," he said. Tesla charges almost $9,000 for its partially automated driving system in China, which can now no longer be called "FSD" or "Full Self Driving" in the country. Earlier this week, the Chinese government banned misleading terms like "smart" or "autonomous" in vehicle advertising. And Tesla's domestic rivals like Zeekr and BYD—which now outsell the American company—are giving away their own partially automated driving systems for free. Number go up It all may sound like a great big bucket of bad news for the car company, but the stock market has a different take. "If this is the worst it gets for Tesla, then certainly there must be some upside for the stock once tailwinds, such as the highly-awaited cheaper model and the Robotaxi, finally hit the market later this year," wrote Thomas Monteiro, senior analyst at investing.com. Predictably, Tesla's stock price has risen steadily in premarket trading immediately after announcing its results. Jonathan M. Gitlin Automotive Editor Jonathan M. Gitlin Automotive Editor Jonathan is the Automotive Editor at Ars Technica. He has a BSc and PhD in Pharmacology. In 2014 he decided to indulge his lifelong passion for the car by leaving the National Human Genome Research Institute and launching Ars Technica's automotive coverage. He lives in Washington, DC. 43 Comments

Intercepting creeps Google Messages can now blur unwanted nudes, remind people not to send them Google's Sensitive Content Warnings can keep Messages rated PG. Ryan Whitwam – Apr 22, 2025 11:51 am | 31 SafetyCore runs on-device AI to detect nudes. Credit: Ryan Whitwam SafetyCore runs on-device AI to detect nudes. Credit: Ryan Whitwam Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Google announced last year that it would deploy safety tools in Google Messages to help users avoid unwanted nudes by automatically blurring the content. Now, that feature is finally beginning to roll out. Spicy image-blurring may be enabled by default on some devices, but others will need to turn it on manually. If you don't see the option yet, don't fret. Sensitive Content Warnings will arrive on most of the world's Android phones soon enough. If you're an adult using an unrestricted phone, Sensitive Content Warnings will be disabled by default. For teenagers using unsupervised phones, the feature is enabled but can be disabled in the Messages settings. On supervised kids' phones, the feature is enabled and cannot be disabled on-device. Only the Family Link administrator can do that. For everyone else, the settings are available in the Messages app settings under Protection and Safety. To make the feature sufficiently private, all the detection happens on the device. As a result, there was some consternation among Android users when the necessary components began rolling out over the last few months. For people who carefully control the software installed on their mobile devices, the sudden appearance of a package called SafetyCore was an affront to the sanctity of their phones. While you can remove the app (it's listed under "Android System SafetyCore"), it doesn't take up much space and won't be active unless you enable Sensitive Content Warnings. Now, at least, SafetyCore is doing something, according to 9to5Google. SafetyCore allows your phone to do basic AI image classification so it can identify images that may contain nudity. If your phone spots such an image arriving in your inbox, it will apply a blur filter and present a "speed bump" that lets you decide if you want to see said image. You can also choose to block the number that sent it. Sensitive Content Warnings also remind users who are sending nudes that they may want to rethink that. Like the incoming image speed bump, you can dismiss this one and continue sending unimpeded. It's a lot like Apple's identically named Sensitive Content Warning. Sensitive Content Warnings are coming to all Android devices with Google apps running version 9 or higher, but it's starting with those in the Google Messages beta. Unlike many features, this one is even available to the oft-forgotten Android Go lineup. However, your phone needs to have at least 2GB of RAM, which virtually every working Android phone should have. Content blurring and speed bumps will only appear in the Google Messages app, so you may need to switch to that app on certain phones. If you don't want to wait for the wide rollout, you can join the Messages beta in the Play Store to hurry the process along. Ryan Whitwam Senior Technology Reporter Ryan Whitwam Senior Technology Reporter Ryan Whitwam is a senior technology reporter at Ars Technica, covering the ways Google, AI, and mobile technology continue to change the world. Over his 20-year career, he's written for Android Police, ExtremeTech, Wirecutter, NY Times, and more. He has reviewed more phones than most people will ever own. You can follow him on Bluesky, where you will see photos of his dozens of mechanical keyboards. 31 Comments

Close Shut the Jaws of Oblivion You can play the Unreal-powered The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion remaster today "Surprise" dropped today, the game overhauls leveling and graphics. Samuel Axon – Apr 22, 2025 12:17 pm | 29 The Oblivion remaster runs on Unreal Engine—but Bethesda's own engine is still involved. Credit: Bethesda The Oblivion remaster runs on Unreal Engine—but Bethesda's own engine is still involved. Credit: Bethesda Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more The worst-kept secret in the gaming industry in 2025 is no longer a secret: Bethesda Game Studios' 2006 RPG The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion has been remastered, and that remaster has already been released on all supported platforms today. A livestream featuring developer sound bites and gameplay footage ran on Twitch and YouTube today, making it official after years of leaks. Oblivion was the immediate precursor to The Elder Scrolls V: Skryim, which became one of the most popular games of all time—but Oblivion was pretty popular in its time, too, and it was the first game in the franchise that would end up feeling at all modern by today's standards. (I personally will always love The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, though.) Like Skyrim, it straddles the line between story-based fantasy RPG and systems-based, emergent gameplay playground. It's less structured and accessible than Skyrim, but it offers far more robust character customization. It's infamously janky, but largely in an endearing way for fans of the franchise. (Players who prefer a polished, curated experience should surely look elsewhere.) The <em>Oblivion</em> livestream reveal. The port was not handled directly by the original developer, Bethesda Game Studios. Rather, people within BGS worked closely with an outside developer, Virtuos. Virtuos is a sprawling, multi-studio organization with a deep history as a support studio. It contributed to a whole range of games, like Cyberpunk 2077, Hogwarts Legacy, The Outer Worlds, and more. It also was involved in some previous well-received remaster efforts and ports, including Assassin's Creed: The Ezio Collection and Final Fantasy X/X-2 HD Remaster. Based on the footage in Bethesda's reveal video today, it appears that Oblivion Remastered was largely developed by Virtuos Paris. It's important to note that this is a remaster, not a remake. This project uses Unreal Engine, but only for the presentation aspects like graphics and audio. Bethesda's proprietary Creation Engine is still there handling the gameplay logic and systems. That said, Virtuos has also made changes on that front. Most notably, today's announcement revealed that the remaster will have a completely overhauled leveling system, which is described as combining elements from Oblivion and Skyrim. That will be welcome news for many players. In many ways, Oblivion feels like a modern game, but its leveling system—which incentivizes players to delay leveling up to grind certain skills—was controversial even when it launched. It's not completely clear what the new one will look like, but this is likely a case where most fans will consider any change a good one. Other aspects of the game that are a bit odd and anachronistic are still in place, though, like the persuasion system for conversations with NPCs. Oblivion's appeal is largely about its jazzy gameplay systems, so the team likely didn't want to compromise that too much. Lockpicking is the same as before, too. On the presentation side, Virtuos has added a much more robust lighting system than before, and the game looks hyper-detailed. NPC faces and talking animations have been overhauled for the better, but there are still some wacky-looking people. (Would we really have it any other way?) Considerable effort has gone into remastering the character faces, as you can see on this Khajiit. Bethesda Considerable effort has gone into remastering the character faces, as you can see on this Khajiit. Bethesda The UI has also been redone, but it follows the motif set by the original. Bethesda The UI has also been redone, but it follows the motif set by the original. Bethesda Considerable effort has gone into remastering the character faces, as you can see on this Khajiit. Bethesda The UI has also been redone, but it follows the motif set by the original. Bethesda All told, the stream made it look like we're getting a promising new coat of paint on a game that made an enormous impact when it first arrived in 2006 but which was overshadowed by Skyrim a few years later. The Elder Scrolls VI is still in development, and Skyrim was much closer in time to Oblivion than it is to today. So apart from The Elder Scrolls Online, fans of the franchise have been experiencing a historic drought. A remaster certainly isn't the same as a new game, but if Bethesda and Virtuos pulled it off, this release is sure to be popular. The game is available on PC (Steam), PlayStation 5, and Xbox Series X|S for $50 today. It’s also on Game Pass. Samuel Axon Senior Editor Samuel Axon Senior Editor Samuel Axon is a senior editor at Ars Technica, where he is the editorial director for tech and gaming coverage. He covers AI, software development, gaming, entertainment, and mixed reality. He has been writing about gaming and technology for nearly two decades at Engadget, PC World, Mashable, Vice, Polygon, Wired, and others. He previously ran a marketing and PR agency in the gaming industry, led editorial for the TV network CBS, and worked on social media marketing strategy for Samsung Mobile at the creative agency SPCSHP. He also is an independent software and game developer for iOS, Windows, and other platforms, and he is a graduate of DePaul University, where he studied interactive media and software development. 29 Comments

3800+ kills/hour 12-year-old Doom 2 challenge map finally beaten after six-hour, 23K-demon grind Streamer Coincident gets a dream run on the Okuplok's nightmarish "slaughter map." Kyle Orland – Apr 22, 2025 12:31 pm | 17 Piece of cake. Credit: Coincident / Youtube Piece of cake. Credit: Coincident / Youtube Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Over 12 years ago, a reclusive DoomWorld forum member going by the handle Okuplok released what he called "a slaughter map" for Doom 2. Packed to the gills with 23,211 enemies (often in extremely claustrophobic corridors), the level quickly gained a reputation in the classic Doom player community as being one of the hardest ever constructed. That reputation didn't stop classic FPS streamer Coincident, who has been grinding away at the "Okuplok slaughter map" in some form or another for years. And over the weekend, Coincident became the first player to defeat every enemy and complete the map in a single segment during a livestreamed marathon run that clocked in at just over six hours. A long time coming To be clear, this isn't the first time the Okuplok slaughter map has been completed in any form. In 2023, Coincident managed to take it down in a single segment run on the much easier "I'm too young to die" difficulty, which halves the damage taken and doubles the ammo provided. At the time, Coincident estimated that an Ultra Violence run on the same level would be "eight times more difficult," thanks in large part to randomized damage that could end a run after a single mistake. Tool-assisted speedruns have shown that an Ultra Violence run of the Okuplok slaughter map was technically possible in under two hours with mechanically perfect input. But at that difficulty, humans had only been able to force their way through the slaughter level in multi-segment runs, exploiting save states to preserve their best performances and break up the nerve-wracking tedium. Coincident himself completed one such Ultra Violence run in just two segments last year, an achievement that still took 56 total attempts and what he said was "countless hours of practice." Coincident beating the slaughter level on "I'm too young to die" difficulty in 2023. In the run-up to his single-segment completion, Coincident put together a series of strategy videos that highlight the difficulty of completing even the relatively easy opening sections of this brutal level. There, he outlines the "scientific approach" he takes to movement through each section of the map, making use of rare points of partial cover and using constant movement to prioritize survival and ammo management above all else. In the descriptions for those videos, though, Coincident acknowledged some of the reasons that Okuplok's level has been "deemed impossible to beat in one segment" on Ultra Violence difficulty. Even if you have a perfect strategy mapped out for each segment, "some of the later fights are a pure RNG grind," he wrote. "Losing multiple 5-hour-long [Ultra Violence] runs over and over again that late into the map would drive me insane." Coincident's strategy videos for the slaughter map highlight just how tough even the "easy" sections are to complete. The slaughter level's "wildly varying levels of difficulty between each fight" are "extremely frustrating as a challenge, especially when you die to a difficult fight, after having cleared several easy (and borderline boring) fights for 3 hours," Coincident continued in another video description. "Some consider that the only reason why no one has single-segmented Okuplok on UV yet is because no one even wants to try. I wouldn't be surprised." “It’s over!” Nonetheless, over the weekend, Coincident proved he was willing to try what he once considered an "impossible" task. His grueling, six-hour-long marathon isn't actually that fun to watch at many points. The occasional moments of intense, close-quarters combat are punctuated by long segments where Coincident circle-strafes endlessly around large hordes, waiting for enemies to hurt each other with incidental damage so he can conserve ammunition. He also kills many kited enemies one by one in corridors or through small gaps to keep things as safe as possible. Even if you're not willing to sit through six hours of that kind of meticulous gameplay, it can be thrilling to jump around the stream and revel in the portions where Coincident shows off some extremely precise, near-perfect dodging through arenas filled with projectiles and floors littered with pixelated corpses. The drama gets especially intense near the end, when Coincident's breathing becomes noticeably heavy before finishing the run with a flashy rocket to the face just as he hits the exit panel. "Yes! Fuck yes!" Coincident exclaims after the run is finally over. "Okuplok is done! Done, done, done, done, done! ... Oh my god, what a ride, this was quite the ride... It's done, I don't have to run this again! It's over!" Kyle Orland Senior Gaming Editor Kyle Orland Senior Gaming Editor Kyle Orland has been the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica since 2012, writing primarily about the business, tech, and culture behind video games. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He once wrote a whole book about Minesweeper. 17 Comments

Spine finding Universities (finally) band together, fight “unprecedented government overreach” New statement is weak—but a start. Nate Anderson – Apr 22, 2025 6:51 pm | 20 Credit: Cavan Images via Getty Credit: Cavan Images via Getty Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Last Friday, in an op-ed piece on the Trump administration's war on American universities, we called for academia to 1) band together and 2) resist coercive control over hiring and teaching, though we noted that the 3) "temperamental caution of university administrators" means that they might "have trouble finding a clear voice to speak with when they come under thundering public attacks from a government they are more used to thinking of as a funding source." It only took billions of dollars in vindictive cuts to make it happen, but higher education has finally 1) banded together to 2) resist coercive control over its core functions. More than 230 leaders, mostly college and university presidents, have so far signed an American Association of Colleges and Universities statement that makes a thundering call gentle bleat for total resistance "constructive engagement" with the people currently trying to cripple, shutter, and/or dominate them. Clearly, 3) temperamental caution remains the watchword. Still, progress! (Even Columbia University, which has already capitulated to Trump administration pressure, signed on.) The statement largely consists of painful pablum about how universities "provide human resources to meet the fast-changing demands of our dynamic workforce," etc, etc. As a public service, I will save you some time (and nausea) by excerpting the bits that matter: We speak with one voice against the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education... We must reject the coercive use of public research funding... American institutions of higher learning have in common the essential freedom to determine, on academic grounds, whom to admit and what is taught, how, and by whom... In their pursuit of truth, faculty, students, and staff are free to exchange ideas and opinions across a full range of viewpoints without fear of retribution, censorship, or deportation. This is fine, as far as it goes. But what are all these institutions going to do about the funding cuts, attempts to revoke their nonprofit status, threats not to hire their graduates, and student speech-based deportations? They are going to ask the Trump administration for "constructive engagement that improves our institutions and serves our republic." This sounds lovely, if naive, and I hope it works out well for every one of them as they seek good-faith dialogue with a vice president who has called universities the "enemy" and an administration that demanded Harvard submit to the vetting of every department for unspecified "viewpoint diversity." As a first step to finding common ground and speaking with a common voice, the statement is a start. But statements, like all words, can be cheap. We'll see what steps schools actually take—and how much they can speak and act in concert—as Trump's pressure campaign continues to ratchet. Nate Anderson Deputy Editor Nate Anderson Deputy Editor Nate is the deputy editor at Ars Technica. His most recent book is In Emergency, Break Glass: What Nietzsche Can Teach Us About Joyful Living in a Tech-Saturated World, which is much funnier than it sounds. 20 Comments

AI-first browsing ChatGPT head tells court OpenAI is interested in buying Chrome OpenAI would love to own Chrome, and it's not alone. Ryan Whitwam – Apr 22, 2025 5:55 pm | 38 Credit: Getty Images | Vincent Feuray Credit: Getty Images | Vincent Feuray Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more The remedy phase of Google's antitrust trial is underway, with the government angling to realign Google's business after the company was ruled a search monopolist. The Department of Justice is seeking a plethora of penalties, but perhaps none as severe as forcing Google to sell Chrome. But who would buy it? An OpenAI executive says his employer would be interested. Among the DOJ's witnesses on the second day of the trial was Nick Turley, head of product for ChatGPT at OpenAI. He wasn't there to talk about Chrome exclusively—the government's proposed remedies also include forcing Google to share its search index with competitors. OpenAI is in bed with Microsoft, but Bing's search data wasn't cutting it, Turley suggested (without naming Microsoft). "We believe having multiple partners, and in particular Google's API, would enable us to provide a better product to users," OpenAI told Google in an email revealed at trial. However, Google turned OpenAI down because it believed the deal would harm its lead in search. The companies have no ongoing partnership today, but Turley noted that forcing Google to license its search data would restore competition. And then there's Chrome. While Judge Amit Mehta has expressed some skepticism about the DOJ's proposal to divest Chrome, the government claims the browser is core to Google's anticompetitive conduct. Further, the DOJ team believes that selling Chrome would level the online playing field, but it has not been clear who would buy the browser. According to Turley, OpenAI would throw its proverbial hat in the ring if Google had to sell. When asked if OpenAI would want Chrome, he was unequivocal. "Yes, we would, as would many other parties," Turley said. OpenAI has reportedly considered building its own Chromium-based browser to compete with Chrome. Several months ago, the company hired former Google developers Ben Goodger and Darin Fisher, both of whom worked to bring Chrome to market. It's not hard to see why OpenAI might want a browser, particularly Chrome with its 4 billion users and 67 percent market share. Chrome would instantly give OpenAI a massive install base of users who have been incentivized to use Google services. If OpenAI were running the show, you can bet ChatGPT would be integrated throughout the experience—Turley said as much, predicting an "AI-first" experience. The user data flowing to the owner of Chrome could also be invaluable in training agentic AI models that can operate browsers on the user's behalf. Interestingly, there's so much discussion about who should buy Chrome, but relatively little about spinning off Chrome into an independent company. Google has contended that Chrome can't survive on its own. However, the existence of Google's multibillion-dollar search placement deals, which the DOJ wants to end, suggests otherwise. Regardless, if Google has to sell, and OpenAI has the cash, we might get the proposed "AI-first" browsing experience. Ryan Whitwam Senior Technology Reporter Ryan Whitwam Senior Technology Reporter Ryan Whitwam is a senior technology reporter at Ars Technica, covering the ways Google, AI, and mobile technology continue to change the world. Over his 20-year career, he's written for Android Police, ExtremeTech, Wirecutter, NY Times, and more. He has reviewed more phones than most people will ever own. You can follow him on Bluesky, where you will see photos of his dozens of mechanical keyboards. 38 Comments