Game Pass – will it continue forever? (Microsoft) The Monday letters page struggles to predict what’s going to happen with the PlayStation 6, as one reader sees their opinion of the Switch 2 change over time. To join in with the discussions yourself email gamecentral@metro.co.uk Final Pass I agree with a lot of what was said about the current state of Xbox in the Reader’s Feature this weekend and how the more Microsoft spends, and the more companies they own, the less the seem to be in control. Which is very strange really.The biggest recent failure has got to be Game Pass, which has not had the impact they expected and yet they don’t seem ready to acknowledge that. If they’re thinking of increasing the price again, like those rumours say, then I think that will be the point at which you can draw a line under the whole idea and admit it’s never going to catch on. But would Microsoft ever shut down Game Pass completely? I feel that would almost be more humiliating than stopping making consoles, so I can’t really imagine it. Instead, they’ll make it more and more expensive and put more and more restrictions on day one games until it’s no longer recognisable.Grackle Panic button Strange to see Sony talking relatively openly about Nintendo and Microsoft as competition. I can’t remember the last time they mentioned either of them, even if they obviously would prefer not to have, if they hadn’t been asked by investors.At no point did they acknowledge that the Switch has completely outsold both their last two consoles, so I’m not sure where their confidence comes from. I guess it’s from the fact that they know they’ve done nothing this gen and still come out on top, so from their perspective they’ve got plenty in reserve. Expert, exclusive gaming analysis Sign up to the GameCentral newsletter for a unique take on the week in gaming, alongside the latest reviews and more. Delivered to your inbox every Saturday morning. Having your panic button being ‘do anything at all’ must be pretty reassuring really. Nintendo has had to work to get where they are with the Switch but Sony is just coasting it.Lupus James’ LadderJacob’s Ladder is a film I’ve been meaning to watch for a while, and I guessed the ending quite early on, but it feels like a Silent Hill film. I don’t know if you guys have seen it but it’s an excellent film and the hospital scene near the end, and the cages blocking off the underground early on, just remind me of the game. A depressing film overall but worth a watch.Simon GC: Jacob’s Ladder was as a major influence on Silent Hill 2 in particular, even the jacket James is wearing is the same. Email your comments to: gamecentral@metro.co.uk Seeing the future I know everyone likes to think of themselves as Nostradamus, but I have to admit I have absolutely no clue what Sony is planning for the PlayStation 6. A new console that is just the usual update, that sits under your TV, is easy enough to imagine but surely they’re not going to do that again?But the idea of having new home and portable machines that come out at the same time seems so unlikely to me. Surely the portable wouldn’t be a separate format, but I can’t see it being any kind of portable that runs its own games because it’d never be as powerful as the home machine. So, it’s really just a PlayStation Portal 2? Like I said, I don’t know, but for some reason I have a bad feeling about that the next gen and whatever Sony does end up unveiling. I suspect that whatever they and Microsoft does it’s going to end up making the Switch 2 (and PC) seem even more appealing by comparison.Gonch Hidden insight I’m not going to say that Welcome Tour is a good game but what I will say is that I found it very interesting at times and I’m actually kind of surprised that Nintendo revealed some of the information that they did. Most of it could probably be found out by reverse engineering it and just taking it apart but I’m still surprised it went into as much detail as it did.You’re right that it’s all presented in a very dull way but personally I found the ‘Insights’ to be the best part of the game. The minigames really are not very good and I was always glad when they were over. So, while I would not necessarily recommend the game (it’s not really a game) I would say that it can be of interest to people who have an interest in how consoles work and how Nintendo think.Mogwai Purchase privilege I’ve recently had the privilege of buying Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 from the website CDKeys, using a 10% discount code. I was lucky enough to only spend a total of £25.99; much cheaper than purchasing the title for console. If only Ubisoft had the foresight to see what they allowed to slip through their fingers. I’d also like to mention that from what I’ve read quite recently ,and a couple of mixed views, I don’t see myself cancelling my Switch 2. On the contrary, it just is coming across as a disappointment.From the battery life to the lack of launch titles, an empty open world is never a smart choice to make not even Mario is safe from that. That leaves the upcoming ROG Xbox Ally that’s recently been showcased and is set for an October launch. I won’t lie it does look in the same vein as the Switch 2, far too similar to the ROG Ally X model. Just with grips and a dedicated Xbox button. The Z2 Extreme chip has me intrigued, however. How much of a transcendental shift it makes is another question however. I’ll have to wait to receive official confirmation for a price and release date. But there’s also a Lenovo Legion Go 2 waiting in the wings. I hope we hear more information soon. Preferably before my 28th in August.Shahzaib Sadiq Tip of the iceberg Interesting to hear about Cyberpunk 2077 running well on the Switch 2. I think if they’re getting that kind of performance at launch, from a third party not use to working with Nintendo hardware, that bodes very well for the future.I think we’re probably underestimating the Switch 2 a lot at the moment and stuff we’ll be seeing in two or three years is going to be amazing, I predict. What I can’t predict is when we’ll hear about any of this. I really hope there’s a Nintendo Direct this week.Dano Changing opinions So just a little over a week with the Switch 2 and after initially feeling incredibly meh about the new console and Mario Kart a little more playtime has been more optimistic about the console and much more positive about Mario Kart World.It did feel odd having a new console from Nintendo that didn’t inspire that childlike excitement. An iterative upgrade isn’t very exciting and as I own a Steam Deck the advancements in processing weren’t all that exciting either. I can imagine someone who only bough an OG Switch back in 2017 really noticing the improvements but if you bought an OLED it’s basically a Switch Pro (minus the OLED). The criminally low level of software support doesn’t help. I double dipped Street Fighter 6 only to discover I can’t transfer progress or DLC across from my Xbox, which sort of means if I want both profiles to have parity I have to buy everything twice! I also treated myself to a new Pro Controller and find using it for Street Fighter almost unplayable as the L and ZL buttons are far too easy to accidently press when playing. Mario Kart initially felt like more of the same and it was only after I made an effort to explore the world map, unlock characters and karts, and try the new grinding/ollie mechanic that it clicked. I am now really enjoying it, especially the remixed soundtracks. I do however want more Switch 2 exclusive experiences – going back through my back catalogue for improved frame rates doesn’t cut it Nintendo! As someone with a large digital library the system transfer was very frustrating and the new virtual cartridges are just awful – does a Switch 2 need to be online all the time now? Not the best idea for a portable system. So, the start of a new console lifecycle and hopefully lots of new IP – I suspect Nintendo will try and get us to revisit our back catalogues first though.BristolPete Inbox also-rans Just thought I would mention that if anyone’s interested in purchasing the Mortal Kombat 1 Definitive Edition, which includes all DLC, that it’s currently an absolute steal on the Xbox store at £21.99.Nick The GreekI’ve just won my first Knockout Tour online race on Mario Kart World! I’ve got to say, the feeling is magnificent.Rable More Trending Email your comments to: gamecentral@metro.co.uk The small printNew Inbox updates appear every weekday morning, with special Hot Topic Inboxes at the weekend. Readers’ letters are used on merit and may be edited for length and content. You can also submit your own 500 to 600-word Reader’s Feature at any time via email or our Submit Stuff page, which if used will be shown in the next available weekend slot. You can also leave your comments below and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter. Arrow MORE: Games Inbox: Is Mario Kart World too hard? GameCentral Sign up for exclusive analysis, latest releases, and bonus community content. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Your information will be used in line with our Privacy Policy

“The best way to predict the future is to invent it,” the famed computer scientist Alan Kay once said. Uttered more out of exasperation than as inspiration, his remark has nevertheless attained gospel-like status among Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, in particular a handful of tech billionaires who fancy themselves the chief architects of humanity’s future.  Sam Altman, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and others may have slightly different goals and ambitions in the near term, but their grand visions for the next decade and beyond are remarkably similar. Framed less as technological objectives and more as existential imperatives, they include aligning AI with the interests of humanity; creating an artificial superintelligence that will solve all the world’s most pressing problems; merging with that superintelligence to achieve immortality (or something close to it); establishing a permanent, self-­sustaining colony on Mars; and, ultimately, spreading out across the cosmos. While there’s a sprawling patchwork of ideas and philosophies powering these visions, three features play a central role, says Adam Becker, a science writer and astrophysicist: an unshakable certainty that technology can solve any problem, a belief in the necessity of perpetual growth, and a quasi-religious obsession with transcending our physical and biological limits. In his timely new book, More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity, Becker calls this triumvirate of beliefs the “ideology of technological salvation” and warns that tech titans are using it to steer humanity in a dangerous direction.  “In most of these isms you’ll find the idea of escape and transcendence, as well as the promise of an amazing future, full of unimaginable wonders—so long as we don’t get in the way of technological progress.” “The credence that tech billionaires give to these specific science-fictional futures validates their pursuit of more—to portray the growth of their businesses as a moral imperative, to reduce the complex problems of the world to simple questions of technology, [and] to justify nearly any action they might want to take,” he writes. Becker argues that the only way to break free of these visions is to see them for what they are: a convenient excuse to continue destroying the environment, skirt regulations, amass more power and control, and dismiss the very real problems of today to focus on the imagined ones of tomorrow.  A lot of critics, academics, and journalists have tried to define or distill the Silicon Valley ethos over the years. There was the “Californian Ideology” in the mid-’90s, the “Move fast and break things” era of the early 2000s, and more recently the “Libertarianism for me, feudalism for thee”  or “techno-­authoritarian” views. How do you see the “ideology of technological salvation” fitting in?  I’d say it’s very much of a piece with those earlier attempts to describe the Silicon Valley mindset. I mean, you can draw a pretty straight line from Max More’s principles of transhumanism in the ’90s to the Californian Ideology [a mashup of countercultural, libertarian, and neoliberal values] and through to what I call the ideology of technological salvation. The fact is, many of the ideas that define or animate Silicon Valley thinking have never been much of a ­mystery—libertarianism, an antipathy toward the government and regulation, the boundless faith in technology, the obsession with optimization.  What can be difficult is to parse where all these ideas come from and how they fit together—or if they fit together at all. I came up with the ideology of technological salvation as a way to name and give shape to a group of interrelated concepts and philosophies that can seem sprawling and ill-defined at first, but that actually sit at the center of a worldview shared by venture capitalists, executives, and other thought leaders in the tech industry.  Readers will likely be familiar with the tech billionaires featured in your book and at least some of their ambitions. I’m guessing they’ll be less familiar with the various “isms” that you argue have influenced or guided their thinking. Effective altruism, rationalism, long­termism, extropianism, effective accelerationism, futurism, singularitarianism, ­transhumanism—there are a lot of them. Is there something that they all share?  They’re definitely connected. In a sense, you could say they’re all versions or instantiations of the ideology of technological salvation, but there are also some very deep historical connections between the people in these groups and their aims and beliefs. The Extropians in the late ’80s believed in self-­transformation through technology and freedom from limitations of any kind—ideas that Ray Kurzweil eventually helped popularize and legitimize for a larger audience with the Singularity.  In most of these isms you’ll find the idea of escape and transcendence, as well as the promise of an amazing future, full of unimaginable wonders—so long as we don’t get in the way of technological progress. I should say that AI researcher Timnit Gebru and philosopher Émile Torres have also done a lot of great work linking these ideologies to one another and showing how they all have ties to racism, misogyny, and eugenics. You argue that the Singularity is the purest expression of the ideology of technological salvation. How so? Well, for one thing, it’s just this very simple, straightforward idea—the Singularity is coming and will occur when we merge our brains with the cloud and expand our intelligence a millionfold. This will then deepen our awareness and consciousness and everything will be amazing. In many ways, it’s a fantastical vision of a perfect technological utopia. We’re all going to live as long as we want in an eternal paradise, watched over by machines of loving grace, and everything will just get exponentially better forever. The end. The other isms I talk about in the book have a little more … heft isn’t the right word—they just have more stuff going on. There’s more to them, right? The rationalists and the effective altruists and the longtermists—they think that something like a singularity will happen, or could happen, but that there’s this really big danger between where we are now and that potential event. We have to address the fact that an all-powerful AI might destroy humanity—the so-called alignment problem—before any singularity can happen.  Then you’ve got the effective accelerationists, who are more like Kurzweil, but they’ve got more of a tech-bro spin on things. They’ve taken some of the older transhumanist ideas from the Singularity and updated them for startup culture. Marc Andreessen’s “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” [from 2023] is a good example. You could argue that all of these other philosophies that have gained purchase in Silicon Valley are just twists on Kurzweil’s Singularity, each one building on top of the core ideas of transcendence, techno­-optimism, and exponential growth.  Early on in the book you take aim at that idea of exponential growth—specifically, Kurzweil’s “Law of Accelerating Returns.” Could you explain what that is and why you think it’s flawed? Kurzweil thinks there’s this immutable “Law of Accelerating Returns” at work in the affairs of the universe, especially when it comes to technology. It’s the idea that technological progress isn’t linear but exponential. Advancements in one technology fuel even more rapid advancements in the future, which in turn lead to greater complexity and greater technological power, and on and on. This is just a mistake. Kurzweil uses the Law of Accelerating Returns to explain why the Singularity is inevitable, but to be clear, he’s far from the only one who believes in this so-called law. “I really believe that when you get as rich as some of these guys are, you can just do things that seem like thinking and no one is really going to correct you or tell you things you don’t want to hear.” My sense is that it’s an idea that comes from staring at Moore’s Law for too long. Moore’s Law is of course the famous prediction that the number of transistors on a chip will double roughly every two years, with a minimal increase in cost. Now, that has in fact happened for the last 50 years or so, but not because of some fundamental law in the universe. It’s because the tech industry made a choice and some very sizable investments to make it happen. Moore’s Law was ultimately this really interesting observation or projection of a historical trend, but even Gordon Moore [who first articulated it] knew that it wouldn’t and couldn’t last forever. In fact, some think it’s already over.  These ideologies take inspiration from some pretty unsavory characters. Transhumanism, you say, was first popularized by the eugenicist Julian Huxley in a speech in 1951. Marc Andreessen’s “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” name-checks the noted fascist Filippo Tommaso Marinetti and his futurist manifesto. Did you get the sense while researching the book that the tech titans who champion these ideas understand their dangerous origins? You’re assuming in the framing of that question that there’s any rigorous thought going on here at all. As I say in the book, Andreessen’s manifesto runs almost entirely on vibes, not logic. I think someone may have told him about the futurist manifesto at some point, and he just sort of liked the general vibe, which is why he paraphrases a part of it. Maybe he learned something about Marinetti and forgot it. Maybe he didn’t care.  I really believe that when you get as rich as some of these guys are, you can just do things that seem like thinking and no one is really going to correct you or tell you things you don’t want to hear. For many of these billionaires, the vibes of fascism, authoritarianism, and colonialism are attractive because they’re fundamentally about creating a fantasy of control.  You argue that these visions of the future are being used to hasten environmental destruction, increase authoritarianism, and exacerbate inequalities. You also admit that they appeal to lots of people who aren’t billionaires. Why do you think that is?  I think a lot of us are also attracted to these ideas for the same reasons the tech billionaires are—they offer this fantasy of knowing what the future holds, of transcending death, and a sense that someone or something out there is in control. It’s hard to overstate how comforting a simple, coherent narrative can be in an increasingly complex and fast-moving world. This is of course what religion offers for many of us, and I don’t think it’s an accident that a sizable number of people in the rationalist and effective altruist communities are actually ex-evangelicals. More than any one specific technology, it seems like the most consequential thing these billionaires have invented is a sense of inevitability—that their visions for the future are somehow predestined. How does one fight against that? It’s a difficult question. For me, the answer was to write this book. I guess I’d also say this: Silicon Valley enjoyed well over a decade with little to no pushback on anything. That’s definitely a big part of how we ended up in this mess. There was no regulation, very little critical coverage in the press, and a lot of self-mythologizing going on. Things have started to change, especially as the social and environmental damage that tech companies and industry leaders have helped facilitate has become more clear. That understanding is an essential part of deflating the power of these tech billionaires and breaking free of their visions. When we understand that these dreams of the future are actually nightmares for the rest of us, I think you’ll see that sense of inevitability vanish pretty fast. This interview was edited for length and clarity. Bryan Gardiner is a writer based in Oakland, California. 

“The best way to predict the future is to invent it,” the famed computer scientist Alan Kay once said. Uttered more out of exasperation than as inspiration, his remark has nevertheless attained gospel-like status among Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, in particular a handful of tech billionaires who fancy themselves the chief architects of humanity’s future.  Sam Altman, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and others may have slightly different goals and ambitions in the near term, but their grand visions for the next decade and beyond are remarkably similar. Framed less as technological objectives and more as existential imperatives, they include aligning AI with the interests of humanity; creating an artificial superintelligence that will solve all the world’s most pressing problems; merging with that superintelligence to achieve immortality (or something close to it); establishing a permanent, self-­sustaining colony on Mars; and, ultimately, spreading out across the cosmos. While there’s a sprawling patchwork of ideas and philosophies powering these visions, three features play a central role, says Adam Becker, a science writer and astrophysicist: an unshakable certainty that technology can solve any problem, a belief in the necessity of perpetual growth, and a quasi-religious obsession with transcending our physical and biological limits. In his timely new book, More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity, Becker calls this triumvirate of beliefs the “ideology of technological salvation” and warns that tech titans are using it to steer humanity in a dangerous direction.  “In most of these isms you’ll find the idea of escape and transcendence, as well as the promise of an amazing future, full of unimaginable wonders—so long as we don’t get in the way of technological progress.” “The credence that tech billionaires give to these specific science-fictional futures validates their pursuit of more—to portray the growth of their businesses as a moral imperative, to reduce the complex problems of the world to simple questions of technology, [and] to justify nearly any action they might want to take,” he writes. Becker argues that the only way to break free of these visions is to see them for what they are: a convenient excuse to continue destroying the environment, skirt regulations, amass more power and control, and dismiss the very real problems of today to focus on the imagined ones of tomorrow.  A lot of critics, academics, and journalists have tried to define or distill the Silicon Valley ethos over the years. There was the “Californian Ideology” in the mid-’90s, the “Move fast and break things” era of the early 2000s, and more recently the “Libertarianism for me, feudalism for thee”  or “techno-­authoritarian” views. How do you see the “ideology of technological salvation” fitting in?  I’d say it’s very much of a piece with those earlier attempts to describe the Silicon Valley mindset. I mean, you can draw a pretty straight line from Max More’s principles of transhumanism in the ’90s to the Californian Ideology [a mashup of countercultural, libertarian, and neoliberal values] and through to what I call the ideology of technological salvation. The fact is, many of the ideas that define or animate Silicon Valley thinking have never been much of a ­mystery—libertarianism, an antipathy toward the government and regulation, the boundless faith in technology, the obsession with optimization.  What can be difficult is to parse where all these ideas come from and how they fit together—or if they fit together at all. I came up with the ideology of technological salvation as a way to name and give shape to a group of interrelated concepts and philosophies that can seem sprawling and ill-defined at first, but that actually sit at the center of a worldview shared by venture capitalists, executives, and other thought leaders in the tech industry.  Readers will likely be familiar with the tech billionaires featured in your book and at least some of their ambitions. I’m guessing they’ll be less familiar with the various “isms” that you argue have influenced or guided their thinking. Effective altruism, rationalism, long­termism, extropianism, effective accelerationism, futurism, singularitarianism, ­transhumanism—there are a lot of them. Is there something that they all share?  They’re definitely connected. In a sense, you could say they’re all versions or instantiations of the ideology of technological salvation, but there are also some very deep historical connections between the people in these groups and their aims and beliefs. The Extropians in the late ’80s believed in self-­transformation through technology and freedom from limitations of any kind—ideas that Ray Kurzweil eventually helped popularize and legitimize for a larger audience with the Singularity.  In most of these isms you’ll find the idea of escape and transcendence, as well as the promise of an amazing future, full of unimaginable wonders—so long as we don’t get in the way of technological progress. I should say that AI researcher Timnit Gebru and philosopher Émile Torres have also done a lot of great work linking these ideologies to one another and showing how they all have ties to racism, misogyny, and eugenics. You argue that the Singularity is the purest expression of the ideology of technological salvation. How so? Well, for one thing, it’s just this very simple, straightforward idea—the Singularity is coming and will occur when we merge our brains with the cloud and expand our intelligence a millionfold. This will then deepen our awareness and consciousness and everything will be amazing. In many ways, it’s a fantastical vision of a perfect technological utopia. We’re all going to live as long as we want in an eternal paradise, watched over by machines of loving grace, and everything will just get exponentially better forever. The end. The other isms I talk about in the book have a little more … heft isn’t the right word—they just have more stuff going on. There’s more to them, right? The rationalists and the effective altruists and the longtermists—they think that something like a singularity will happen, or could happen, but that there’s this really big danger between where we are now and that potential event. We have to address the fact that an all-powerful AI might destroy humanity—the so-called alignment problem—before any singularity can happen.  Then you’ve got the effective accelerationists, who are more like Kurzweil, but they’ve got more of a tech-bro spin on things. They’ve taken some of the older transhumanist ideas from the Singularity and updated them for startup culture. Marc Andreessen’s “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” [from 2023] is a good example. You could argue that all of these other philosophies that have gained purchase in Silicon Valley are just twists on Kurzweil’s Singularity, each one building on top of the core ideas of transcendence, techno­-optimism, and exponential growth.  Early on in the book you take aim at that idea of exponential growth—specifically, Kurzweil’s “Law of Accelerating Returns.” Could you explain what that is and why you think it’s flawed? Kurzweil thinks there’s this immutable “Law of Accelerating Returns” at work in the affairs of the universe, especially when it comes to technology. It’s the idea that technological progress isn’t linear but exponential. Advancements in one technology fuel even more rapid advancements in the future, which in turn lead to greater complexity and greater technological power, and on and on. This is just a mistake. Kurzweil uses the Law of Accelerating Returns to explain why the Singularity is inevitable, but to be clear, he’s far from the only one who believes in this so-called law. “I really believe that when you get as rich as some of these guys are, you can just do things that seem like thinking and no one is really going to correct you or tell you things you don’t want to hear.” My sense is that it’s an idea that comes from staring at Moore’s Law for too long. Moore’s Law is of course the famous prediction that the number of transistors on a chip will double roughly every two years, with a minimal increase in cost. Now, that has in fact happened for the last 50 years or so, but not because of some fundamental law in the universe. It’s because the tech industry made a choice and some very sizable investments to make it happen. Moore’s Law was ultimately this really interesting observation or projection of a historical trend, but even Gordon Moore [who first articulated it] knew that it wouldn’t and couldn’t last forever. In fact, some think it’s already over.  These ideologies take inspiration from some pretty unsavory characters. Transhumanism, you say, was first popularized by the eugenicist Julian Huxley in a speech in 1951. Marc Andreessen’s “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” name-checks the noted fascist Filippo Tommaso Marinetti and his futurist manifesto. Did you get the sense while researching the book that the tech titans who champion these ideas understand their dangerous origins? You’re assuming in the framing of that question that there’s any rigorous thought going on here at all. As I say in the book, Andreessen’s manifesto runs almost entirely on vibes, not logic. I think someone may have told him about the futurist manifesto at some point, and he just sort of liked the general vibe, which is why he paraphrases a part of it. Maybe he learned something about Marinetti and forgot it. Maybe he didn’t care.  I really believe that when you get as rich as some of these guys are, you can just do things that seem like thinking and no one is really going to correct you or tell you things you don’t want to hear. For many of these billionaires, the vibes of fascism, authoritarianism, and colonialism are attractive because they’re fundamentally about creating a fantasy of control.  You argue that these visions of the future are being used to hasten environmental destruction, increase authoritarianism, and exacerbate inequalities. You also admit that they appeal to lots of people who aren’t billionaires. Why do you think that is?  I think a lot of us are also attracted to these ideas for the same reasons the tech billionaires are—they offer this fantasy of knowing what the future holds, of transcending death, and a sense that someone or something out there is in control. It’s hard to overstate how comforting a simple, coherent narrative can be in an increasingly complex and fast-moving world. This is of course what religion offers for many of us, and I don’t think it’s an accident that a sizable number of people in the rationalist and effective altruist communities are actually ex-evangelicals. More than any one specific technology, it seems like the most consequential thing these billionaires have invented is a sense of inevitability—that their visions for the future are somehow predestined. How does one fight against that? It’s a difficult question. For me, the answer was to write this book. I guess I’d also say this: Silicon Valley enjoyed well over a decade with little to no pushback on anything. That’s definitely a big part of how we ended up in this mess. There was no regulation, very little critical coverage in the press, and a lot of self-mythologizing going on. Things have started to change, especially as the social and environmental damage that tech companies and industry leaders have helped facilitate has become more clear. That understanding is an essential part of deflating the power of these tech billionaires and breaking free of their visions. When we understand that these dreams of the future are actually nightmares for the rest of us, I think you’ll see that sense of inevitability vanish pretty fast. This interview was edited for length and clarity. Bryan Gardiner is a writer based in Oakland, California. 

While IO Interactive may be heavily focused on its inaugural James Bond game, 2026’s 007 First Light, it’s still providing ambitious new levels and updates for Hitman: World of Assassination and its new science fiction action game MindsEye. To continue to build hype for First Light and IOI’s growing partnership with the James Bond brand, the latest World of Assassination level is a Bond crossover, as Hitman protagonist Agent 47 targets Le Chiffre, the main villain of the 2006 movie Casino Royale. Available through July 6, 2025, the Le Chiffre event in World of Assassination features actor Mads Mikkelsen reprising his fan-favorite Bond villain role, not only providing his likeness but voicing the character as he confronts the contract killer in France. Den of Geek attended the first-ever in-person IO Interactive Showcase, a partner event with Summer Game Fest held at The Roosevelt Hotel in Hollywood. Mikkelsen and the developers shared insight on the surprise new World of Assassination level, with the level itself playable in its entirety to attendees on the Nintendo Switch 2 and PlayStation Portal. The developers also included an extended gameplay preview for MindsEye, ahead of its June 10 launch, while sharing some details about the techno-thriller. Matching his background from Casino Royale, Le Chiffre is a terrorist financier who manipulates the stock market by any means necessary to benefit himself and his clients. After an investment deal goes wrong, Le Chiffre tries to recoup a brutal client’s losses through a high-stakes poker game in France, with Agent 47 hired to assassinate the criminal mastermind on behalf of an unidentified backer. The level opens with 47 infiltrating a high society gala linked to the poker game, with the contract killer entering under his oft-used assumed name of Tobias Rieper, a facade that Le Chiffre immediately sees through. At the IO Interactive Showcase panel, Mikkelsen observed that the character of Le Chiffre is always one that he enjoyed and held a special place for him and his career. Reprising his villainous role also gave Mikkelsen the chance to reunite with longtime Agent 47 voice actor David Bateson since their ‘90s short film Tom Merritt, though both actors recorded their respective lines separately. Mikkelsen enjoyed that Le Chiffre’s appearance in World of Assassination gave him a more physical role than he had in Casino Royale, rather than largely placing him at a poker table. Of course, like most Hitman levels, there are multiple different ways that players can accomplish their main objective of killing Le Chiffre and escaping the premises. The game certainly gives players multiple avenues to confront the evil financier over a game of poker before closing in for the kill, but it’s by no means the only way to successfully assassinate him. We won’t give away how we ultimately pulled off the assassination, but rest assured that it took multiple tries, careful plotting, and with all the usual trial-and-error that comes from playing one of Hitman’s more difficult and immersively involved levels. Moving away from its more grounded action titles, IO Interactive also provided a deeper look at its new sci-fi game MindsEye, developed by Build a Rocket Boy. Set in the fictional Redrock City, the extended gameplay sneak peek at the showcase featured protagonist Adam Diaz fighting shadowy enemies in the futuristic city’s largely abandoned streets. While there were no hands-on demos at the showcase itself, the preview demonstrated Diaz using his abilities and equipment, including an accompanying drone, to navigate the city from a third-person perspective and use an array of weapons to dispatch those trying to hunt him down. MindsEye marks the first game published through IOI Partners, an initiative that has IOI publish games from smaller, external developers. The game did not have a hands-on demo at the showcase and, given its bug-heavy and poorly-received launch, this distinction is not particularly surprising. Build a Robot Boy has since pledged to support the game through June to fix its technical issues but, given the game’s hands-on access at the IOI Showcase, there were already red flags surrounding the game’s performance. With that in mind, most of the buzz at the showcase was unsurprisingly centered around 007 First Light and updates to Hitman: World of Assassination, and IO Interactive did not disappoint in that regard. Even with Hitman: World of Assassination over four years old now, the game continues to receive impressive post-release support from IO Interactive, both in bringing the title to the Nintendo Switch 2 and with additional DLC. At the showcase, IOI hinted at additional special levels for World of Assassintation with high-profile guest targets like Le Chiffre, without identifying who or if they’re also explicitly tied to the James Bond franchise. But with 007 First Light slated for its eagerly anticipated launch next year, it’s a safe bet that IOI has further plans to hype its own role in building out the James Bond legacy for the foreseeable future. The Hitman: World of Assassination special Le Chiffre level is available now through July 6, 2025 on all the game’s major platforms, including the Nintendo Switch 2. MindsEye is now on sale for PlayStation 5, Xbox Series X|S, and PC.

Winter is well and truly biting, but this fresh crop of game deals is bringing the heat. From mythological mayhem to pocket-sized platformers, there’s something here for every taste and timeframe. If your digital shelf could use a mid-year injection of chaos, charm, or challenge, this week’s offerings are primed to please.This Day in Gaming 🎂In retro news, I’m lighting a 26‑candle cake for Silent Hill, the fog‑laden survival horror fest that kept '99-era me perched on a seat with barely 2% of the surface area of one butt cheek. I still remember tentatively sweeping my flashlight across those grainy, polygonal streets, only to have the beam half illuminate some scurrying something in the dark. Though the OG Resident Evil certainly vexed me first, the unique magic of Silent Hill lay in how its graphical limitations—thick fog and encroaching darkness—became tools of terror rather than platform limitations. Every ring of static from your radio or *that* air raid siren heralding the "other plane" of this madhouse could ratchet up the dread in an instant. Lastly, I recall working game retail at launch and having to help absolutely bloody everybody with a solution to the piano puzzle.Tank controls and (hardware induced) bugger all visibility. OG Silent Hill was terrifying.Aussie bdays for notable games- Silent Hill (PS) 1999. Redux- Marvel vs. Capcom 2 (DC) 2000. Redux- The Conduit (Wii) 2009. eBay- Monster Hunter Generations (3DS) 2016. eBayContentsNice Savings for Nintendo SwitchAvailable now!Nintendo Switch 2 ConsoleNintendo Switch 2 + Mario Kart WorldNintendo kicks things off with Persona 5 Royal for A$66.60, a lavishly expanded edition of the genre-defining RPG whose original director Katsura Hashino was inspired by Carl Jung’s theories of the psyche. Also worth nabbing is Bravely Default II at A$63.10, a spiritual twinner to the Final Fantasy titles that’s cheekily packed with nostalgic mechanics like turning off random encounters to power-level in peace.Persona 5 Royal (-33%) - A$66.60Bravely Default II (-21%) - A$63.10Sonic Frontiers (-53%) - A$47Sonic x Shadow Generations (-35%) - A$49NBA 2K25 (-79%) - A$19Metal Gear Col. (-50%) - A$45Expiring Recent DealsOr gift a Nintendo eShop Card.Switch Console PricesHow much to Switch it up?Switch OLED + Mario Wonder: $̶5̶3̶9̶ $538 | Switch Original: $̶4̶9̶9̶ $448 | Switch OLED Black: $̶5̶3̶9̶ $469 | Switch OLED White: $̶5̶3̶9̶ $449 ♥ | Switch Lite: $̶3̶2̶9̶ $328 | Switch Lite Hyrule: $̶3̶3̶9̶ $335See itBack to topExciting Bargains for Xbox Over on Xbox Series X, Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine 2 is slashing skulls and prices at A$49.90, finally giving fans the long-awaited sequel to one of gaming’s most satisfyingly weighty shooters. Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League is an outrageous A$9.90, and despite its rocky reception, it’s a fascinating look at how Batman: Arkham devs tried to blend looter-shooter DNA into their universe.40K Space Marine 2 (-54%) - A$49.90Suicide Squad: KTJL (-91%) - A$9.90Wild Hearts (-83%) - A$19Avatar: Pandora Gold Ed. (-69%) - A$49.90Hogwarts Legacy (-75%) - A$27.40Xbox OneTopSpin 2K25 (-88%) - A$14.90Sunset Overdrive (-36%) - A$19.20Alan Wake Rem. (-85%) - A$6.70Expiring Recent DealsThe Witcher 3 Comp. (-56%) - A$34.80Tekken 8 (-53%) - A$39.90NBA 2K25 (-80%) - A$24Farming Simulator 25 (-32%) - A$68FC 25 (-57%) - A$34Red Dead Redemption 2 (-78%) - A$20Lies of P (-19%) - A$73Lego Jurassic World (-65%) - A$22.50Or just invest in an Xbox Card.Xbox Console PricesHow many bucks for a 'Box? Series X: $̶7̶9̶9̶ $724 👑| Series S Black: $̶5̶4̶9̶ $545 | Series S White:$̶4̶9̶9̶ $498 | Series S Starter: N/ASee itBack to topPure Scores for PlayStationFor PS5 players, Marvel’s Spider-Man: Miles Morales swings down to A$39, letting you sling through Harlem while wearing everything from a Bodega Cat suit to a Spider-Verse frame-rate filter. Meanwhile, Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart for A$54 is a tech marvel that started life as a PS4 title, before being fully rebuilt to show off the PS5’s SSD.PS4God of War Ragnarök (-60%) - A$44Gran Turismo 7 (-60%) - A$44Watch Dogs: Legion (-86%) - A$13.60Expiring Recent DealsPS+ Monthly FreebiesYours to keep from May 1 with this subscriptionArk: Survival Ascended (PS5)Balatro (PS5/PS4)Warhammer 40,000: Boltgun (PS5/PS4)Or purchase a PS Store Card.What you'll pay to 'Station.PS5 + Astro Bot:$̶7̶2̶4̶.9̶5̶ $699👑 | PS5 Slim Disc:$̶7̶9̶9̶ $625 | PS5 Slim Digital:6̶7̶9̶ $549 | PS5 Pro $̶1̶,1̶9̶9̶ $1,049 | PS VR2: $649.95 | PS VR2 + Horizon: $1,099 | PS Portal: $329See itBack to topPurchase Cheap for PCOn PC, Resident Evil 4 is a steal at A$29.90, a stunning remake where the developers added extra charm to Leon’s famous “Where’s everyone going, bingo?” line by letting players unlock vintage filters that emulate 2005-era graphics. Also notable is Lies of P at A$76.40, the Pinocchio-meets-Bloodborne mash-up that lets you lie in dialogue choices for combat perks.Lies of P (-15%) - A$76.40The Alters (-30%) - A$35.60Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 (-18%) - A$57.30Silent Hill 2 (-40%) - A$61.50Forza Horizon 5 (-65%) - A$31.40Resident Evil 4 (-50%) - A$29.90Expiring Recent DealsOr just get a Steam Wallet CardPC Hardware PricesSlay your pile of shame.Official launch in NovSteam Deck 256GB LCD: $649 | Steam Deck 512GB OLED: $899 | Steam Deck 1TB OLED: $1,049See it at SteamLaptop DealsDesktop DealsLenovo neo 50a G5 27" AIO (-47%) – A$1,379Lenovo neo 50q G4 Tiny (-35%) – A$639Lenovo neo 50t G5 Tower (-20%) – A$871.20Legion Tower 5i G8 (-29%) – A$1,899Monitor DealsSamsung QE50T 50" (-31%) – A$596ARZOPA 16.1" 144Hz (-55%) – A$159.99Z-Edge 27" 240Hz (-15%) – A$237.99Gawfolk 34" WQHD (-28%) – A$359LG 27" Ultragear (-42%) – A$349Component DealsStorage DealsBack to topLegit LEGO DealsExpiring Recent DealsBack to topHot Headphones DealsAudiophilia for lessBose QuietComfort Ultra Wireless (-38%) – A$399.95Soundcore by Anker Q20i (-43%) – A$68.79Sony MDR7506 Professional (-30%) – A$169Technics Premium (-46%) – A$299Bose SoundLink Flex (-31%) – A$171JBL Charge 5 - Portable Speaker (-28%) – A$144JBL Flip Essential 2 Waterproof Speaker (-26%) – A$96Sony SRS-XB100 Travel Speaker (-41%) – A$84.15Ultimate Ears Boom 3 Portable Speaker (-41%) – A$134.95Samsung Galaxy Buds2 Pro (-26%) – A$259.29Sennheiser Momentum 4 Wireless (-46%) – A$275Back to topTerrific TV DealsDo right by your console, upgrade your tellyLG 43" UT80 4K (-24%) – A$635Kogan 65" QLED 4K (-50%) – A$699Kogan 55" QLED 4K (-45%) – A$549LG 55" UT80 4K (-28%) – A$866Prism+ Q75 Ultra 75" 4K QLED (-47%) – A$1,229Gaimoo Mini Projector 1080p w/ 4K (-33%) – A$119.99GooDee 4K Projector (-58%) – A$169.99VOPLLS Mini Projector 4K (-19%) – A$168.99XuanPad Mini Projector (-36%) – A$128.99LG S70TY Q Series Sound Barn*-22%) – A$546Sony HTG700 Atmos Soundbar (-15%) – A$594Yamaha NS-SW050 Subwoofer (-13%) – A$270Smart Home DealsBack to top Adam Mathew is our Aussie deals wrangler. He plays practically everything, often on YouTube.

“The best way to predict the future is to invent it,” the famed computer scientist Alan Kay once said. Uttered more out of exasperation than as inspiration, his remark has nevertheless attained gospel-like status among Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, in particular a handful of tech billionaires who fancy themselves the chief architects of humanity’s future.  Sam Altman, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and others may have slightly different goals and ambitions in the near term, but their grand visions for the next decade and beyond are remarkably similar. Framed less as technological objectives and more as existential imperatives, they include aligning AI with the interests of humanity; creating an artificial superintelligence that will solve all the world’s most pressing problems; merging with that superintelligence to achieve immortality (or something close to it); establishing a permanent, self-­sustaining colony on Mars; and, ultimately, spreading out across the cosmos. While there’s a sprawling patchwork of ideas and philosophies powering these visions, three features play a central role, says Adam Becker, a science writer and astrophysicist: an unshakable certainty that technology can solve any problem, a belief in the necessity of perpetual growth, and a quasi-religious obsession with transcending our physical and biological limits. In his timely new book, More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity, Becker calls this triumvirate of beliefs the “ideology of technological salvation” and warns that tech titans are using it to steer humanity in a dangerous direction.  “In most of these isms you’ll find the idea of escape and transcendence, as well as the promise of an amazing future, full of unimaginable wonders—so long as we don’t get in the way of technological progress.” “The credence that tech billionaires give to these specific science-fictional futures validates their pursuit of more—to portray the growth of their businesses as a moral imperative, to reduce the complex problems of the world to simple questions of technology, [and] to justify nearly any action they might want to take,” he writes. Becker argues that the only way to break free of these visions is to see them for what they are: a convenient excuse to continue destroying the environment, skirt regulations, amass more power and control, and dismiss the very real problems of today to focus on the imagined ones of tomorrow.  A lot of critics, academics, and journalists have tried to define or distill the Silicon Valley ethos over the years. There was the “Californian Ideology” in the mid-’90s, the “Move fast and break things” era of the early 2000s, and more recently the “Libertarianism for me, feudalism for thee”  or “techno-­authoritarian” views. How do you see the “ideology of technological salvation” fitting in?  I’d say it’s very much of a piece with those earlier attempts to describe the Silicon Valley mindset. I mean, you can draw a pretty straight line from Max More’s principles of transhumanism in the ’90s to the Californian Ideology [a mashup of countercultural, libertarian, and neoliberal values] and through to what I call the ideology of technological salvation. The fact is, many of the ideas that define or animate Silicon Valley thinking have never been much of a ­mystery—libertarianism, an antipathy toward the government and regulation, the boundless faith in technology, the obsession with optimization.  What can be difficult is to parse where all these ideas come from and how they fit together—or if they fit together at all. I came up with the ideology of technological salvation as a way to name and give shape to a group of interrelated concepts and philosophies that can seem sprawling and ill-defined at first, but that actually sit at the center of a worldview shared by venture capitalists, executives, and other thought leaders in the tech industry.  Readers will likely be familiar with the tech billionaires featured in your book and at least some of their ambitions. I’m guessing they’ll be less familiar with the various “isms” that you argue have influenced or guided their thinking. Effective altruism, rationalism, long­termism, extropianism, effective accelerationism, futurism, singularitarianism, ­transhumanism—there are a lot of them. Is there something that they all share?  They’re definitely connected. In a sense, you could say they’re all versions or instantiations of the ideology of technological salvation, but there are also some very deep historical connections between the people in these groups and their aims and beliefs. The Extropians in the late ’80s believed in self-­transformation through technology and freedom from limitations of any kind—ideas that Ray Kurzweil eventually helped popularize and legitimize for a larger audience with the Singularity.  In most of these isms you’ll find the idea of escape and transcendence, as well as the promise of an amazing future, full of unimaginable wonders—so long as we don’t get in the way of technological progress. I should say that AI researcher Timnit Gebru and philosopher Émile Torres have also done a lot of great work linking these ideologies to one another and showing how they all have ties to racism, misogyny, and eugenics. You argue that the Singularity is the purest expression of the ideology of technological salvation. How so? Well, for one thing, it’s just this very simple, straightforward idea—the Singularity is coming and will occur when we merge our brains with the cloud and expand our intelligence a millionfold. This will then deepen our awareness and consciousness and everything will be amazing. In many ways, it’s a fantastical vision of a perfect technological utopia. We’re all going to live as long as we want in an eternal paradise, watched over by machines of loving grace, and everything will just get exponentially better forever. The end. The other isms I talk about in the book have a little more … heft isn’t the right word—they just have more stuff going on. There’s more to them, right? The rationalists and the effective altruists and the longtermists—they think that something like a singularity will happen, or could happen, but that there’s this really big danger between where we are now and that potential event. We have to address the fact that an all-powerful AI might destroy humanity—the so-called alignment problem—before any singularity can happen.  Then you’ve got the effective accelerationists, who are more like Kurzweil, but they’ve got more of a tech-bro spin on things. They’ve taken some of the older transhumanist ideas from the Singularity and updated them for startup culture. Marc Andreessen’s “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” [from 2023] is a good example. You could argue that all of these other philosophies that have gained purchase in Silicon Valley are just twists on Kurzweil’s Singularity, each one building on top of the core ideas of transcendence, techno­-optimism, and exponential growth.  Early on in the book you take aim at that idea of exponential growth—specifically, Kurzweil’s “Law of Accelerating Returns.” Could you explain what that is and why you think it’s flawed? Kurzweil thinks there’s this immutable “Law of Accelerating Returns” at work in the affairs of the universe, especially when it comes to technology. It’s the idea that technological progress isn’t linear but exponential. Advancements in one technology fuel even more rapid advancements in the future, which in turn lead to greater complexity and greater technological power, and on and on. This is just a mistake. Kurzweil uses the Law of Accelerating Returns to explain why the Singularity is inevitable, but to be clear, he’s far from the only one who believes in this so-called law. “I really believe that when you get as rich as some of these guys are, you can just do things that seem like thinking and no one is really going to correct you or tell you things you don’t want to hear.” My sense is that it’s an idea that comes from staring at Moore’s Law for too long. Moore’s Law is of course the famous prediction that the number of transistors on a chip will double roughly every two years, with a minimal increase in cost. Now, that has in fact happened for the last 50 years or so, but not because of some fundamental law in the universe. It’s because the tech industry made a choice and some very sizable investments to make it happen. Moore’s Law was ultimately this really interesting observation or projection of a historical trend, but even Gordon Moore [who first articulated it] knew that it wouldn’t and couldn’t last forever. In fact, some think it’s already over.  These ideologies take inspiration from some pretty unsavory characters. Transhumanism, you say, was first popularized by the eugenicist Julian Huxley in a speech in 1951. Marc Andreessen’s “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” name-checks the noted fascist Filippo Tommaso Marinetti and his futurist manifesto. Did you get the sense while researching the book that the tech titans who champion these ideas understand their dangerous origins? You’re assuming in the framing of that question that there’s any rigorous thought going on here at all. As I say in the book, Andreessen’s manifesto runs almost entirely on vibes, not logic. I think someone may have told him about the futurist manifesto at some point, and he just sort of liked the general vibe, which is why he paraphrases a part of it. Maybe he learned something about Marinetti and forgot it. Maybe he didn’t care.  I really believe that when you get as rich as some of these guys are, you can just do things that seem like thinking and no one is really going to correct you or tell you things you don’t want to hear. For many of these billionaires, the vibes of fascism, authoritarianism, and colonialism are attractive because they’re fundamentally about creating a fantasy of control.  You argue that these visions of the future are being used to hasten environmental destruction, increase authoritarianism, and exacerbate inequalities. You also admit that they appeal to lots of people who aren’t billionaires. Why do you think that is?  I think a lot of us are also attracted to these ideas for the same reasons the tech billionaires are—they offer this fantasy of knowing what the future holds, of transcending death, and a sense that someone or something out there is in control. It’s hard to overstate how comforting a simple, coherent narrative can be in an increasingly complex and fast-moving world. This is of course what religion offers for many of us, and I don’t think it’s an accident that a sizable number of people in the rationalist and effective altruist communities are actually ex-evangelicals. More than any one specific technology, it seems like the most consequential thing these billionaires have invented is a sense of inevitability—that their visions for the future are somehow predestined. How does one fight against that? It’s a difficult question. For me, the answer was to write this book. I guess I’d also say this: Silicon Valley enjoyed well over a decade with little to no pushback on anything. That’s definitely a big part of how we ended up in this mess. There was no regulation, very little critical coverage in the press, and a lot of self-mythologizing going on. Things have started to change, especially as the social and environmental damage that tech companies and industry leaders have helped facilitate has become more clear. That understanding is an essential part of deflating the power of these tech billionaires and breaking free of their visions. When we understand that these dreams of the future are actually nightmares for the rest of us, I think you’ll see that senseof inevitability vanish pretty fast.  This interview was edited for length and clarity. Bryan Gardiner is a writer based in Oakland, California. 

Join the event trusted by enterprise leaders for nearly two decades. VB Transform brings together the people building real enterprise AI strategy. Learn more Headlines have been blaring it for years: Large language models (LLMs) can not only pass medical licensing exams but also outperform humans. GPT-4 could correctly answer U.S. medical exam licensing questions 90% of the time, even in the prehistoric AI days of 2023. Since then, LLMs have gone on to best the residents taking those exams and licensed physicians. Move over, Doctor Google, make way for ChatGPT, M.D. But you may want more than a diploma from the LLM you deploy for patients. Like an ace medical student who can rattle off the name of every bone in the hand but faints at the first sight of real blood, an LLM’s mastery of medicine does not always translate directly into the real world. A paper by researchers at the University of Oxford found that while LLMs could correctly identify relevant conditions 94.9% of the time when directly presented with test scenarios, human participants using LLMs to diagnose the same scenarios identified the correct conditions less than 34.5% of the time. Perhaps even more notably, patients using LLMs performed even worse than a control group that was merely instructed to diagnose themselves using “any methods they would typically employ at home.” The group left to their own devices was 76% more likely to identify the correct conditions than the group assisted by LLMs. The Oxford study raises questions about the suitability of LLMs for medical advice and the benchmarks we use to evaluate chatbot deployments for various applications. Guess your malady Led by Dr. Adam Mahdi, researchers at Oxford recruited 1,298 participants to present themselves as patients to an LLM. They were tasked with both attempting to figure out what ailed them and the appropriate level of care to seek for it, ranging from self-care to calling an ambulance. Each participant received a detailed scenario, representing conditions from pneumonia to the common cold, along with general life details and medical history. For instance, one scenario describes a 20-year-old engineering student who develops a crippling headache on a night out with friends. It includes important medical details (it’s painful to look down) and red herrings (he’s a regular drinker, shares an apartment with six friends, and just finished some stressful exams). The study tested three different LLMs. The researchers selected GPT-4o on account of its popularity, Llama 3 for its open weights and Command R+ for its retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) abilities, which allow it to search the open web for help. Participants were asked to interact with the LLM at least once using the details provided, but could use it as many times as they wanted to arrive at their self-diagnosis and intended action. Behind the scenes, a team of physicians unanimously decided on the “gold standard” conditions they sought in every scenario, and the corresponding course of action. Our engineering student, for example, is suffering from a subarachnoid haemorrhage, which should entail an immediate visit to the ER. A game of telephone While you might assume an LLM that can ace a medical exam would be the perfect tool to help ordinary people self-diagnose and figure out what to do, it didn’t work out that way. “Participants using an LLM identified relevant conditions less consistently than those in the control group, identifying at least one relevant condition in at most 34.5% of cases compared to 47.0% for the control,” the study states. They also failed to deduce the correct course of action, selecting it just 44.2% of the time, compared to 56.3% for an LLM acting independently. What went wrong? Looking back at transcripts, researchers found that participants both provided incomplete information to the LLMs and the LLMs misinterpreted their prompts. For instance, one user who was supposed to exhibit symptoms of gallstones merely told the LLM: “I get severe stomach pains lasting up to an hour, It can make me vomit and seems to coincide with a takeaway,” omitting the location of the pain, the severity, and the frequency. Command R+ incorrectly suggested that the participant was experiencing indigestion, and the participant incorrectly guessed that condition. Even when LLMs delivered the correct information, participants didn’t always follow its recommendations. The study found that 65.7% of GPT-4o conversations suggested at least one relevant condition for the scenario, but somehow less than 34.5% of final answers from participants reflected those relevant conditions. The human variable This study is useful, but not surprising, according to Nathalie Volkheimer, a user experience specialist at the Renaissance Computing Institute (RENCI), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “For those of us old enough to remember the early days of internet search, this is déjà vu,” she says. “As a tool, large language models require prompts to be written with a particular degree of quality, especially when expecting a quality output.” She points out that someone experiencing blinding pain wouldn’t offer great prompts. Although participants in a lab experiment weren’t experiencing the symptoms directly, they weren’t relaying every detail. “There is also a reason why clinicians who deal with patients on the front line are trained to ask questions in a certain way and a certain repetitiveness,” Volkheimer goes on. Patients omit information because they don’t know what’s relevant, or at worst, lie because they’re embarrassed or ashamed. Can chatbots be better designed to address them? “I wouldn’t put the emphasis on the machinery here,” Volkheimer cautions. “I would consider the emphasis should be on the human-technology interaction.” The car, she analogizes, was built to get people from point A to B, but many other factors play a role. “It’s about the driver, the roads, the weather, and the general safety of the route. It isn’t just up to the machine.” A better yardstick The Oxford study highlights one problem, not with humans or even LLMs, but with the way we sometimes measure them—in a vacuum. When we say an LLM can pass a medical licensing test, real estate licensing exam, or a state bar exam, we’re probing the depths of its knowledge base using tools designed to evaluate humans. However, these measures tell us very little about how successfully these chatbots will interact with humans. “The prompts were textbook (as validated by the source and medical community), but life and people are not textbook,” explains Dr. Volkheimer. Imagine an enterprise about to deploy a support chatbot trained on its internal knowledge base. One seemingly logical way to test that bot might simply be to have it take the same test the company uses for customer support trainees: answering prewritten “customer” support questions and selecting multiple-choice answers. An accuracy of 95% would certainly look pretty promising. Then comes deployment: Real customers use vague terms, express frustration, or describe problems in unexpected ways. The LLM, benchmarked only on clear-cut questions, gets confused and provides incorrect or unhelpful answers. It hasn’t been trained or evaluated on de-escalating situations or seeking clarification effectively. Angry reviews pile up. The launch is a disaster, despite the LLM sailing through tests that seemed robust for its human counterparts. This study serves as a critical reminder for AI engineers and orchestration specialists: if an LLM is designed to interact with humans, relying solely on non-interactive benchmarks can create a dangerous false sense of security about its real-world capabilities. If you’re designing an LLM to interact with humans, you need to test it with humans – not tests for humans. But is there a better way? Using AI to test AI The Oxford researchers recruited nearly 1,300 people for their study, but most enterprises don’t have a pool of test subjects sitting around waiting to play with a new LLM agent. So why not just substitute AI testers for human testers? Mahdi and his team tried that, too, with simulated participants. “You are a patient,” they prompted an LLM, separate from the one that would provide the advice. “You have to self-assess your symptoms from the given case vignette and assistance from an AI model. Simplify terminology used in the given paragraph to layman language and keep your questions or statements reasonably short.” The LLM was also instructed not to use medical knowledge or generate new symptoms. These simulated participants then chatted with the same LLMs the human participants used. But they performed much better. On average, simulated participants using the same LLM tools nailed the relevant conditions 60.7% of the time, compared to below 34.5% in humans. In this case, it turns out LLMs play nicer with other LLMs than humans do, which makes them a poor predictor of real-life performance. Don’t blame the user Given the scores LLMs could attain on their own, it might be tempting to blame the participants here. After all, in many cases, they received the right diagnoses in their conversations with LLMs, but still failed to correctly guess it. But that would be a foolhardy conclusion for any business, Volkheimer warns. “In every customer environment, if your customers aren’t doing the thing you want them to, the last thing you do is blame the customer,” says Volkheimer. “The first thing you do is ask why. And not the ‘why’ off the top of your head: but a deep investigative, specific, anthropological, psychological, examined ‘why.’ That’s your starting point.” You need to understand your audience, their goals, and the customer experience before deploying a chatbot, Volkheimer suggests. All of these will inform the thorough, specialized documentation that will ultimately make an LLM useful. Without carefully curated training materials, “It’s going to spit out some generic answer everyone hates, which is why people hate chatbots,” she says. When that happens, “It’s not because chatbots are terrible or because there’s something technically wrong with them. It’s because the stuff that went in them is bad.” “The people designing technology, developing the information to go in there and the processes and systems are, well, people,” says Volkheimer. “They also have background, assumptions, flaws and blindspots, as well as strengths. And all those things can get built into any technological solution.” Daily insights on business use cases with VB Daily If you want to impress your boss, VB Daily has you covered. We give you the inside scoop on what companies are doing with generative AI, from regulatory shifts to practical deployments, so you can share insights for maximum ROI. Read our Privacy Policy Thanks for subscribing. Check out more VB newsletters here. An error occured.

While it’s now accepted by many that video games are an art form, it still might be hard to believe that one is featured in an exhibit at the same museum that’s home to Leonardo da Vinci’s “Mona Lisa”: The Louvre in Paris. But this week, Xbox and World’s Edge Studio announced a partnership with what is arguably the most prestigious museum in the world for its new exhibition, “Mamluks 1250–1517.” Related Stories For those who are unaware of how the gaming studios connect to this aspect of the Egyptian Syrian empire: The Mamluks cavalry are among the many units featured in Xbox and World’s Edge Studio’s “Age of Empires” video game franchise. The cavalry is a fan favorite choice in the game centered around traversing the ages and competing against rival empires, particularly in “Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition.” Popular on Variety Presented at the Louvre until July 28, the exhibit “Mamluks 1250–1517″ recounts “the glorious and unique history of this Egyptian Syrian empire, which represents a golden age for the Near East during the Islamic era,” per its official description. “Bringing together 260 pieces from international collections, the exhibition explores the richness of this singular and lesser-known society through a spectacular and immersive scenography.” This marks the first time a video game franchise has collaborated with the Louvre Museum, with installations and events that occur both in person at the museum and online through the “Age of Empires” game: Official “Louvre Museum” scenario in Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition Players can embody General Baybars and Sultan Qutuz at the really heart of the Ain Jalut battle(1260), which opposed the Mamluk Sultanate to the Mongol Empire. This scenario, speciallycreated for the occasion, is already available in Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition (see onhttp://www.ageofempire.com/lelouvre for instructions on finding the map in the game) [LiveTuesday 10th at 9am PT/6pm BST].Exclusive Gaming Night on Twitch Live from the Louvre On Thursday, June 12, at 8 PM, streamer and journalist Samuel Etienne (1.1M FrenchStreamer) will replay live from the exhibition “Mamluks 1250-1517” at the Louvre the official“Louvre Museum” scenario to relive the famous Battle of Ain Jalut on the game Age of EmpiresII: Definitive Edition, in the presence of Le Louvre Teams and one of the studio’s developers.This is an opportunity to learn more about the history of the Mamluks and their representationin the various episodes of the saga.Cross-Interview: The Louvre x Age of Empires To discover more, an interview featuring Adam Isgreen, creative director at World’s Edge, thestudio behind the franchise, and Souraya Noujaïm and Carine Juvin, curators of the exhibition,is available on the YouTube channels of the Louvre and Age of Empires.Mediation and Gaming Sessions at the Museum Museum visitors at the Louvre are invited to test the scenario of the Battle of Ain Jalut,specially designed for the Mamluk exhibition, in the presence of a Louvre mediator and anXbox representative during an exceptional series of workshops. The sessions will take place onFridays, June 20, 27, and 4 & 11 of July. All information and registrations are available here:www.louvre.fr “World’s Edge is honoured to collaborate with Le Louvre,” head of World’s Edge studio Michael Mann said. “The ‘Age of Empires’ franchise has been bringing history to life for more than 65 million players around the world for almost 30 years. We’ve always believed in the great potential for our games to spark an interest in history and culture. We often hear of teachers using ‘Age of Empires’ to teach history to their students and stories from our players about how ‘Age of Empires’ has driven them to learn more, or even to pursue history academically or as a career. This opportunity to bring the amazing stories of the Mamluks to new audiences through the Louvre’s exhibition is one we’re excited to be a part of. We hope that through the excellent work of the Louvre’s team, the legacy of the Mamluks can be shared around the world, and that people enjoy their stories as they come to life through ‘Age of Empires.'” “We are delighted to welcome ‘Age of Empires’ as part of the exhibition Mamluks 1250–1517, through a unique partnership that blends the pleasures of gaming with learning and discovery,” Souraya Noujaim, director of the Department of Islamic Arts and chief curator of the exhibition at le Louvre Museum, said. “It is a way for the museum to engage with diverse audiences and offer a new narrative, one that resonates with contemporary sensitivities, allowing for a deeper understanding of artworks and a greater openness to world history. Beyond the game, the museum experience becomes an opportunity to move from the virtual to the real and uncover the true history of the Mamluks and their unique contribution to universal heritage.” See video and images below from the “Age of Empires” in-game event and the in-person exhibit at the Louvre.

This is today's edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what's going on in the world of technology.Tech billionaires are making a risky bet with humanity’s future Sam Altman, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and others may have slightly different goals, but their grand visions for the next decade and beyond are remarkably similar. They include aligning AI with the interests of humanity; creating an artificial superintelligence that will solve all the world’s most pressing problems; merging with that superintelligence to achieve immortality (or something close to it); establishing a permanent, self-­sustaining colony on Mars; and, ultimately, spreading out across the cosmos.Three features play a central role with powering these visions, says Adam Becker, a science writer and astrophysicist: an unshakable certainty that technology can solve any problem, a belief in the necessity of perpetual growth, and a quasi-religious obsession with transcending our physical and biological limits.In his timely new book, More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity, Becker reveals how these fantastical visions conceal a darker agenda. Read the full story. —Bryan Gardiner This story is from the next print edition of MIT Technology Review, which explores power—who has it, and who wants it. It’s set to go live on Wednesday June 25, so subscribe & save 25% to read it and get a copy of the issue when it lands! Here’s what food and drug regulation might look like under the Trump administration Earlier this week, two new leaders of the US Food and Drug Administration published a list of priorities for the agency. Both Marty Makary and Vinay Prasad are controversial figures in the science community. They were generally highly respected academics until the covid pandemic, when their contrarian opinions on masking, vaccines, and lockdowns turned many of their colleagues off them. Given all this, along with recent mass firings of FDA employees, lots of people were pretty anxious to see what this list might include—and what we might expect the future of food and drug regulation in the US to look like. So let’s dive into the pair’s plans for new investigations, speedy approvals, and the “unleashing” of AI. —Jessica Hamzelou This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here. The must-reads I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology. 1 NASA is investigating leaks on the ISS It’s postponed launching private astronauts to the station while it evaluates. (WP $)+ Its core component has been springing small air leaks for months. (Reuters)+ Meanwhile, this Chinese probe is en route to a near-Earth asteroid. (Wired $) 2 Undocumented migrants are using social media to warn of ICE raidsThe DIY networks are anonymously reporting police presences across LA. (Wired $) + Platforms’ relationships with protest activism has changed drastically. (NY Mag $) 3 Google’s AI Overviews is hallucinating about the fatal Air India crashIt incorrectly stated that it involved an Airbus plane, not a Boeing 787. (Ars Technica) + Why Google’s AI Overviews gets things wrong. (MIT Technology Review)4 Chinese engineers are sneaking suitcases of hard drives into the country To covertly train advanced AI models. (WSJ $)+ The US is cracking down on Huawei’s ability to produce chips. (Bloomberg $)+ What the US-China AI race overlooks. (Rest of World)5 The National Hurricane Center is joining forces with DeepMind It’s the first time the center has used AI to predict nature’s worst storms. (NYT $)+ Here’s what we know about hurricanes and climate change. (MIT Technology Review) 6 OpenAI is working on a product with toymaker Mattel AI-powered Barbies?! (FT $)+ Nothing is safe from the creep of AI, not even playtime. (LA Times $)+ OpenAI has ambitions to reach billions of users. (Bloomberg $)7 Chatbots posing as licensed therapists may be breaking the lawDigital rights organizations have filed a complaint to the FTC. (404 Media) + How do you teach an AI model to give therapy? (MIT Technology Review)8 Major companies are abandoning their climate commitmentsBut some experts argue this may not be entirely bad. (Bloomberg $) + Google, Amazon and the problem with Big Tech’s climate claims. (MIT Technology Review)9 Vibe coding is shaking up software engineeringEven though AI-generated code is inherently unreliable. (Wired $) + What is vibe coding, exactly? (MIT Technology Review) 10 TikTok really loves hotdogs 🌭 And who can blame it? (Insider $) Quote of the day “It kind of jams two years of work into two months." —Andrew Butcher, president of the Maine Connectivity Authority, tells Ars Technica why it’s so difficult to meet the Trump administration’s new plans to increase broadband access in certain states. One more thing The surprising barrier that keeps us from building the housing we needIt’s a tough time to try and buy a home in America. From the beginning of the pandemic to early 2024, US home prices rose by 47%. In large swaths of the country, buying a home is no longer a possibility even for those with middle-class incomes. For many, that marks the end of an American dream built around owning a house. Over the same time, rents have gone up 26%. The reason for the current rise in the cost of housing is clear to most economists: a lack of supply. Simply put, we don’t build enough houses and apartments, and we haven’t for years. But the reality is that even if we ease the endless permitting delays and begin cutting red tape, we will still be faced with a distressing fact: The construction industry is not very efficient when it comes to building stuff.Read the full story. —David Rotman We can still have nice things A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line or skeet 'em at me.) + If you’re one of the unlucky people who has triskaidekaphobia, look away now.+ 15-year old Nicholas is preparing to head from his home in the UK to Japan to become a professional sumo wrestler.+ Earlier this week, London played host to 20,000 women in bald caps. But why? ($)+ Why do dads watch TV standing up? I need to know.