Traditional and indie authors are flooding #WritersTok with videos of them editing their manuscripts to refute accusations of generative AI use—and bring readers into their very human process.

Elon Musk may be gone from the Trump administration — and his friendship status with President Donald Trump may be at best uncertain — but his whirlwind stint in government certainly left its imprint. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), his pet government-slashing project, remains entrenched in Washington. During his 130-day tenure, Musk led DOGE in eliminating about 260,000 federal employee jobs and gutting agencies supporting scientific research and humanitarian aid. But to date, DOGE claims to have saved the government $180 billion — well short of its ambitious (and frankly never realistic) target of cutting at least $2 trillion from the federal budget. And with Musk’s departure still fresh, there are reports that the federal government is trying to rehire federal workers who quit or were let go. For Elaine Kamarck, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, DOGE’s tactics will likely end up being disastrous in the long run. “DOGE came in with these huge cuts, which were not attached to a plan,” she told Today, Explained co-host Sean Rameswaram. Kamarck knows all about making government more efficient. In the 1990s, she ran the Clinton administration’s Reinventing Government program. “I was Elon Musk,” she told Today, Explained. With the benefit of that experience, she assesses Musk’s record at DOGE, and what, if anything, the billionaire’s loud efforts at cutting government spending added up to. Below is an excerpt of the conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify. What do you think Elon Musk’s legacy is? Well, he will not have totally, radically reshaped the federal government. Absolutely not. In fact, there’s a high probability that on January 20, 2029, when the next president takes over, the federal government is about the same size as it is now, and is probably doing the same stuff that it’s doing now. What he did manage to do was insert chaos, fear, and loathing into the federal workforce. There was reporting in the Washington Post late last week that these cuts were so ineffective that the White House is actually reaching out to various federal employees who were laid off and asking them to come back, from the FDA to the IRS to even USAID. Which cuts are sticking at this point and which ones aren’t?First of all, in a lot of cases, people went to court and the courts have reversed those earlier decisions. So the first thing that happened is, courts said, “No, no, no, you can’t do it this way. You have to bring them back.” The second thing that happened is that Cabinet officers started to get confirmed by the Senate. And remember that a lot of the most spectacular DOGE stuff was happening in February. In February, these Cabinet secretaries were preparing for their Senate hearings. They weren’t on the job. Now that their Cabinet secretary’s home, what’s happening is they’re looking at these cuts and they’re saying, “No, no, no! We can’t live with these cuts because we have a mission to do.”As the government tries to hire back the people they fired, they’re going to have a tough time, and they’re going to have a tough time for two reasons. First of all, they treated them like dirt, and they’ve said a lot of insulting things. Second, most of the people who work for the federal government are highly skilled. They’re not paper pushers. We have computers to push our paper, right? They’re scientists. They’re engineers. They’re people with high skills, and guess what? They can get jobs outside the government. So there’s going to be real lasting damage to the government from the way they did this. And it’s analogous to the lasting damage that they’re causing at universities, where we now have top scientists who used to invent great cures for cancer and things like that, deciding to go find jobs in Europe because this culture has gotten so bad.What happens to this agency now? Who’s in charge of it?Well, what they’ve done is DOGE employees have been embedded in each of the organizations in the government, okay? And they basically — and the president himself has said this — they basically report to the Cabinet secretaries. So if you are in the Transportation Department, you have to make sure that Sean Duffy, who’s the secretary of transportation, agrees with you on what you want to do. And Sean Duffy has already had a fight during a Cabinet meeting with Elon Musk. You know that he has not been thrilled with the advice he’s gotten from DOGE. So from now on, DOGE is going to have to work hand in hand with Donald Trump’s appointed leaders.And just to bring this around to what we’re here talking about now, they’re in this huge fight over wasteful spending with the so-called big, beautiful bill. Does this just look like the government as usual, ultimately?It’s actually worse than normal. Because the deficit impacts are bigger than normal. It’s adding more to the deficit than previous bills have done. And the second reason it’s worse than normal is that everybody is still living in a fantasy world. And the fantasy world says that somehow we can deal with our deficits by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. That is pure nonsense. Let me say it: pure nonsense.Where does most of the government money go? Does it go to some bureaucrats sitting on Pennsylvania Avenue? It goes to us. It goes to your grandmother and her Social Security and her Medicare. It goes to veterans in veterans benefits. It goes to Americans. That’s why it’s so hard to cut it. It’s so hard to cut it because it’s us. And people are living on it. Now, there’s a whole other topic that nobody talks about, and it’s called entitlement reform, right? Could we reform Social Security? Could we make the retirement age go from 67 to 68? That would save a lot of money. Could we change the cost of living? Nobody, nobody, nobody is talking about that. And that’s because we are in this crazy, polarized environment where we can no longer have serious conversations about serious issues. See More:

Last year, MACK Books published Architecture from Below, which anthologized writings by the French Brazilian architect, theorist, and painter Sérgio Ferro. (Douglas Spencer reviewed it for AN.) Now, MACK follows with Design and the Building Site and Complementary Essays, the second in the trilogy of books dedicated to Ferro’s scholarship. The following excerpt of the author’s 2023 preface to the English edition, which preserves its British phrasing, captures Ferro’s realization about the working conditions of construction sites in Brasília. The sentiment is likely relatable even today for young architects as they discover how drawings become buildings. Design and the Building Site and Complementary Essays will be released on May 22. If I remember correctly, it was in 1958 or 1959, when Rodrigo and I were second- or third year architecture students at FAUUSP, that my father, the real estate developer Armando Simone Pereira, commissioned us to design two large office buildings and eleven shops in Brasilia, which was then under construction. Of course, we were not adequately prepared for such an undertaking. Fortunately, Oscar Niemeyer and his team, who were responsible for overseeing the construction of the capital, had drawn up a detailed document determining the essential characteristics of all the private sector buildings. We followed these prescriptions to the letter, which saved us from disaster. Nowadays, it is hard to imagine the degree to which the construction of Brasilia inspired enthusiasm and professional pride in the country’s architects. And in the national imagination, the city’s establishment in the supposedly unpopulated hinterland evoked a re-founding of Brazil. Up until that point, the occupation of our immense territory had been reduced to a collection of arborescent communication routes, generally converging upon some river, following it up to the Atlantic Ocean. Through its ports, agricultural or extractive commodities produced by enslaved peoples or their substitutes passed towards the metropolises; goods were exchanged in the metropolises for more elaborate products, which took the opposite route. Our national identity was summed up in a few symbols, such as the anthem or the flag, and this scattering of paths pointing overseas. Brasilia would radically change this situation, or so we believed. It would create a central hub where the internal communication routes could converge, linking together hithertoseparate junctions, stimulating trade and economic progress in the country’s interior. It was as if, for the first time, we were taking care of ourselves. At the nucleus of this centripetal movement, architecture would embody the renaissance. And at the naval of the nucleus, the symbolic mandala of this utopia: the cathedral. Rodrigo and I got caught up in the euphoria. And perhaps more so than our colleagues, because we were taking part in the adventure with ‘our’ designs. The reality was very different — but we did not know that yet. At that time, architects in Brazil were responsible for verifying that the construction was in line with the design. We had already monitored some of our first building sites. But the construction company in charge of them, Osmar Souza e Silva’s CENPLA, specialized in the building sites of modernist architects from the so-called Escola Paulista led by Vilanova Artigas (which we aspired to be a part of, like the pretentious students we were). Osmar was very attentive to his clients and his workers, who formed a supportive and helpful team. He was even more careful with us, because he knew how inexperienced we were. I believe that the CENPLA was particularly important in São Paulo modernism: with its congeniality, it facilitated experimentation, but for the same reason, it deceived novices like us about the reality of other building sites. Consequently, Rodrigo and I travelled to Brasilia several times to check that the constructions followed ‘our’ designs and to resolve any issues. From the very first trip, our little bubble burst. Our building sites, like all the others in the future capital, bore no relation to Osmar’s. They were more like a branch of hell. A huge, muddy wasteland, in which a few cranes, pile drivers, tractors, and excavators dotted the mound of scaffolding occupied by thousands of skinny, seemingly exhausted wretches, who were nevertheless driven on by the shouts of master builders and foremen, in turn pressured by the imminence of the fateful inauguration date. Surrounding or huddled underneath the marquees of buildings under construction, entire families, equally skeletal and ragged, were waiting for some accident or death to open up a vacancy. In contact only with the master builders, and under close surveillance so we would not speak to the workers, we were not allowed to see what comrades who had worked on these sites later told us in prison: suicide abounded; escape was known to be futile in the unpopulated surroundings with no viable roads; fatal accidents were often caused by weakness due to chronic diarrhoea, brought on by rotten food that came from far away; outright theft took place in the calculation of wages and expenses in the contractor’s grocery store; camps were surrounded by law enforcement. I repeat this anecdote yet again not to invoke the benevolence of potential readers, but rather to point out the conditions that, in my opinion, allowed two students (Flávio Império joined us a little later) still in their professional infancy to quickly adopt positions that were contrary to the usual stance of architects. As the project was more Oscar Niemeyer’s than it was our own, we did not have the same emotional attachment that is understandably engendered between real authors and their designs. We had not yet been imbued with the charm and aura of the métier. And the only building sites we had visited thus far, Osmar’s, were incomparable to those we discovered in Brasilia. In short, our youthfulness and unpreparedness up against an unbearable situation made us react almost immediately to the profession’s satisfied doxa. Unprepared and young perhaps, but already with Marx by our side. Rodrigo and I joined the student cell of the Brazilian Communist Party during our first year at university. In itself, this did not help us much: the Party’s Marxism, revised in the interests of the USSR, was pitiful. Even high-level leaders rarely went beyond the first chapter of Capital. But at the end of the 1950s, the effervescence of the years to come was already nascent:  […] this extraordinary revival […] the rediscovery of Marxism and the great dialectical texts and traditions in the 1960s: an excitement that identifies a forgotten or repressed moment of the past as the new and subversive, and learns the dialectical grammar of a Hegel or an Adorno, a Marx or a Lukács, like a foreign language that has resources unavailable in our own. And what is more: the Chinese and Cuban revolutions, the war in Vietnam, guerrilla warfare of all kinds, national liberation movements, and a rare libertarian disposition in contemporary history, totally averse to fanaticism and respect for ideological apparatuses of (any) state or institution. Going against the grain was almost the norm. We were of course no more than contemporaries of our time. We were soon able to position ourselves from chapters 13, 14, and 15 of Capital, but only because we could constantly cross-reference Marx with our observations from well-contrasted building sites and do our own experimenting. As soon as we identified construction as manufacture, for example, thanks to the willingness and even encouragement of two friends and clients, Boris Fausto and Bernardo Issler, I was able to test both types of manufacture — organic and heterogeneous — on similar-sized projects taking place simultaneously, in order to find out which would be most convenient for the situation in Brazil, particularly in São Paulo. Despite the scientific shortcomings of these tests, they sufficed for us to select organic manufacture. Arquitetura Nova had defined its line of practice, studies, and research. There were other sources that were central to our theory and practice. Flávio Império was one of the founders of the Teatro de Arena, undoubtedly the vanguard of popular, militant theatre in Brazil. He won practically every set design award. He brought us his marvelous findings in spatial condensation and malleability, and in the creative diversion of techniques and material—appropriate devices for an underdeveloped country. This is what helped us pave the way to reformulating the reigning design paradigms.  We had to do what Flávio had done in the theatre: thoroughly rethink how to be an architect. Upend the perspective. The way we were taught was to start from a desired result; then others would take care of getting there, no matter how. We, on the other hand, set out to go down to the building site and accompany those carrying out the labor itself, those who actually build, the formally subsumed workers in manufacture who are increasingly deprived of the knowledge and know-how presupposed by this kind of subsumption. We should have been fostering the reconstitution of this knowledge and know-how—not so as to fulfil this assumption, but in order to reinvigorate the other side of this assumption according to Marx: the historical rebellion of the manufacture worker, especially the construction worker. We had to rekindle the demand that fueled this rebellion: total self-determination, and not just that of the manual operation as such. Our aim was above all political and ethical. Aesthetics only mattered by way of what it included—ethics. Instead of estética, we wrote est ética [this is ethics]. We wanted to make building sites into nests for the return of revolutionary syndicalism, which we ourselves had yet to discover. Sérgio Ferro, born in Brazil in 1938, studied architecture at FAUUSP, São Paulo. In the 1960s, he joined the Brazilian communist party and started, along with Rodrigo Lefevre and Flávio Império, the collective known as Arquitetura Nova. After being arrested by the military dictatorship that took power in Brazil in 1964, he moved to France as an exile. As a painter and a professor at the École Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture de Grenoble, where he founded the Dessin/Chantier laboratory, he engaged in extensive research which resulted in several publications, exhibitions, and awards in Brazil and in France, including the title of Chevalier des Arts et des Lettres in 1992. Following his retirement from teaching, Ferro continues to research, write, and paint.

Classic splitscreens, traditional face replacements and new approaches to machine learning-assisted face swapping allowed for twinning shots in ‘Mickey 17’. An excerpt from issue #32 of befores & afters magazine. The art of representing two characters on screen at the same time has become known as ‘twinning’. For Mickey 17 visual effects supervisor Dan Glass, the effect of seeing both Mickey 17 and 18 together was one he looked to achieve with a variety of methodologies. “With a technique like that,” he says, “you always want to use a range of tricks, because you don’t want people to figure it out. You want to keep them like, ‘Oh, wait a minute. How did they…?” “Going back to the way that Director Bong is so prepared and organized,” adds Glass, “it again makes the world of difference with that kind of work, because he thumbnails every shot. Then, some of them are a bit more fleshed out in storyboards. You can look at it and go, ‘Okay, in this situation, this is what the camera’s doing, this is what the actor’s doing,’ which in itself is quite interesting, because he pre-thinks all of this. You’d think that the actors show up and basically just have to follow the steps like robots. It’s not like that. He gives them an environment to work in, but the shots do end up extraordinarily close to what he thumbnails, and it made it a lot simpler to go through.” Those different approaches to twinning ranged from simple splitscreens, to traditional face replacements, and then substantially with a machine learned AI approach, now usually termed ‘face swapping’. What made the twinning work a tougher task than usual, suggests Glass, was the fact that the two Pattinson characters are virtually identical. “Normally, when you’re doing some kind of face replacement, you’re comparing it to a memory of the face. But this was right in front of you as two Mickeys looking strikingly similar.” Here’s how a typical twinning shot was achieved, as described by Glass. “Because Mickey was mostly dressed the same, with only a slight hair change, we were able to have Robert play both roles and to do them one after another. Sometimes, you have to do these things where hair and makeup or costume has a significant variation, so you’re either waiting a long time, which slows production, or you’re coming back at another time to do the different roles, which always makes the process a lot more complicated to match, but we were able to do that immediately.” “Based on the design of the shot,” continues Glass, “I would recommend which of Robert’s parts should be shot first. This was most often determined by which role had more impact on the camera movement. A huge credit goes to Robert for his ability to flip between the roles so effortlessly.” In the film, Mickey 17 is more passive and Mickey 18 is more aggressive. Pattinson reflected the distinct characters in his actions, including for a moment in which they fight. This fight, overseen by stunt coordinator Paul Lowe, represented moments of close interaction between the two Mickeys. It was here that a body double was crucial in shooting. The body double was also relied upon for the classic twinning technique of shooting ‘dirty’ over-the- shoulder out of focus shots of the double—ie. 17 looking at 18. However, it was quickly determined that even these would need face replacement work. “Robert’s jawline is so distinct that even those had to be replaced or shot as split screens,” observes Glass. When the shot was a moving one, no motion control was employed. “I’ve never been a big advocate for motion control,” states Glass. “To me it’s applicable when you’re doing things like miniatures where you need many matching passes, but I think when performances are involved, it interferes too much. It slows down a production’s speed of movement, but it’s also restrictive. Performance and camera always benefit from more flexibility.” “It helped tremendously that Director Bong and DOP Darius Khondji shot quite classically with minimal crane and Steadicam moves,” says Glass. “So, a lot of the moves are pan and dolly. There are some Steadicams in there that we were sometimes able to do splitscreens on. I wasn’t always sure that we could get away with the splitscreen as we shot it, but since we were always shooting the two roles, we had the footage to assess the practicality later. We were always prepared to go down a CG or machine learning route, but where we could use the splitscreen, that was the preference.” The Hydralite rig, developed by Volucap. Source: https://volucap.com Rising Sun Pictures (visual effects supervisor Guido Wolter) handled the majority of twinning visual effects, completing them as splitscreen composites, 2D face replacements, and most notably via their machine learning toolset REVIZE, which utilized facial and body capture of Pattinson to train a model of his face and torso to swap for the double’s. A custom capture rig, dubbed the ‘Crazy Rig’ and now officially, The Hydralite, was devised and configured by Volucap to capture multiple angles of Robert on set in each lighting environment in order to produce the best possible reference for the machine learning algorithm. “For me, it was a completely legitimate use of the technique,” attests Glass, in terms of the machine learning approach. “All of the footage that we used to go into that process was captured on our movie for our movie. There’s nothing historic, or going through past libraries of footage, and it was all with Robert’s approval. I think the results were tremendous.” “It’s staggering to me as I watch the movie that the performances of each character are so flawlessly consistent throughout the film, because I know how much we were jumping around,” notes Glass. “I did encourage that we rehearse scenes ahead. Let’s say 17 was going to be the first role we captured, I’d have them rehearse it the other way around so that the double knew what he was going to do. Therefore, eyelines, movement, pacing and in instances where we were basically replacing the likeness of his head or even torso, we were still able to use the double’s performance and then map to that.” Read the full Mickey 17 issue of befores & afters magazine in PRINT from Amazon or as a DIGITAL EDITION on Patreon. Remember, you can also subscribe to the DIGITAL EDITION as a tier on the Patreon and get a new issue every time one is released. The post The art of two Mickeys appeared first on befores & afters.

In “The Optimist: Sam Altman, OpenAI, and the Race to Invent the Future,” Wall Street Journal reporter Keach Hagey examines our AI-obsessed moment through one of its key figures — Sam Altman, co-founder and CEO of OpenAI. Hagey begins with Altman’s Midwest childhood, then takes readers through his career at startup Loopt, accelerator Y Combinator, and now at OpenAI. She also sheds new light on the dramatic few days when Altman was fired, then quickly reinstated, as OpenAI’s CEO. Looking back at what OpenAI employees now call “the Blip,” Hagey said the failed attempt to oust Altman revealed that OpenAI’s complex structure — with a for-profit company controlled by a nonprofit board — is “not stable.” And with OpenAI largely backing down from plans to let the for-profit side take control, Hagey predicted that this “fundamentally unstable arrangement” will “continue to give investors pause.” Does that mean OpenAI could struggle to raise the funds it needs to keep going? Hagey replied that it could “absolutely” be an issue. “My research into Sam suggests that he might well be up to that challenge,” she said. “But success is not guaranteed.” In addition, Hagey’s biography (also available as an audiobook on Spotify) examines Altman’s politics, which she described as “pretty traditionally progressive” — making it a bit surprising that he’s struck massive infrastructure deals with the backing of the Trump administration. “But this is one area where, in some ways, I feel like Sam Altman has been born for this moment, because he is a deal maker and Trump is a deal maker,” Hagey said. “Trump respects nothing so much as a big deal with a big price tag on it, and that is what Sam Altman is really great at.” Techcrunch event Save now through June 4 for TechCrunch Sessions: AI Save $300 on your ticket to TC Sessions: AI—and get 50% off a second. Hear from leaders at OpenAI, Anthropic, Khosla Ventures, and more during a full day of expert insights, hands-on workshops, and high-impact networking. These low-rate deals disappear when the doors open on June 5. Exhibit at TechCrunch Sessions: AI Secure your spot at TC Sessions: AI and show 1,200+ decision-makers what you’ve built — without the big spend. Available through May 9 or while tables last. Berkeley, CA | June 5 REGISTER NOW In an interview with TechCrunch, Hagey also discussed Altman’s response to the book, his trustworthiness, and the AI “hype universe.” This interview has been edited for length and clarity.  You open the book by acknowledging some of the reservations that Sam Altman had about the project —  this idea that we tend to focus too much on individuals rather than organizations or broad movements, and also that it’s way too early to assess the impact of OpenAI. Did you share those concerns? Well, I don’t really share them, because this was a biography. This project was to look at a person, not an organization. And I also think that Sam Altman has set himself up in a way where it does matter what kind of moral choices he has made and what his moral formation has been, because the broad project of AI is really a moral project. That is the basis of OpenAI’s existence. So I think these are fair questions to ask about a person, not just an organization. As far as whether it’s too soon, I mean, sure, it’s definitely [early to] assess the entire impact of AI. But it’s been an extraordinary story for OpenAI — just so far, it’s already changed the stock market, it has changed the entire narrative of business. I’m a business journalist. We do nothing but talk about AI, all day long, every day. So in that way, I don’t think it’s too early. And despite those reservations, Altman did cooperate with you. Can you say more about what your relationship with him was like during the process of researching the book? Well, he was definitely not happy when he was informed about the book’s existence. And there was a long period of negotiation, frankly. In the beginning, I figured I was going to write this book without his help — what we call, in the business, a write-around profile. I’ve done plenty of those over my career, and I figured this would just be one more. Over time, as I made more and more calls, he opened up a little bit. And [eventually,] he was generous to sit down with me several times for long interviews and share his thoughts with me. Has he responded to the finished book at all? No. He did tweet about the project, about his decision to participate with it, but he was very clear that he was never going to read it. It’s the same way that I don’t like to watch my TV appearances or podcasts that I’m on. In the book, he’s described as this emblematic Silicon Valley figure. What do you think are the key characteristics that make him representative of the Valley and the tech industry? In the beginning, I think it was that he was young. The Valley really glorifies youth, and he was 19 years old when he started his first startup. You see him going into these meetings with people twice his age, doing deals with telecom operators for his first startup, and no one could get over that this kid was so smart. The other is that he is a once-in-a-generation fundraising talent, and that’s really about being a storyteller. I don’t think it’s an accident that you have essentially a salesman and a fundraiser at the top of the most important AI company today, That ties into one of the questions that runs through the book — this question about Altman’s trustworthiness. Can you say more about the concerns people seem to have about that? To what extent is he a trustworthy figure?  Well, he’s a salesman, so he’s really excellent at getting in a room and convincing people that he can see the future and that he has something in common with them. He gets people to share his vision, which is a rare talent. There are people who’ve watched that happen a bunch of times, who think, “Okay, what he says does not always map to reality,” and have, over time, lost trust in him. This happened both at his first startup and very famously at OpenAI, as well as at Y Combinator. So it is a pattern, but I think it’s a typical critique of people who have the salesman skill set. So it’s not necessarily that he’s particularly untrustworthy, but it’s part-and-parcel of being a salesman leading these important companies. I mean, there also are management issues that are detailed in the book, where he is not great at dealing with conflict, so he’ll basically tell people what they want to hear. That causes a lot of sturm-und-drang in the management ranks, and it’s a pattern. Something like that happened at Loopt, where the executives asked the board to replace him as CEO. And you saw it happen at OpenAI as well. You’ve touched on Altman’s firing, which was also covered in a book excerpt that was published in the Wall Street Journal. One of the striking things to me, looking back at it, was just how complicated everything was — all the different factions within the company, all the people who seemed pro-Altman one day and then anti-Altman the next. When you pull back from the details, what do you think is the bigger significance of that incident? The very big picture is that the nonprofit governance structure is not stable. You can’t really take investment from the likes of Microsoft and a bunch of other investors and then give them absolutely no say whatsoever in the governance of the company. That’s what they have tried to do, but I think what we saw in that firing is how power actually works in the world. When you have stakeholders, even if there’s a piece of paper that says they have no rights, they still have power. And when it became clear that everyone in the company was going to go to Microsoft if they didn’t reinstate Sam Altman, they reinstated Sam Altman. In the book, you take the story up to maybe the end of 2024. There have been all these developments since then, which you’ve continued to report on, including this announcement that actually, they’re not fully converting to a for-profit. How do you think that’s going to affect OpenAI going forward?  It’s going to make it harder for them to raise money, because they basically had to do an about-face. I know that the new structure going forward of the public benefit corporation is not exactly the same as the current structure of the for-profit — it is a little bit more investor friendly, it does clarify some of those things. But overall, what you have is a nonprofit board that controls a for-profit company, and that fundamentally unstable arrangement is what led to the so-called Blip. And I think you would continue to give investors pause, going forward, if they are going to have so little control over their investment. Obviously, OpenAI is still such a capital intensive business. If they have challenges raising more money, is that an existential question for the company? It absolutely could be. My research into Sam suggests that he might well be up to that challenge. But success is not guaranteed. Like you said, there’s a dual perspective in the book that’s partly about who Sam is, and partly about what that says about where AI is going from here. How did that research into his particular story shape the way you now look at these broader debates about AI and society? I went down a rabbit hole in the beginning of the book, [looking] into Sam’s father, Jerry Altman, in part because I thought it was striking how he’d been written out of basically every other thing that had ever been written about Sam Altman. What I found in this research was a very idealistic man who was, from youth, very interested in these public-private partnerships and the power of the government to set policy. He ended up having an impact on the way that affordable housing is still financed to this day. And when I traced Sam’s development, I saw that he has long believed that the government should really be the one that is funding and guiding AI research. In the early days of OpenAI, they went and tried to get the government to invest, as he’s publicly said, and it didn’t work out. But he looks back to these great mid-20th century labs like Xerox PARC and Bell Labs, which are private, but there was a ton of government money running through and supporting that ecosystem. And he says, “That’s the right way to do it.” Now I am watching daily as it seems like the United States is summoning the forces of state capitalism to get behind Sam Altman’s project to build these data centers, both in the United States and now there was just one last week announced in Abu Dhabi. This is a vision he has had for a very, very long time. My sense of the vision, as he presented it earlier, was one where, on the one hand, the government is funding these things and building this infrastructure, and on the other hand, the government is also regulating and guiding AI development for safety purposes. And it now seems like the path being pursued is one where they’re backing away from the safety side and doubling down on the government investment side. Absolutely. Isn’t it fascinating?  You talk about Sam as a political figure, as someone who’s had political ambitions at different times, but also somebody who has what are in many ways traditionally liberal political views while being friends with folks like — at least early on — Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. And he’s done a very good job of navigating the Trump administration. What do you think his politics are right now? I’m not sure his actual politics have changed, they are pretty traditionally progressive politics. Not completely — he’s been critical about things like cancel culture, but in general, he thinks the government is there to take tax revenue and solve problems. His success in the Trump administration has been fascinating because he has been able to find their one area of overlap, which is the desire to build a lot of data centers, and just double down on that and not talk about any other stuff. But this is one area where, in some ways, I feel like Sam Altman has been born for this moment, because he is a deal maker and Trump is a deal maker. Trump respects nothing so much as a big deal with a big price tag on it, and that is what Sam Altman is really great at. You open and close the book not just with Sam’s father, but with his family as a whole. What else is worth highlighting in terms of how his upbringing and family shapes who he is now? Well, you see both the idealism from his father and also the incredible ambition from his mother, who was a doctor, and had four kids and worked as a dermatologist. I think both of these things work together to shape him. They also had a more troubled marriage than I realized going into the book. So I do think that there’s some anxiety there that Sam himself is very upfront about, that he was a pretty anxious person for much of his life, until he did some meditation and had some experiences. And there’s his current family — he just had a baby and got married not too long ago. As a young gay man, growing up in the Midwest, he had to overcome some challenges, and I think those challenges both forged him in high school as a brave person who could stand up and take on a room as a public speaker, but also shaped his optimistic view of the world. Because, on that issue, I paint the scene of his wedding: That’s an unimaginable thing from the early ‘90s, or from the ‘80s when he was born. He’s watched society develop and progress in very tangible ways, and I do think that that has helped solidify his faith in progress. Something that I’ve found writing about AI is that the different visions being presented by people in the field can be so diametrically opposed. You have these wildly utopian visions, but also these warnings that AI could end the world. It gets so hyperbolic that it feels like people are not living in the same reality. Was that a challenge for you in writing the book? Well, I see those two visions — which feel very far apart — actually being part of the same vision, which is that AI is super important, and it’s going to completely transform everything. No one ever talks about the true opposite of that, which is, “Maybe this is going to be a cool enterprise tool, another way to waste time on the internet, and not quite change everything as much as everyone thinks.” So I see the doomers and the boomers feeding off each other and being part of the same sort of hype universe. As a journalist and as a biographer, you don’t necessarily come down on one side or the other — but actually, can you say where you come down on that? Well, I will say that I find myself using it a lot more recently, because it’s gotten a lot better. In the early stages, when I was researching the book, I was definitely a lot more skeptical of its transformative economic power. I’m less skeptical now, because I just use it a lot more.

Air travel is such a common part of modern life that it’s easy to forget all the miraculous technology and communication infrastructure required to do it safely. But recent crashes, including near Washington, DC, and in San Diego — not to mention multiple near misses — have left many fliers wondering: Is it still safe to fly?That concern is particularly acute at Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey, which has recently experienced several frightening incidents and near misses in as radio and radar systems have gone dark. This has left an under-staffed and overworked group of air traffic controllers to manage a system moving at a frenetic pace with no room for error.Andrew Tangel, an aviation reporter for the Wall Street Journal, recently spoke to Jonathan Stewart, a Newark air traffic controller. In early May, Stewart experienced a brief loss of the systems showing him the locations of the many planes was directing. When the systems came back online, he realized there’d almost been a major crash.According to Tangel, Stewart “sent off a fiery memo to his managers, complaining about how he was put in that situation, which he felt he was being set up for failure.” Stewart now is taking trauma leave because of the stresses of the job. After many delayed flights, United Airlines just announced that it will move some of its flights to nearby John F. Kennedy International Airport. To understand how we arrived at our current aviation crisis, Today, Explained co-host Sean Rameswaram spoke with Darryl Campbell, an aviation safety writer for The Verge.Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full episode, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get your podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify. You recently wrote about all these issues with flying for The Verge — and your take was that this isn’t just a Newark, New Jersey, problem. It’s systemic. Why?You’ve probably seen some of the news articles about it, and it’s really only in the last couple months because everybody’s been paying attention to aviation safety that people are really saying, Oh my gosh!Newark airport is losing the ability to see airplanes. They’re losing radar for minutes at a time, and that’s not something you want to hear when you have airplanes flying towards each other at 300 miles an hour. So it is rightfully very concerning. But the thing is, what’s been happening at Newark has actually been happening for almost a decade and a half in fits and starts. It’ll get really bad, and then it’ll get better again. Now we’re seeing a combination of air traffic control problems; we’re seeing a combination of infrastructure problems, and they’ve got a runway that’s entirely shut down. And the way that I think about it is, while Newark is its own special case today, all of the problems that it’s facing, other than the runway, are problems that every single airport in the entire country is going to be facing over the next five to 10 years, and so we’re really getting a preview of what’s going to happen if we don’t see some drastic change in the way that the air traffic control system is maintained.We heard about some of these issues after the crash at DCA outside Washington. What exactly is going on with air traffic controllers?The first problem is just one of staff retention and training. On the one hand, the air traffic control system and the people who work there are a pretty dedicated bunch, but it takes a long time to get to the point where you’re actually entrusted with airplanes. It can be up to four years of training from the moment that you decide, Okay, I want to be an air traffic controller. Couple that with the fact that these are government employees and like many other agencies, they haven’t really gotten the cost-of-living increases to keep pace with the actual cost of living, especially in places like the New York and New Jersey area, where it’s just gone up way faster than in the rest of the country.This is bad at Newark, but you say it promises to get bad everywhere else too. The cost of living is still outpacing the replacement level at a lot of these air traffic control centers. And the washout rate is pretty high. We’ve seen the average staffing level at a lot of American airports get down below 85, 80 percent, which is really where the FAA wants it to be, and it’s getting worse over time. At Newark in particular, it’s down to about 58 percent as of the first quarter of this year. This is an emergency level of staffing at a baseline. And then on top of that, you have — in order to keep the airplanes going — people working mandatory overtime, mandatory six-days-a-week shifts, and that’s accelerating that burnout that naturally happens. There’s a lot of compression and a lot of bad things happening independently, but all at the same time in that kind of labor system that’s really making it difficult to both hire and retain qualified air traffic controllers.These sound like very fixable problems, Darryl. Are we trying to fix them? I know former reality TV star and Fox News correspondent — and transportation secretary, in this day and age — Sean Duffy has been out to Newark. He said this: “What we are going to do when we get the money. We have the plan. We actually have to build a brand new state-of-the-art, air traffic control system.”To his credit, they have announced some improvements on it. They’ve announced a lot of new funding for the FAA. They’ve announced an acceleration of hiring, but it’s just a short-term fix. To put it in context, the FAA’s budget usually allocates about $1.7 billion in maintenance fees every year. And so they’ve announced a couple billion more dollars, but their backlog already is $5.2 billion in maintenance. And these are things like replacing outdated systems, replacing buildings that are housing some of these radars, things that you really need to just get the system to where it should be operating today, let alone get ahead of the maintenance things that are going to happen over the next couple of years. It’s really this fight between the FAA and Congress to say, We’re going to do a lot today to fix these problems.And it works for a little while, but then three years down the road, the same problems are still occurring. You got that one-time shot of new money, but then the government cuts back again and again and again. And then you’re just putting out one fire, but not addressing the root cause of why there’s all this dry powder everywhere.People are canceling their flights into or out of Newark, but there are also all these smaller accidents we’re seeing, most recently in San Diego, where six people were killed when a Cessna crashed.How should people be feeling about that?There’s really no silver bullet and all the choices are not great to actively bad at baseline. Number one is you get the government to pay what it actually costs to run the air traffic control system. That empirically has not happened for decades, so I don’t know that we’re going to get to do it, especially under this administration, which is focused on cutting costs.The second thing is to pass on fees to fliers themselves. And it’s just like the conversation that Walmart’s having with tariffs — they don’t want to do it. When they try to pass it on to the customer, President Trump yells at them, and it’s just not a great situation. The third option is to reduce the number of flights in the sky. Part of this is that airlines are competing to have the most flights, the most convenient schedules, the most options. That’s led to this logjam at places like Newark, where you really have these constraints on it. Right before all of this stuff happens, Newark was serving about 80 airplanes an hour, so 80 landings and takeoffs. Today, the FAA’s actually started to admit restrictions on it, and now it’s closer to 56 flights an hour, and that’s probably the level that it can actually handle and not have these issues where you have planes in danger.But no airline wants to hear, Hey, you have to cut your flight schedule. We saw that with United: Their CEO was saying that the air traffic controllers who took trauma leave had “walked off the job,” which seemed to suggest that he didn’t think they should be taking trauma leave because you have to have more planes coming in. That’s a competitive disadvantage for him, but you also have to balance safety. It’s difficult to understand. It costs a lot of money to fix. This is your textbook “why governments fail” case study and it’s not really reassuring that in 24 hours I’m going to be in the middle of it again, trying to fly out of Newark.See More:

Botox injections used to be a secret for (largely) women in their 40s and 50s. But growing numbers of (largely) women in their 20s and 30s are turning to “baby Botox,” or smaller doses that are intended to prevent aging rather than combat it.Baby Botox is just one intervention that doctors say younger people now frequently seek, and some view the trend with concern. Dr. Michelle Hure, a physician specializing in dermatology and dermatopathology, says younger patients aren’t considering the cost of procedures that require lifetime maintenance, and are expressing dissatisfaction with their looks to a degree that borders on the absurd.Hure traces the demand for “baby Botox” and other procedures to the start of the pandemic.“Everyone was basically chronically online,” she told Vox. “They were on Zoom, they were looking at themselves, and there was the rise of of TikTok and the filters and people were really seeing these perceived flaws that either aren’t there or are so minimal and just normal anatomy. And they have really made it front and center where it affects them. It affects their daily life and I really feel that it has become more of a pathological thing.”Hure spoke to Today, Explained co-host Noel King about the rise of “baby Botox” and her concerns with the cosmetic dermatology industry. An excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity, is below. There’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You told us about a patient that you saw yesterday, and you said you probably wouldn’t keep her on because her mentality really worried you. Would you tell me about that young woman?I had this patient who was mid-20s, and really a beautiful girl. I [didn’t] see a lot of signs of aging on her face, but she was coming in for Botox. There wasn’t a lot for me to treat. And at the end of the session she was asking me, “So what do you think about my nasolabial folds?”Basically, it’s the fold that goes from the corner of your nose down to the corner of your mouth. It’s the barrier between the upper lip and your cheek, and when you smile it kind of folds. Of course, the more you age, the more of the line will be left behind when you’re not smiling. And she was pointing to her cheek as if there was something there, but there was nothing there. And so I had to tell her, “Well, I don’t see that, you’re perfect.” It’s a phantom nasolabial fold. It didn’t exist.That sort of mentality where someone is perceiving a flaw that is absolutely not there — providers need to say no. Unfortunately, they’re incentivized not to. Especially if you have a cosmetic office, if you’re a med spa, if you have a cosmetic derm or plastic surgery office, of course you’re incentivized to do what the patient wants. Well, I’m not going to do that. That’s not what I do.That means you may get paid for seeing her in that visit, but you’re not getting paid for putting filler in her face. I think what I hear you saying is other doctors would have done that.Absolutely. One hundred percent. I know this for a fact because many times those patients will come to my office to get that filler dissolved because they don’t like it. In the larger practices or practices that are private equity-owned, which is a huge problem in medicine, you are absolutely meant to sell as many products, as many procedures as possible. Oftentimes I was told to sell as much filler as possible, because every syringe is several hundred dollars. And then if they’re there, talk them into a laser. Talk them into this, talk them into that. Then you become a salesman. For my skin check patients, I’m looking for skin cancer. I’m counseling them on how to take care of their skin. I was told, “Don’t talk to them about using sunscreen, because we want them to get skin cancer and come back.”I was pulled out of the room by my boss and reprimanded for explaining why it’s so important to use sunscreen. And so this is why I couldn’t do it anymore. I had to start my own office and be on my own. I can’t do that. That goes against everything that I believe in, in my oath. Because there is potential harm on many different levels for cosmetic procedures.What are the risks to giving someone a cosmetic procedure that they don’t really need?This is a medical procedure. There is always risk for any type of intervention, right? What gets me is, like, Nordstrom is talking about having injections in their stores. This is ridiculous! This is a medical procedure. You can get infection, you can get vascular occlusion that can lead to death of the tissue overlying where you inject. It can lead to blindness. This is a big deal. It’s fairly safe if you know what you’re doing. But not everyone knows what they’re doing and knows how to handle the complications that can come about. Honestly, I feel like the psychological aspect of it is a big problem. At some point you become dependent, almost, on these procedures to either feel happy or feel good about yourself. And at what point is it not going to be enough? One of my colleagues actually coined this term. It’s called perception drift. At some point, you will do these little, little, incremental tweaks until you look like a different person. And you might look very abnormal. So even if someone comes to me for something that is legitimate, it’s still: Once you start, it’s going to be hard for you to stop. If you’re barely able to scrimp together enough to pay for that one thing, and you have it done, great. What about all the rest of your life that you’re going to want to do something? Are you going to be able to manage it?I wonder how all of this makes you think about your profession. Most people get into medicine, it has always been my assumption, to be helpful. And you’ve laid out a world in which procedures are being done that are not only not helpful, they could be dangerous. And you don’t seem to like it very much.This is why it is a smaller and smaller percentage of what I do in my office. I love cosmetics to an extent, right? I love to make people love how they look. But when you start using cosmetics as a tool to make them feel better about themselves in a major way, it’s a slippery slope. It should be more of a targeted thing, not making you look like an entirely different person because society has told you you can’t age. It’s really disturbing to me.See More:

Apple CEO Tim Cook oversaw his company's deep investment in China. That was an enormously successful strategy for Apple — but now it's a real problem, argues author Patrick McGee. VCG/VCG via Getty Images 2025-05-23T16:56:30Z Save Saved Read in app This story is available exclusively to Business Insider subscribers. Become an Insider and start reading now. Have an account? Donald Trump wants Apple to make iPhones in America. There's no chance that will happen, says Patrick McGee, a journalist who just published a book on Apple's deep ties to China. McGee also argues that Apple's end-around on Trump's China tariffs — saying that some iPhones and other products are made in India and Vietnam — is misleading. Donald Trump says that iPhones need to be built in the US, or they'll face a 25% tariff.But it doesn't matter what Trump says: iPhones are never going to be built in the US.That's according to Patrick McGee, a journalist who just published "Apple In China: The Capture of the World's Greatest Company" — a detailed look at all of the money and effort Apple spent over decades to enmesh itself in China.McGee, who has covered Apple for the Financial Times, explains why this has been enormously helpful to Apple — because it created an ecosystem that lets it make ultra-complicated devices at vast scale. But he argues that it was even more helpful to China — because Apple gave Chinese engineers access to valuable technology that has let them build other high-value supply chains.And that McGee posits, has created both a problem for Apple CEO Tim Cook — because he can no longer practically extract the company from China — and for the US — because its adversary is now using American know-how to compete with American companies.(I asked Apple if it wanted to weigh in on McGee's book. Via a rep, the company said that "claims in the book are untrue" and "filled with inaccuracies" and that McGee didn't fact-check the book with Apple.)I talked to McGee for the newest episode of my Channels podcast. In the edited excerpt below, we talk about why he thinks it's impossible for Apple to move iPhone production to the US. And why McGee thinks that Apple saying it's moving some production to India and Vietnam, in order to escape some US tariffs on China, is deeply misleading.Peter Kafka: The Trump administration says it wants Apple to move all of its manufacturing to the US. You and anyone else who knows anything about Apple saying that is literally not possible when it comes to the iPhone. Why?Patrick McGee:And then they're moving on to another project. So Apple doesn't bear the cost. It's using the likes of Foxconn to do manufacturing as a service.There's an analyst quoted last month who said it would be like if in the city of Boston, every person dropped what they were doing and just worked on iPhones. And as quotable as that is, that understates the challenge. Because it would like the city of Boston transporting itself to some other place, like Milwaukee, assembling iPhones for a few weeks and then moving on to some other project.China has this floating population — that's literally what it's called — and that workforce alone is greater than America's entire labor force. So we're never going to match them in terms of density of population and, more especially, dynamism of the population.Let alone that it's happening at way lower labor rates. Let alone it's got way better machinery and automation. It's not a matter of willpower and cost — that seems to be what the MAGA dream is based on. It goes so much beyond this.We often say Americans don't want to do these jobs. The Chinese don't want to do these jobs. But there are so many people that would rather be doing that than toiling in the fields for 14 hours a day. We just don't have a base of labor that would do that.One of the other arguments you and others make is that China has people, but there's also just huge infrastructure: a whole series of plants and subplants and subcontractors that all are sort of built around getting Apple the products it needs, at a drop of a hat.Yeah. In the amount of time that it would take China to build a new factory, we would still be doing the environmental paperwork.But in Apple's most recent earnings call, the company said that for the next quarter at least, every iPhone they sell in the US is going to come out of India, and most of the other electronics they sell in the US — AirPods, etc — are going to come out of Vietnam.So what am I missing here? It makes it seem like Apple has gone ahead and figured out how to move this stuff out of China.Not at all. Think of it like this: If there's a thousand steps in making an iPhone and the final one is now in India, you're avoiding tariffs. The final assembly is considered "making it in India."Like if I took every step of baking a cake except for putting the icing on or ...Putting it in the box or something.Honestly, not much is happening in India. That might change in the next five to 10 years, but the idea that there is actual production happening in India is just wrong.If you buy an iPhone next year, it'll say "made in India." I think that's a near-certainty. But that phone will be no less dependent on the China-centric supply chain than any other iPhone you've ever purchased.On that earnings call, Apple also said that the existing tariffs will cost them $900 million in the next quarter. That may sound like a big number, but Apple makes $100 billion in profit a year, so it's not. If that was just the only impact from the tariffs, that seems like a pretty solvable problem for Apple: They have to move final assembly to India, and eat some costs, but they could do it.Yeah, absolutely.Where I think things are much dicier is that the political ties that Apple has with China are unbreakable. I shouldn't say political ties — I really mean the business ties. They are not going to leave China anytime soon.Yet the technological transfer that is engendered by designing cutting-edge products every year and building them in China inherently causes a technology transfer from America to China on a crazy level. And if you think of China as a threat, if you think of them as America's biggest adversary, it is insane that the world's greatest company is equipping China with this technological know-how year in, year out.The Wall Street Journal just reported that Apple is thinking about maybe tacking on some of these additional costs to the next round of iPhones they start selling this fall — passing those costs on to the consumer. Does that sound right to you?Yes, because the other alternative is that you're squeezing out more from your suppliers. Some analysts have suggested that, and it's kind of laughable. Because if there's anything to squeeze out of the supply chain, you damn well better know that Apple's already done it. Apple pays its suppliers very slim margins. There are not a bunch of fat cats out there that they can just be squeezing

An interesting piece on Construction Physics that examines how Japan transformed discarded American wartime shipbuilding techniques into a revolutionary manufacturing system that captured nearly half the global market by 1970. The story reveals the essential ingredients for industrial dominance: government backing, organizational alignment, relentless will to improve, and the systematic coordination needed to turn existing technologies into something entirely new. A few excerpts: During WWII, the US constructed an unprecedented shipbuilding machine. By assembling ships from welded, prefabricated blocks, the US built a huge number of cargo ships incredibly quickly, overwhelming Germany's u-boats and helping to win the war. But when the war was over, this shipbuilding machine was dismantled. Industrialists like Henry Kaiser and Stephen Bechtel, who operated some of the US's most efficient wartime shipyards, left the shipbuilding business. Prior to the war, the US had been an uncompetitive commercial shipbuilder producing a small fraction of commercial oceangoing ships, and that's what it became again. At the height of the war the US was producing nearly 90% of the world's ships. By the 1950s, it produced just over 2%. But the lessons from the US's shipbuilding machine weren't forgotten. After the war, practitioners brought them to Japan, where they would continue to evolve, eventually allowing Japan to build ships faster and cheaper than almost anyone else in the world. [...] The third strategy that formed the core of modern shipbuilding methods was statistical process control. The basic idea behind process control is that it's impossible to make an industrial process perfectly reliable. There will always be some variation in what it produces: differences in part dimensions, material strength, chemical composition, and so on. But while some variation is inherent to the process (and must be accepted), much of the variation is from specific causes that can be hunted down and eliminated. By analyzing the variation in a process, undesirable sources of variation can be removed. This makes a process work more reliably and predictably, reducing waste and rework from parts that are outside acceptable tolerances. Read more of this story at Slashdot.

In an excerpt from the e-book, User interface design and implementation, veteran game designer Christo Nobbs examines the interplay between UI and game design.Our e-book, User interface design and implementation, illustrates how UI artists and designers can build better interfaces in Unity. The guide covers workflows for the two UI systems available in Unity, but the primary focus is on Unity UI Toolkit for Unity 2021 LTS and beyond. Christo Nobbs, the game designer who was also a major contributor to The Unity game designer playbook, shares a section that he provided for this latest guide on how UI and game design can create rich immersion to keep your players captivated.Successful games are immersive. Whether it’s a VR simulation or mobile role-playing game (RPG), a great game transports us to a different world.Immersion requires a delicate balance of UI and game design. The UI needs to be functional – but within the confines of the game’s art direction and overall identity. The trick is using the right UI for the right situation.Should you show an onscreen icon when a player picks up an item or defeats an enemy, or is that too distracting? Could a misplaced pop-up take the viewer out of the action? These are the kinds of questions you’ll need to consider as a UI designer and artist in the larger context of your game.One current trend is diegetic UI. Today’s game players inherently recognize traditional extra-diegetic UIs, such as health bars or menu screens, as conventions of the medium. They’re artificial devices plastered on the “fourth wall” to communicate with the user. But diegetic UIs, conversely, embed themselves into the story and narrative. They make parts of the game world function as a user interface.Imagine a game character that pulls out an empty weapon magazine in a scripted Timeline sequence. That animation can replace a head-up display (HUD)-based ammo counter.The Dead Space series is often cited as a prime example of diegetic interface. Here, the player dons a sci-fi survival suit, which motivates the game’s UI. The suit’s holographic display projects in-game statistics and inventory, as well as colored lights on its spine that double as a health indicator. The result is a built-in UI seamlessly integrated into the story.In iRacing by iRacing.com Motorsport Simulations, realistic in-car dashboard indicators show damage, which also affects the car’s handling. The player understands there’s something wrong with the vehicle through audio and visual cues, rather than an explicitly flashing vignette or HUD icon.On the flip side, if a game is tooimmersive, the designer can build an “out.” A horror game can give the player a “safe word” with a pause button. This intentionally breaks immersion if scenes become too intense.Experienced designers understand that the UI must fit with the game’s identity. The interface needs to be clean, readable, and appropriate for the situation. With today’s hardware, you can realize advanced UIs that support the story you are trying to tell.At the other end of the spectrum, competitive games like Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, or CS:GO, Overwatch, and League of Legends depend on UIs that gather information. They use HUDs that must be efficient and assist in gameplay. Diegetic interfaces are less appropriate here. Breaking that fourth wall can actually make for a better game.Since the players have a keen awareness that they are participating in a planned experience, the interface helps them assess the “playing field” – remaining time, team rosters, vitals, minimaps, etc. In some ways, this reflects a sporting event, where the broadcast UI updates its spectators.Whether they’re showing team positions or illuminating players through walls, these UIs have the effect of enhancing strategy and tactics. They can also build suspense for the player and heighten the experience. Thanks to the UI, being a spectator after losing an online match can sometimes be as entertaining as playing.In World of Tanks, the spatial UI elements appear above each player’s tank to relay information about teammates and enemies; things like their name, tier, health, and tank icon. The HUD point bar, navigation elements, and minimap all share a clean and direct visual language.By working with your designer, you can better understand the game’s UI needs. Gameplay is a balance between challenging your players and sharpening their skills. Ideally, this will pass through the Flow channel (see the chart below).Tilt too far to one side and you risk boring your players. To alleviate that, reduce UI elements and increase the challenge level. Then you can force the player to puzzle through the gameplay without too much assistance.Making the game too difficult, on the other hand, can result in anxiety. In this case, adding UIs can lessen gameplay confusion and get your target complexity back on track.Think of UI as a design device meant to steer your game into this Flow channel. An interface shouldn’t waste the viewer’s time. It should clearly communicate its content (e.g., load out, health, etc.), but nothing else. Your designer will likely go through numerous iterations as the product evolves into its shippable form. Let the players – and the gameplay – work out the rest.Tip: UI text You might want to use less text in your interfaces to improve their focus. Small adjustments to icons, fonts, and layout can all impact game pacing. Less text, where appropriate, can also make it easier to localize your game.For more UI text tips, see Joseph Humfrey’s 2018 GDC talk, Designing text UX for effortless reading.Interface designers today have a vast library of game applications to learn from. You can explore them through the Game UI Database. This massive, searchable site allows you to filter by HUD element, type, style, and feature, among other categories. Use it to pore over hundreds of published games and study their in-game menus and screens.Another great resource is Interface in Game. It features video clips of UI elements you can browse. Use this database to search a wide range of titles by platform and genre. Need to polish up some visual effects or UI details? You’re likely to find a reference here.As you examine more game interfaces, you’ll begin to perceive patterns, especially by genre. In a first-person shooter (FPS), for example, we expect to see the health stats at the bottom of the screen. It’s almost an established convention, since so many applications have done it this way.When designing a UI, it’s important to capture the genre’s visual language. If you’re building an RPG, look at how other RPGs handle inventories, skill trees, leveling up, etc. Make something that players are already familiar with, so they can jump right into the gameplay with an understanding of the established style.UI design patterns aren’t random. They’ve evolved over time through a sort of collaborative effort. Designers have already figured out what works, and new designs are simply building on an existing game canon. Learn from these past design decisions. You’ll not only save yourself time, but appease your players as well, who will be expecting certain patterns and visuals in the game.For more information on UI design patterns, read Best practices for designing an effective user interface by Edd Coates, a senior UI artist from Double Eleven.UI Toolkit sample – Dragon Crashers is a demo available to download for free from the Unity Asset Store. This sample demonstrates how you can leverage UI Toolkit for your own applications, and involves a full-featured interface over a slice of the 2D project Dragon Crashers, a mini RPG, using the Unity 2021 LTS UI Toolkit workflow at runtime.You can find more advanced e-books for Unity creators on our How-to hub.