Science fiction has become one of television’s most reliable genres and audiences have no shortage of options when it comes to progressive sci-fi storytelling. Anthology series have also never been more popular as they’ve proven to be an easy, noncommittal way to draw in audiences with unrelated, standalone storytelling. Love, Death + Robots has quietly done dependable, delightful work for three seasons, but it’s not just a sci-fi anthology. It’s a challenging animation showcase that goes to brave, impossible places for an anthology series. Despite the seemingly selective nature of its title, it feels like nothing is off limits in Love, Death + Robots season 4. This season is more playful than ever as it asks the audience to consider technology and eternity through endlessly diverse lenses. This energy is palpable here, with another collection of impressive, intelligent, and unpredictable animated short films. Love, Death + Robots excels with its original stories, but this season also ambitiously expands upon some of its previously built universes. Jennifer Yuh Nelson’s “Spider Rose” is a masterful follow-up to Volume 3’s “Swarm,” which follows a grieving Mechanist who receives a new companion and another shot at vengeance against the assassins who killed her husband. This is a sequel story that doesn’t just repeat the hits or gratuitously give fans what they want. “Spider Rose” instead finds a fresh, justified angle to return to this world. It’s a surprising yarn about unexpected motherhood as a conflicted character reconsiders everything she thought she knew about herself. Stories like “Spider Rose” challenge the audience and prompt them to change and grow. There’s an emotional throughline to this, but the installment is also rich in chaotic aerial dog fights, ultra gory deaths, and creative, indulgent extremes The Love, Death + Robots episodes that lean into hard science fiction are often the season’s most gripping installments and the entries that will stick with the audience long after they’ve finished. That being said, there are plenty of installments from this fourth batch that are just unabashedly silly. These may be seen as frivolous stories to some audiences, but they’re a testament to Love, Death + Robots’ versatility and that the trio of topics in its title are universal ideas that everyone can enjoy. In addition to “Can’t Stop,” ABGO’s “The Other Large Thing” and “Smart Appliances, Stupid Owners” from The Aaron Sims Company are some of the more overt examples of comedy this season. They’re a welcome balance for the more nihilistic and dour stories from this season that often hit with a ton of bricks. The successful tonal and genre balance that’s achieved across these 10 episodes takes the audience on a fascinating journey. There’s a little bit of everything here in this passionate sci-fi celebration, including a rare live-action segment. One of the season’s most entertaining episodes is the truly unhinged Red Hot Chili Pepper-starring “Can’t Stop.” Not only does this episode mark David Fincher’s directorial return to Love, Death + Robots, but through the conduit of his original love: music videos. “Can’t Stop” looks incredible and turns to an effective marionette aesthetic that’s unlike anything that’s previously been in the anthology series. “Can’t Stop” will ultimately find the audience asking not if Fincher could do this, but why he would want to. It’s such a gonzo experiment that simultaneously is the perfect showpiece for why a series like Love, Death + Robots is necessary. You’re not going to get a piece of storytelling like this on Black Mirror. There’s such a ridiculous, nonsensical energy that governs this short, but it’s also undeniably entertaining and such a fun time. The reason that a series like Love, Death + Robots works is that it makes space for “Can’t Stop” in addition to bleak, dramatic showpieces and action spectacles such as “Spider Rose” and “400 Boys.” Nothing is off limits in this series – this season even incorporates dinosaurs – and this freedom results in remarkable storytelling that’s worth the big swings that get taken, even when they don’t work. “Can’t Stop” is just five silly minutes that aren’t afraid to get weird and indulge in vibes. It also doesn’t hurt that David Fincher is behind this installment, but any chaotic mish-mash music video of this nature is still going to stand out in a series that’s more likely to reference J.G. Ballard and Harlan Ellison than MTV. Love, Death + Robots is a satisfying exploration of science fiction, but it’s also a series that prides itself in its groundbreaking visuals. Every season of Love, Death + Robots has been visually sumptuous, with these new episodes being no exception. Love, Death + Robots seems to be the proudest of its lush, photorealistic segments, like the work that Blur Studio does in “Spider Rose.” These segments don’t disappoint, but Love, Death + Robots has the most fun when it’s willing to indulge in more ambitious and stylized imagery “For He Can Creep” from Japan’s Polygon Pictures or Passion Animation Studios’ “400 Boys” are especially gorgeous.  The latter of these adopts a really impressionistic visual style that’s reminiscent of The Big O’s Art Deco quality. This complements the supernaturally heightened story that’s being told in a hyperbolized universe where gang warfare and a strict bushido-like code are the norm. Factions fight with psychic, electric powers in a world that feels ripped out of a Stephen King story. “400 Boys” is visually rich, but the art style also thematically resonates with the story’s deeper message. It goes to town with its exaggerated aesthetic and creates some truly gorgeous visuals and landscapes in this broken world. The post-apocalyptic wasteland that it crafts is like The Warriors meets Mad Max meets Escape From New York. Destruction plays out on such a massive scale that looks like gorgeous splash panels from a comic. There are setpieces in which warriors rollerblade under the legs of giant babies that they proceed to hack to bits that feel like they’re inspired by Attack on Titan’s epic battles. It’s the complete opposite style of no-holds-barred gladiatorial combat that gets treated like entertainment in “The Screaming of the Tyrannosaur.” Love, Death + Robots triumphs with its fourth season, the likes of which prove that there’s still plenty of gas in this tank. If anything, Love, Death + Robots is willing to get even weirder and break some of its older rules for the sake of fresh storytelling. There are few misfires in this season of 10 episodes, although some certainly hit harder than others. It’s appreciated to get this many episodes and that Volume 4 is longer than the two previous seasons. However, it seems increasingly less likely to return to the cornucopia of content that was the 18-episode Volume 1. It’s also worth pointing out that, while the visuals this season remain immaculate, there are only two animation studios from outside of the United States. Love, Death + Robots’ aim has never specifically been to spotlight international animation. That being said, Love, Death + Robots is at its best when there’s a truly eclectic style to each of its installments.  Love, Death + Robots has another win with Volume 4 and hopefully there are more surreal science fiction stories to come. The season begins with the Red Hot Chili Peppers’ Anthony Kiedis singing “Can’t Stop” and by the end of these 10 episodes you’re left hoping that mantra is also true for Love, Death + Robots. All four volumes of Love, Death + Robots are now streaming on Netflix. Join our mailing list Get the best of Den of Geek delivered right to your inbox!

You can trust VideoGamer. Our team of gaming experts spend hours testing and reviewing the latest games, to ensure you're reading the most comprehensive guide possible. Rest assured, all imagery and advice is unique and original. Check out how we test and review games here The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Remastered is not just a massive game in scope, but also in file size. In bringing the game to modern platforms, the gorgeous remaster has ballooned in file size – a modern courtesy allowed by the rise of digital games and higher storage capacity consoles.  However, in an interview with VideoGamer, Oblivion and Skyrim designer Bruce Nesmith recalls the massive task of forcing the 2011 Elder Scrolls game to fit on a single dual-layer DVD, limiting the game’s file size to a maximum of 7GB. In the end, the team managed to squeeze the entire game into just 4.8GB on Xbox 360. Nowadays, the Special Edition of that same game is around 22GB with all of the previously released DLC, but Nesmith still recalls the huge effort by Bethesda to make sure the game could be played directly off a single disc for all players.  “You can thank our programming and artists because they worked their asses off to get that to happen,” Nesmith explained. “You know, compression methods, optimal reuse of our assets, you know. We were really squeezing the most out of our art on Xbox 360.” Check a look at this for some heavy nostalgia Nesmith revealed that it was “really tricky getting it [Skyrim] to work on the two consoles” with the infamously horrible PlayStation 3 port being previously described as a Herculean effort to get working even in the state it was in.  In bringing Skyrim to the Xbox One and PlayStation 4, Bethesda not only increased the quality of its assets, but also implemented new effects such as sparkling snow shaders and other minor additions. While the core programming of the game took up very little space, the enhanced version of the epic RPG was over 4 times bigger in file size. For The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Remastered, that comparison is laughable as the newly rendered RPG massively expands the original game’s 4GB file size to a whopping 125GB. Nesmith reiterates that the vast majority of all modern game file sizes are due to the incredibly high quality of art. 3D models drive millions of polygons, 4K textures are insanely large and audio takes up “a significant space” as well.  “The vast majority of that is art,” he explained. “Whether it’s animations or textures or models, usually it’s textures. One of the things I was always slapped in the face with when I worked there [at Bethesda] was, well, ‘I wanna store all this data, is that going to be too much?’ and the programmer would look at me like, ‘that’s less than the texture on an apple. Yes, you can have your data.’” This single apple file, a seemingly unambitious asset, is larger than the vast amount of systems programming in terms of file size. With this in mind, The Elder Scrolls 6 will undoutedly be a massive game over 100GB, especially considering the file size of Skyrim. While there are compression techniques to make file sizes smaller, this comes at the cost of loading times, a reality that Nesmith has described as a “neccessary bane of Bethesda games” as the are. “Everybody who complains about them assumes that it’s done because we’re lazy or we don’t want to follow the modern thinking on stuff,” the designer told VideoGamer. “The reality is the Bethesda games are so detailed and so graphics intensive… you just cant have both present at the same time.” As the demand for better visual fidelity continues, just look at the latest GTA 6 trailer for proof of that, game sizes will undoubtedly become bigger and bigger. If Oblivion Remastered is 125GB, just how big will Elder Scrolls 6 be? The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Platform(s): PC, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, Xbox One Genre(s): RPG 9 VideoGamer Subscribe to our newsletters! By subscribing, you agree to our Privacy Policy and may receive occasional deal communications; you can unsubscribe anytime. Share

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More Google DeepMind today pulled the curtain back on AlphaEvolve, an artificial-intelligence agent that can invent brand-new computer algorithms — then put them straight to work inside the company’s vast computing empire. AlphaEvolve pairs Google’s Gemini large language models with an evolutionary approach that tests, refines, and improves algorithms automatically. The system has already been deployed across Google’s data centers, chip designs, and AI training systems — boosting efficiency and solving mathematical problems that have stumped researchers for decades. “AlphaEvolve is a Gemini-powered AI coding agent that is able to make new discoveries in computing and mathematics,” explained Matej Balog, a researcher at Google DeepMind, in an interview with VentureBeat. “It can discover algorithms of remarkable complexity — spanning hundreds of lines of code with sophisticated logical structures that go far beyond simple functions.” The system dramatically expands upon Google’s previous work with FunSearch by evolving entire codebases rather than single functions. It represents a major leap in AI’s ability to develop sophisticated algorithms for both scientific challenges and everyday computing problems. Inside Google’s 0.7% efficiency boost: How AI-crafted algorithms run the company’s data centers AlphaEvolve has been quietly at work inside Google for over a year. The results are already significant. One algorithm it discovered has been powering Borg, Google’s massive cluster management system. This scheduling heuristic recovers an average of 0.7% of Google’s worldwide computing resources continuously — a staggering efficiency gain at Google’s scale. The discovery directly targets “stranded resources” — machines that have run out of one resource type (like memory) while still having others (like CPU) available. AlphaEvolve’s solution is especially valuable because it produces simple, human-readable code that engineers can easily interpret, debug, and deploy. The AI agent hasn’t stopped at data centers. It rewrote part of Google’s hardware design, finding a way to eliminate unnecessary bits in a crucial arithmetic circuit for Tensor Processing Units (TPUs). TPU designers validated the change for correctness, and it’s now headed into an upcoming chip design. Perhaps most impressively, AlphaEvolve improved the very systems that power itself. It optimized a matrix multiplication kernel used to train Gemini models, achieving a 23% speedup for that operation and cutting overall training time by 1%. For AI systems that train on massive computational grids, this efficiency gain translates to substantial energy and resource savings. “We try to identify critical pieces that can be accelerated and have as much impact as possible,” said Alexander Novikov, another DeepMind researcher, in an interview with VentureBeat. “We were able to optimize the practical running time of [a vital kernel] by 23%, which translated into 1% end-to-end savings on the entire Gemini training card.” Breaking Strassen’s 56-year-old matrix multiplication record: AI solves what humans couldn’t AlphaEvolve solves mathematical problems that stumped human experts for decades while advancing existing systems. The system designed a novel gradient-based optimization procedure that discovered multiple new matrix multiplication algorithms. One discovery toppled a mathematical record that had stood for 56 years. “What we found, to our surprise, to be honest, is that AlphaEvolve, despite being a more general technology, obtained even better results than AlphaTensor,” said Balog, referring to DeepMind’s previous specialized matrix multiplication system. “For these four by four matrices, AlphaEvolve found an algorithm that surpasses Strassen’s algorithm from 1969 for the first time in that setting.” The breakthrough allows two 4×4 complex-valued matrices to be multiplied using 48 scalar multiplications instead of 49 — a discovery that had eluded mathematicians since Volker Strassen’s landmark work. According to the research paper, AlphaEvolve “improves the state of the art for 14 matrix multiplication algorithms.” The system’s mathematical reach extends far beyond matrix multiplication. When tested against over 50 open problems in mathematical analysis, geometry, combinatorics, and number theory, AlphaEvolve matched state-of-the-art solutions in about 75% of cases. In approximately 20% of cases, it improved upon the best known solutions. One victory came in the “kissing number problem” — a centuries-old geometric challenge to determine how many non-overlapping unit spheres can simultaneously touch a central sphere. In 11 dimensions, AlphaEvolve found a configuration with 593 spheres, breaking the previous record of 592. How it works: Gemini language models plus evolution create a digital algorithm factory What makes AlphaEvolve different from other AI coding systems is its evolutionary approach. The system deploys both Gemini Flash (for speed) and Gemini Pro (for depth) to propose changes to existing code. These changes get tested by automated evaluators that score each variation. The most successful algorithms then guide the next round of evolution. AlphaEvolve doesn’t just generate code from its training data. It actively explores the solution space, discovers novel approaches, and refines them through an automated evaluation process — creating solutions humans might never have conceived. “One critical idea in our approach is that we focus on problems with clear evaluators. For any proposed solution or piece of code, we can automatically verify its validity and measure its quality,” Novikov explained. “This allows us to establish fast and reliable feedback loops to improve the system.” This approach is particularly valuable because the system can work on any problem with a clear evaluation metric — whether it’s energy efficiency in a data center or the elegance of a mathematical proof. From cloud computing to drug discovery: Where Google’s algorithm-inventing AI goes next While currently deployed within Google’s infrastructure and mathematical research, AlphaEvolve’s potential reaches much further. Google DeepMind envisions applications in material sciences, drug discovery, and other fields requiring complex algorithmic solutions. “The best human-AI collaboration can help solve open scientific challenges and also apply them at Google scale,” said Novikov, highlighting the system’s collaborative potential. Google DeepMind is now developing a user interface with its People + AI Research team and plans to launch an Early Access Program for selected academic researchers. The company is also exploring broader availability. The system’s flexibility marks a significant advantage. Balog noted that “at least previously, when I worked in machine learning research, it wasn’t my experience that you could build a scientific tool and immediately see real-world impact at this scale. This is quite unusual.” As large language models advance, AlphaEvolve’s capabilities will grow alongside them. The system demonstrates an intriguing evolution in AI itself — starting within the digital confines of Google’s servers, optimizing the very hardware and software that gives it life, and now reaching outward to solve problems that have challenged human intellect for decades or centuries. 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.

Here are your PS Plus Catalogue additions for May Sand Land! Battlefield! Soul Hackers 2! Image credit: Sony News by Ed Nightingale Deputy News Editor Published on May 14, 2025 Sony has revealed the next round of additions to its PS Plus Catalogue for subscribers, which will be added on 20th May. The following games will be available later this month for Premium and Extra subscribers: Sand Land | PS4, PS5 Soul Hackers 2 | PS5 Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted - Full Time Edition | PS4, PS5 Battlefield 5 | PS4 STALKER: Legends of the Zone Trilogy | PS4, PS5 Granblue Fantasy Versus: Rising | PS4, PS5 Humankind | PS4, PS5 Story of Seasons: A Wonderful Life | PS5 Gloomhaven Mercenaries Edition | PS4, PS5 Additionally, Premium subscribers will get access to PS2 classic Battle Engine Aquila on PS4 and PS5. Action-RPG Sand Land was released last year and features designs from Dragon Ball creator Akira Toriyama - this was his last game before he passed away. He posthumously praised the game in a statement shared after his death: "I haven't watched through all of the gameplay yet," he said. "However, it greatly expands the worldview of the original manga with many new exciting elements. It is high-quality as a stand alone game and I can tell it is a highly satisfying action-RPG game!" Earlier today, GSC Game World announced a free Enhanced Edition upgrade for Stalker: Legends of the Zone Trilogy, which combines the first three games in the series. It includes a visual upgrade and other improvements, but it's unclear if PS Plus subscribers will have access following its inclusion here in the subscription. Elsewhere, Soul Hackers 2 is a 2022 RPG from Persona-maker Atlus that, confusingly, is the fifth installment in the Devil Summoner series, which is part of the Megami Tensei franchise. If you like anime RPGs, Granblue Fantasy Versus: Rising is probably also worth a shot, while Story of Seasons: A Wonderful Life is a more relaxed farming experience. Are you excited to play any of these? | Image credit: Sony These Catalogue games are in addition to the free monthly games also available this month to those on the Essential tier: Ark: Survival Ascended | PS5 Balatro | PS5, PS4 Warhammer 40,000: Boltgun | PS5, PS4 New additions mean some games will likely be leaving the service this month too, we'll update once we know more. More details on this month's games can be found on the PlayStation Blog. You'll find more details on what else is available in our full PlayStation Plus guide here.

A bill that allows medical clinics to sell unproven treatments has been passed in Montana.  Under the legislation, doctors can apply for a license to open an experimental treatment clinic and recommend and sell therapies not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to their patients. Once it’s signed by the governor, the law will be the most expansive in the country in allowing access to drugs that have not been fully tested.  The bill allows for any drug produced in the state to be sold in it, providing it has been through phase I clinical trials—the initial, generally small, first-in-human studies that are designed to check that a new treatment is not harmful. These trials do not determine if the drug is effective. The bill, which was passed by the state legislature on April 29 and is expected to be signed by Governor Greg Gianforte, essentially expands on existing Right to Try legislation in the state. But while that law was originally designed to allow terminally ill people to access experimental drugs, the new bill was drafted and lobbied for by people interested in extending human lifespans—a group of longevity enthusiasts that includes scientists, libertarians, and influencers.   These longevity enthusiasts are hoping Montana will serve as a test bed for opening up access to experimental drugs. “I see no reason why it couldn’t be adopted by most of the other states,” said Todd White, speaking to an audience of policymakers and others interested in longevity at an event late last month in Washington, DC. White, who helped develop the bill and directs a research organization focused on aging, added that “there are some things that can be done at the federal level to allow Right to Try laws to proliferate more readily.”  Supporters of the bill say it gives individuals the freedom to make choices about their own bodies. At the same event, bioethicist Jessica Flanigan of the University of Richmond said she was “optimistic” about the measure, because “it’s great any time anybody is trying to give people back their medical autonomy.”  Ultimately, they hope that the new law will enable people to try unproven drugs that might help them live longer, make it easier for Americans to try experimental treatments without having to travel abroad, and potentially turn Montana into a medical tourism hub. But ethicists and legal scholars aren’t as optimistic. “I hate it,” bioethicist Alison Bateman-House of New York University says of the bill. She and others are worried about the ethics of promoting and selling unproven treatments—and the risks of harm should something go wrong. Easy access? No drugs have been approved to treat human aging. Some in the longevity field believe that regulation has held back the development of such drugs. In the US, federal law requires that drugs be shown to be both safe and effective before they can be sold. That requirement was made law in the 1960s following the thalidomide tragedy, in which women who took the drug for morning sickness had babies with sometimes severe disabilities. Since then, the FDA has been responsible for the approval of new drugs.   Typically, new drugs are put through a series of human trials. Phase I trials generally involve between 20 and 100 volunteers and are designed to check that the drug is safe for humans. If it is, the drug is then tested in larger groups of hundreds, and then thousands, of volunteers to assess the dose and whether it actually works. Once a drug is approved, people who are prescribed it are monitored for side effects. The entire process is slow, and it can last more than a decade—a particular pain point for people who are acutely aware of their own aging.  But some exceptions have been made for people who are terminally ill under Right to Try laws. Those laws allow certain individuals to apply for access to experimental treatments that have been through phase I clinical trials but have not received FDA approval. Montana first passed a Right to Try law in 2015 (a federal law was passed around three years later). Then in 2023, the state expanded the law to include all patients there, not just those with terminal illnesses—meaning that any person in Montana could, in theory, take a drug that had been through only a phase I trial. At the time, this was cheered by many longevity enthusiasts—some of whom had helped craft the expanded measure. But practically, the change hasn’t worked out as they envisioned. “There was no licensing, no processing, no registration” for clinics that might want to offer those drugs, says White. “There needed to be another bill that provided regulatory clarity for service providers.”  So the new legislation addresses “how clinics can set up shop in Montana,” says Dylan Livingston, founder and CEO of the Alliance for Longevity Initiatives, which hosted the DC event. Livingston built A4LI, as it’s known, a few years ago, as a lobbying group for the science of human aging and longevity. Livingston, who is exploring multiple approaches to improve both funding for scientific research and to change drug regulation, helped develop and push the 2023 bill in Montana with the support of State Senator Kenneth Bogner, he says. “I gave [Bogner] a menu of things that could be done at the state level … and he loved the idea” of turning Montana into a medical tourism hub, he says.  After all, as things stand, plenty of Americans travel abroad to receive experimental treatments that cannot legally be sold in the US, including expensive, unproven stem cell and gene therapies, says Livingston.  “If you’re going to go and get an experimental gene therapy, you might as well keep it in the country,” he says. Livingston has suggested that others might be interested in trying a novel drug designed to clear aged “senescent” cells from the body, which is currently entering phase II trials for an eye condition caused by diabetes. “One: let’s keep the money in the country, and two: if I was a millionaire getting an experimental gene therapy, I’d rather be in Montana than Honduras.” “Los Alamos for longevity” Honduras, in particular, has become something of a home base for longevity experiments. The island of Roatán is home to the Global Alliance for Regenerative Medicine clinic, which, along with various stem cell products, sells a controversial unproven “anti-aging” gene therapy for around $20,000 to customers including wealthy longevity influencer Bryan Johnson.  Tech entrepreneur and longevity enthusiast Niklas Anzinger has also founded the city of Infinita in the region’s special economic zone of Próspera, a private city where residents are able to make their own suggestions for medical regulations. It’s the second time he’s built a community there as part of his effort to build a “Los Alamos for longevity” on the island, a place where biotech companies can develop therapies that slow or reverse human aging “at warp speed,” and where individuals are free to take those experimental treatments. (The first community, Vitalia, featured a biohacking lab, but came to an end following a disagreement between the two founders.)  Anzinger collaborated with White, the longevity enthusiast who spoke at the A4LI event (and is an advisor to Infinita VC, Anzinger’s investment company), to help put together the new Montana bill. “He asked if I would help him try to advance the new bill, so that’s what we did for the last few months,” says White, who trained as an electrical engineer but left his career in telecommunications to work with an organization that uses blockchain to fund research into extending human lifespans.  “Right to Try has always been this thing [for people] who are terminal[ly ill] and trying a Hail Mary approach to solving these things; now Right to Try laws are being used to allow you to access treatments earlier,” White told the audience at the A4LI event. “Making it so that people can use longevity medicines earlier is, I think, a very important thing.” The new bill largely sets out the “infrastructure” for clinics that want to sell experimental treatments, says White. It states that clinics will need to have a license, for example, and that this must be renewed on an annual basis.  “Now somebody who actually wants to deliver drugs under the Right to Try law will be able to do so,” he says. The new legislation also protects prescribing doctors from disciplinary action. And it sets out requirements for informed consent that go further than those of existing Right to Try laws. Before a person takes an experimental drug under the new law, they will be required to provide a written consent that includes a list of approved alternative drugs and a description of the worst potential outcome. On the safe side “In the Montana law, we explicitly enhanced the requirements for informed consent,” Anzinger told an audience at the same A4LI event. This, along with the fact that the treatments will have been through phase I clinical trials, will help to keep people safe, he argued. “We have to treat this with a very large degree of responsibility,” he added. “We obviously don’t want to be killing people,” says Livingston.  But he also adds that he, personally, won’t be signing up for any experimental treatments. “I want to be the 10 millionth, or even the 50 millionth, person to get the gene therapy,” he says. “I’m not that adventurous … I’ll let other people go first.” Others are indeed concerned that, for the “adventurous” people, these experimental treatments won’t necessarily be safe. Phase I trials are typically tiny, and they often involve less than 50 people, all of whom are typically in good health. A trial like that won’t tell you much about side effects that only show up in 5% of people, for example, or about interactions the drug might have with other medicines. Around 90% of drug candidates in clinical trials fail. And around 17% of drugs fail late-stage clinical trials because of safety concerns. Even those that make it all the way through clinical trials and get approved by the FDA can still end up being withdrawn from the market when rare but serious side effects show up. Between 1992 and 2023, 23 drugs that were given accelerated approval for cancer indications were later withdrawn from the market. And between 1950 and 2013, the reason for the withdrawal of 95 drugs was “death.” “It’s disturbing that they want to make drugs available after phase I testing,” says Sharona Hoffman, professor of law and bioethics at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. “This could endanger patients.” “Famously, the doctor’s first obligation is to first do no harm,” says Bateman-House. “If [a drug] has not been through clinical trials, how do you have any standing on which to think it isn’t going to do any harm?” But supporters of the bill argue that individuals can make their own decisions about risk. When speaking at the A4LI event, Flanigan introduced herself as a bioethicist before adding “but don’t hold it against me; we’re not all so bad.” She argued that current drug regulations impose a “massive amount of restrictions on your bodily rights and your medical freedom.” Why should public officials be the ones making decisions about what’s safe for people? Individuals, she argued, should be empowered to make those judgments themselves. Other ethicists counter that this isn’t an issue of people’s rights. There are lots of generally accepted laws about when we can access drugs, says Hoffman; people aren’t allowed to drink and drive because they might kill someone. “So, no, you don’t have a right to ingest everything you want if there are risks associated with it.” The idea that individuals have a right to access experimental treatments has in fact failed in US courts in the past, says Carl Coleman, a bioethicist and legal scholar at Seton Hall in New Jersey.  He points to a case from 20 years ago: In the early 2000s, Frank Burroughs founded the Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs. His daughter, Abigail Burroughs, had head and neck cancer, and she had tried and failed to access experimental drugs. In 2003, about two years after Abigail’s death, the group sued the FDA, arguing that people with terminal cancer have a constitutionally protected right to access experimental, unapproved treatments, once those treatments have been through phase I trials. In 2007, however, a court rejected that argument, determining  that terminally ill individuals do not have a constitutional right to experimental drugs. Bateman-House also questions a provision in the Montana bill that claims to make treatments more equitable. It states that “experimental treatment centers” should allocate 2% of their net annual profits “to support access to experimental treatments and healthcare for qualifying Montana residents.” Bateman-House says she’s never seen that kind of language in a bill before. It may sound positive, but it could in practice introduce even more risk to the local community. “On the one hand, I like equity,” she says. “On the other hand, I don’t like equity to snake oil.” After all, the doctors prescribing these drugs won’t know if they will work. It is never ethical to make somebody pay for a treatment when you don’t have any idea whether it will work, Bateman-House adds. “That’s how the US system has been structured: There’s no profit without evidence of safety and efficacy.” The clinics are coming Any clinics that offer experimental treatments in Montana will only be allowed to sell drugs that have been made within the state, says Coleman. “Federal law requires any drug that is going to be distributed in interstate commerce to have FDA approval,” he says. White isn’t too worried about that. Montana already has manufacturing facilities for biotech and pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer. “That was one of the specific advantages [of focusing] on Montana, because everything can be done in state,” he says. He also believes that the current administration is “predisposed” to change federal laws around interstate drug manufacturing. (FDA commissioner Marty Makary has been a vocal critic of the agency and the pace at which it approves new drugs.) At any rate, the clinics are coming to Montana, says Livingston. “We have half a dozen that are interested, and maybe two or three that are definitively going to set up shop out there.” He won’t name names, but he says some of the interested clinicians already have clinics in the US, while others are abroad.  Mac Davis—founder and CEO of Minicircle, the company that developed the controversial “anti-aging” gene therapy—told MIT Technology Review he was “looking into it.” “I think this can be an opportunity for America and Montana to really kind of corner the market when it comes to medical tourism,” says Livingston. “There is no other place in the world with this sort of regulatory environment.”

A bill that allows medical clinics to sell unproven treatments has been passed in Montana.  Under the legislation, doctors can apply for a license to open an experimental treatment clinic and recommend and sell therapies not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to their patients. Once it’s signed by the governor, the law will be the most expansive in the country in allowing access to drugs that have not been fully tested.  The bill allows for any drug produced in the state to be sold in it, providing it has been through phase I clinical trials—the initial, generally small, first-in-human studies that are designed to check that a new treatment is not harmful. These trials do not determine if the drug is effective. The bill, which was passed by the state legislature on April 29 and is expected to be signed by Governor Greg Gianforte, essentially expands on existing Right to Try legislation in the state. But while that law was originally designed to allow terminally ill people to access experimental drugs, the new bill was drafted and lobbied for by people interested in extending human lifespans—a group of longevity enthusiasts that includes scientists, libertarians, and influencers.   These longevity enthusiasts are hoping Montana will serve as a test bed for opening up access to experimental drugs. “I see no reason why it couldn’t be adopted by most of the other states,” said Todd White, speaking to an audience of policymakers and others interested in longevity at an event late last month in Washington, DC. White, who helped develop the bill and directs a research organization focused on aging, added that “there are some things that can be done at the federal level to allow Right to Try laws to proliferate more readily.”  Supporters of the bill say it gives individuals the freedom to make choices about their own bodies. At the same event, bioethicist Jessica Flanigan of the University of Richmond said she was “optimistic” about the measure, because “it’s great any time anybody is trying to give people back their medical autonomy.”  Ultimately, they hope that the new law will enable people to try unproven drugs that might help them live longer, make it easier for Americans to try experimental treatments without having to travel abroad, and potentially turn Montana into a medical tourism hub. But ethicists and legal scholars aren’t as optimistic. “I hate it,” bioethicist Alison Bateman-House of New York University says of the bill. She and others are worried about the ethics of promoting and selling unproven treatments—and the risks of harm should something go wrong. Easy access? No drugs have been approved to treat human aging. Some in the longevity field believe that regulation has held back the development of such drugs. In the US, federal law requires that drugs be shown to be both safe and effective before they can be sold. That requirement was made law in the 1960s following the thalidomide tragedy, in which women who took the drug for morning sickness had babies with sometimes severe disabilities. Since then, the FDA has been responsible for the approval of new drugs.   Typically, new drugs are put through a series of human trials. Phase I trials generally involve between 20 and 100 volunteers and are designed to check that the drug is safe for humans. If it is, the drug is then tested in larger groups of hundreds, and then thousands, of volunteers to assess the dose and whether it actually works. Once a drug is approved, people who are prescribed it are monitored for side effects. The entire process is slow, and it can last more than a decade—a particular pain point for people who are acutely aware of their own aging.  But some exceptions have been made for people who are terminally ill under Right to Try laws. Those laws allow certain individuals to apply for access to experimental treatments that have been through phase I clinical trials but have not received FDA approval. Montana first passed a Right to Try law in 2015 (a federal law was passed around three years later). Then in 2023, the state expanded the law to include all patients there, not just those with terminal illnesses—meaning that any person in Montana could, in theory, take a drug that had been through only a phase I trial. At the time, this was cheered by many longevity enthusiasts—some of whom had helped craft the expanded measure. But practically, the change hasn’t worked out as they envisioned. “There was no licensing, no processing, no registration” for clinics that might want to offer those drugs, says White. “There needed to be another bill that provided regulatory clarity for service providers.”  So the new legislation addresses “how clinics can set up shop in Montana,” says Dylan Livingston, founder and CEO of the Alliance for Longevity Initiatives, which hosted the DC event. Livingston built A4LI, as it’s known, a few years ago, as a lobbying group for the science of human aging and longevity. Livingston, who is exploring multiple approaches to improve both funding for scientific research and to change drug regulation, helped develop and push the 2023 bill in Montana with the support of State Senator Kenneth Bogner, he says. “I gave [Bogner] a menu of things that could be done at the state level … and he loved the idea” of turning Montana into a medical tourism hub, he says.  After all, as things stand, plenty of Americans travel abroad to receive experimental treatments that cannot legally be sold in the US, including expensive, unproven stem cell and gene therapies, says Livingston.  “If you’re going to go and get an experimental gene therapy, you might as well keep it in the country,” he says. Livingston has suggested that others might be interested in trying a novel drug designed to clear aged “senescent” cells from the body, which is currently entering phase II trials for an eye condition caused by diabetes. “One: let’s keep the money in the country, and two: if I was a millionaire getting an experimental gene therapy, I’d rather be in Montana than Honduras.” “Los Alamos for longevity” Honduras, in particular, has become something of a home base for longevity experiments. The island of Roatán is home to the Global Alliance for Regenerative Medicine clinic, which, along with various stem cell products, sells a controversial unproven “anti-aging” gene therapy for around $20,000 to customers including wealthy longevity influencer Bryan Johnson.  Tech entrepreneur and longevity enthusiast Niklas Anzinger has also founded the city of Infinita in the region’s special economic zone of Próspera, a private city where residents are able to make their own suggestions for medical regulations. It’s the second time he’s built a community there as part of his effort to build a “Los Alamos for longevity” on the island, a place where biotech companies can develop therapies that slow or reverse human aging “at warp speed,” and where individuals are free to take those experimental treatments. (The first community, Vitalia, featured a biohacking lab, but came to an end following a disagreement between the two founders.)  Anzinger collaborated with White, the longevity enthusiast who spoke at the A4LI event (and is an advisor to Infinita VC, Anzinger’s investment company), to help put together the new Montana bill. “He asked if I would help him try to advance the new bill, so that’s what we did for the last few months,” says White, who trained as an electrical engineer but left his career in telecommunications to work with an organization that uses blockchain to fund research into extending human lifespans.  “Right to Try has always been this thing [for people] who are terminal[ly ill] and trying a Hail Mary approach to solving these things; now Right to Try laws are being used to allow you to access treatments earlier,” White told the audience at the A4LI event. “Making it so that people can use longevity medicines earlier is, I think, a very important thing.” The new bill largely sets out the “infrastructure” for clinics that want to sell experimental treatments, says White. It states that clinics will need to have a license, for example, and that this must be renewed on an annual basis.  “Now somebody who actually wants to deliver drugs under the Right to Try law will be able to do so,” he says. The new legislation also protects prescribing doctors from disciplinary action. And it sets out requirements for informed consent that go further than those of existing Right to Try laws. Before a person takes an experimental drug under the new law, they will be required to provide a written consent that includes a list of approved alternative drugs and a description of the worst potential outcome. On the safe side “In the Montana law, we explicitly enhanced the requirements for informed consent,” Anzinger told an audience at the same A4LI event. This, along with the fact that the treatments will have been through phase I clinical trials, will help to keep people safe, he argued. “We have to treat this with a very large degree of responsibility,” he added. “We obviously don’t want to be killing people,” says Livingston.  But he also adds that he, personally, won’t be signing up for any experimental treatments. “I want to be the 10 millionth, or even the 50 millionth, person to get the gene therapy,” he says. “I’m not that adventurous … I’ll let other people go first.” Others are indeed concerned that, for the “adventurous” people, these experimental treatments won’t necessarily be safe. Phase I trials are typically tiny, and they often involve less than 50 people, all of whom are typically in good health. A trial like that won’t tell you much about side effects that only show up in 5% of people, for example, or about interactions the drug might have with other medicines. Around 90% of drug candidates in clinical trials fail. And around 17% of drugs fail late-stage clinical trials because of safety concerns. Even those that make it all the way through clinical trials and get approved by the FDA can still end up being withdrawn from the market when rare but serious side effects show up. Between 1992 and 2023, 23 drugs that were given accelerated approval for cancer indications were later withdrawn from the market. And between 1950 and 2013, the reason for the withdrawal of 95 drugs was “death.” “It’s disturbing that they want to make drugs available after phase I testing,” says Sharona Hoffman, professor of law and bioethics at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. “This could endanger patients.” “Famously, the doctor’s first obligation is to first do no harm,” says Bateman-House. “If [a drug] has not been through clinical trials, how do you have any standing on which to think it isn’t going to do any harm?” But supporters of the bill argue that individuals can make their own decisions about risk. When speaking at the A4LI event, Flanigan introduced herself as a bioethicist before adding “but don’t hold it against me; we’re not all so bad.” She argued that current drug regulations impose a “massive amount of restrictions on your bodily rights and your medical freedom.” Why should public officials be the ones making decisions about what’s safe for people? Individuals, she argued, should be empowered to make those judgments themselves. Other ethicists counter that this isn’t an issue of people’s rights. There are lots of generally accepted laws about when we can access drugs, says Hoffman; people aren’t allowed to drink and drive because they might kill someone. “So, no, you don’t have a right to ingest everything you want if there are risks associated with it.” The idea that individuals have a right to access experimental treatments has in fact failed in US courts in the past, says Carl Coleman, a bioethicist and legal scholar at Seton Hall in New Jersey.  He points to a case from 20 years ago: In the early 2000s, Frank Burroughs founded the Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs. His daughter, Abigail Burroughs, had head and neck cancer, and she had tried and failed to access experimental drugs. In 2003, about two years after Abigail’s death, the group sued the FDA, arguing that people with terminal cancer have a constitutionally protected right to access experimental, unapproved treatments, once those treatments have been through phase I trials. In 2007, however, a court rejected that argument, determining  that terminally ill individuals do not have a constitutional right to experimental drugs. Bateman-House also questions a provision in the Montana bill that claims to make treatments more equitable. It states that “experimental treatment centers” should allocate 2% of their net annual profits “to support access to experimental treatments and healthcare for qualifying Montana residents.” Bateman-House says she’s never seen that kind of language in a bill before. It may sound positive, but it could in practice introduce even more risk to the local community. “On the one hand, I like equity,” she says. “On the other hand, I don’t like equity to snake oil.” After all, the doctors prescribing these drugs won’t know if they will work. It is never ethical to make somebody pay for a treatment when you don’t have any idea whether it will work, Bateman-House adds. “That’s how the US system has been structured: There’s no profit without evidence of safety and efficacy.” The clinics are coming Any clinics that offer experimental treatments in Montana will only be allowed to sell drugs that have been made within the state, says Coleman. “Federal law requires any drug that is going to be distributed in interstate commerce to have FDA approval,” he says. White isn’t too worried about that. Montana already has manufacturing facilities for biotech and pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer. “That was one of the specific advantages [of focusing] on Montana, because everything can be done in state,” he says. He also believes that the current administration is “predisposed” to change federal laws around interstate drug manufacturing. (FDA commissioner Marty Makary has been a vocal critic of the agency and the pace at which it approves new drugs.) At any rate, the clinics are coming to Montana, says Livingston. “We have half a dozen that are interested, and maybe two or three that are definitively going to set up shop out there.” He won’t name names, but he says some of the interested clinicians already have clinics in the US, while others are abroad.  Mac Davis—founder and CEO of Minicircle, the company that developed the controversial “anti-aging” gene therapy—told MIT Technology Review he was “looking into it.” “I think this can be an opportunity for America and Montana to really kind of corner the market when it comes to medical tourism,” says Livingston. “There is no other place in the world with this sort of regulatory environment.”

Brightika expands to PC and console with $3m investment for indie devs Mobile publisher aims to support developers with funding, marketing, and platform operations Image credit: Brightika News by Sophie McEvoy Staff Writer Published on May 14, 2025 Mobile publisher Brightika is expanding to PC and console with an investment of $3 million. The funding will be deployed over the next two years, during which it will fund indie developers by providing them with product support, marketing strategy, and global publishing operations. Its funding model will also include support in localisation, platform relations, and community building in addition to creating trailers and demos. Brightika has revealed it's already in talks with several indie devs, with their titles set to be announced during Steam Next Fest. "We've helped mobile studios reach tens of millions of players and generate sustainable revenue," said Brightika founder Alexander Rodichev. "The next step for us is to bring the same level of marketing science and publishing discipline to the PC and console space, where developers often lack access to funding distribution support." Brightika was founded in 2020 as a publisher of casual and hyper-casual mobile games. Its team is made up of workers with over two decades of experience in the games industry.

A bill that allows medical clinics to sell unproven treatments has been passed in Montana.  Under the legislation, doctors can apply for a license to open an experimental treatment clinic and recommend and sell therapies not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to their patients. Once it’s signed by the governor, the law will be the most expansive in the country in allowing access to drugs that have not been fully tested.  The bill allows for any drug produced in the state to be sold in it, providing it has been through phase I clinical trials—the initial, generally small, first-in-human studies that are designed to check that a new treatment is not harmful. These trials do not determine if the drug is effective. The bill, which was passed by the state legislature on April 29 and is expected to be signed by Governor Greg Gianforte, essentially expands on existing Right to Try legislation in the state. But while that law was originally designed to allow terminally ill people to access experimental drugs, the new bill was drafted and lobbied for by people interested in extending human lifespans—a group of longevity enthusiasts that includes scientists, libertarians, and influencers.   These longevity enthusiasts are hoping Montana will serve as a test bed for opening up access to experimental drugs. “I see no reason why it couldn’t be adopted by most of the other states,” said Todd White, speaking to an audience of policymakers and others interested in longevity at an event late last month in Washington, DC. White, who helped develop the bill and directs a research organization focused on aging, added that “there are some things that can be done at the federal level to allow Right to Try laws to proliferate more readily.”  Supporters of the bill say it gives individuals the freedom to make choices about their own bodies. At the same event, bioethicist Jessica Flanigan of the University of Richmond said she was “optimistic” about the measure, because “it’s great any time anybody is trying to give people back their medical autonomy.”  Ultimately, they hope that the new law will enable people to try unproven drugs that might help them live longer, make it easier for Americans to try experimental treatments without having to travel abroad, and potentially turn Montana into a medical tourism hub. But ethicists and legal scholars aren’t as optimistic. “I hate it,” bioethicist Alison Bateman-House of New York University says of the bill. She and others are worried about the ethics of promoting and selling unproven treatments—and the risks of harm should something go wrong. Easy access? No drugs have been approved to treat human aging. Some in the longevity field believe that regulation has held back the development of such drugs. In the US, federal law requires that drugs be shown to be both safe and effective before they can be sold. That requirement was made law in the 1960s following the thalidomide tragedy, in which women who took the drug for morning sickness had babies with sometimes severe disabilities. Since then, the FDA has been responsible for the approval of new drugs.   Typically, new drugs are put through a series of human trials. Phase I trials generally involve between 20 and 100 volunteers and are designed to check that the drug is safe for humans. If it is, the drug is then tested in larger groups of hundreds, and then thousands, of volunteers to assess the dose and whether it actually works. Once a drug is approved, people who are prescribed it are monitored for side effects. The entire process is slow, and it can last more than a decade—a particular pain point for people who are acutely aware of their own aging.  But some exceptions have been made for people who are terminally ill under Right to Try laws. Those laws allow certain individuals to apply for access to experimental treatments that have been through phase I clinical trials but have not received FDA approval. Montana first passed a Right to Try law in 2015 (a federal law was passed around three years later). Then in 2023, the state expanded the law to include all patients there, not just those with terminal illnesses—meaning that any person in Montana could, in theory, take a drug that had been through only a phase I trial. At the time, this was cheered by many longevity enthusiasts—some of whom had helped craft the expanded measure. But practically, the change hasn’t worked out as they envisioned. “There was no licensing, no processing, no registration” for clinics that might want to offer those drugs, says White. “There needed to be another bill that provided regulatory clarity for service providers.”  So the new legislation addresses “how clinics can set up shop in Montana,” says Dylan Livingston, founder and CEO of the Alliance for Longevity Initiatives, which hosted the DC event. Livingston built A4LI, as it’s known, a few years ago, as a lobbying group for the science of human aging and longevity. Livingston, who is exploring multiple approaches to improve both funding for scientific research and to change drug regulation, helped develop and push the 2023 bill in Montana with the support of State Senator Kenneth Bogner, he says. “I gave [Bogner] a menu of things that could be done at the state level … and he loved the idea” of turning Montana into a medical tourism hub, he says.  After all, as things stand, plenty of Americans travel abroad to receive experimental treatments that cannot legally be sold in the US, including expensive, unproven stem cell and gene therapies, says Livingston.  “If you’re going to go and get an experimental gene therapy, you might as well keep it in the country,” he says. Livingston has suggested that others might be interested in trying a novel drug designed to clear aged “senescent” cells from the body, which is currently entering phase II trials for an eye condition caused by diabetes. “One: let’s keep the money in the country, and two: if I was a millionaire getting an experimental gene therapy, I’d rather be in Montana than Honduras.” “Los Alamos for longevity” Honduras, in particular, has become something of a home base for longevity experiments. The island of Roatán is home to the Global Alliance for Regenerative Medicine clinic, which, along with various stem cell products, sells a controversial unproven “anti-aging” gene therapy for around $20,000 to customers including wealthy longevity influencer Bryan Johnson.  Tech entrepreneur and longevity enthusiast Niklas Anzinger has also founded the city of Infinita in the region’s special economic zone of Próspera, a private city where residents are able to make their own suggestions for medical regulations. It’s the second time he’s built a community there as part of his effort to build a “Los Alamos for longevity” on the island, a place where biotech companies can develop therapies that slow or reverse human aging “at warp speed,” and where individuals are free to take those experimental treatments. (The first community, Vitalia, featured a biohacking lab, but came to an end following a disagreement between the two founders.)  Anzinger collaborated with White, the longevity enthusiast who spoke at the A4LI event (and is an advisor to Infinita VC, Anzinger’s investment company), to help put together the new Montana bill. “He asked if I would help him try to advance the new bill, so that’s what we did for the last few months,” says White, who trained as an electrical engineer but left his career in telecommunications to work with an organization that uses blockchain to fund research into extending human lifespans.  “Right to Try has always been this thing [for people] who are terminal[ly ill] and trying a Hail Mary approach to solving these things; now Right to Try laws are being used to allow you to access treatments earlier,” White told the audience at the A4LI event. “Making it so that people can use longevity medicines earlier is, I think, a very important thing.” The new bill largely sets out the “infrastructure” for clinics that want to sell experimental treatments, says White. It states that clinics will need to have a license, for example, and that this must be renewed on an annual basis.  “Now somebody who actually wants to deliver drugs under the Right to Try law will be able to do so,” he says. The new legislation also protects prescribing doctors from disciplinary action. And it sets out requirements for informed consent that go further than those of existing Right to Try laws. Before a person takes an experimental drug under the new law, they will be required to provide a written consent that includes a list of approved alternative drugs and a description of the worst potential outcome. On the safe side “In the Montana law, we explicitly enhanced the requirements for informed consent,” Anzinger told an audience at the same A4LI event. This, along with the fact that the treatments will have been through phase I clinical trials, will help to keep people safe, he argued. “We have to treat this with a very large degree of responsibility,” he added. “We obviously don’t want to be killing people,” says Livingston.  But he also adds that he, personally, won’t be signing up for any experimental treatments. “I want to be the 10 millionth, or even the 50 millionth, person to get the gene therapy,” he says. “I’m not that adventurous … I’ll let other people go first.” Others are indeed concerned that, for the “adventurous” people, these experimental treatments won’t necessarily be safe. Phase I trials are typically tiny, and they often involve less than 50 people, all of whom are typically in good health. A trial like that won’t tell you much about side effects that only show up in 5% of people, for example, or about interactions the drug might have with other medicines. Around 90% of drug candidates in clinical trials fail. And around 17% of drugs fail late-stage clinical trials because of safety concerns. Even those that make it all the way through clinical trials and get approved by the FDA can still end up being withdrawn from the market when rare but serious side effects show up. Between 1992 and 2023, 23 drugs that were given accelerated approval for cancer indications were later withdrawn from the market. And between 1950 and 2013, the reason for the withdrawal of 95 drugs was “death.” “It’s disturbing that they want to make drugs available after phase I testing,” says Sharona Hoffman, professor of law and bioethics at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. “This could endanger patients.” “Famously, the doctor’s first obligation is to first do no harm,” says Bateman-House. “If [a drug] has not been through clinical trials, how do you have any standing on which to think it isn’t going to do any harm?” But supporters of the bill argue that individuals can make their own decisions about risk. When speaking at the A4LI event, Flanigan introduced herself as a bioethicist before adding “but don’t hold it against me; we’re not all so bad.” She argued that current drug regulations impose a “massive amount of restrictions on your bodily rights and your medical freedom.” Why should public officials be the ones making decisions about what’s safe for people? Individuals, she argued, should be empowered to make those judgments themselves. Other ethicists counter that this isn’t an issue of people’s rights. There are lots of generally accepted laws about when we can access drugs, says Hoffman; people aren’t allowed to drink and drive because they might kill someone. “So, no, you don’t have a right to ingest everything you want if there are risks associated with it.” The idea that individuals have a right to access experimental treatments has in fact failed in US courts in the past, says Carl Coleman, a bioethicist and legal scholar at Seton Hall in New Jersey.  He points to a case from 20 years ago: In the early 2000s, Frank Burroughs founded the Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs. His daughter, Abigail Burroughs, had head and neck cancer, and she had tried and failed to access experimental drugs. In 2003, about two years after Abigail’s death, the group sued the FDA, arguing that people with terminal cancer have a constitutionally protected right to access experimental, unapproved treatments, once those treatments have been through phase I trials. In 2007, however, a court rejected that argument, determining  that terminally ill individuals do not have a constitutional right to experimental drugs. Bateman-House also questions a provision in the Montana bill that claims to make treatments more equitable. It states that “experimental treatment centers” should allocate 2% of their net annual profits “to support access to experimental treatments and healthcare for qualifying Montana residents.” Bateman-House says she’s never seen that kind of language in a bill before. It may sound positive, but it could in practice introduce even more risk to the local community. “On the one hand, I like equity,” she says. “On the other hand, I don’t like equity to snake oil.” After all, the doctors prescribing these drugs won’t know if they will work. It is never ethical to make somebody pay for a treatment when you don’t have any idea whether it will work, Bateman-House adds. “That’s how the US system has been structured: There’s no profit without evidence of safety and efficacy.” The clinics are coming Any clinics that offer experimental treatments in Montana will only be allowed to sell drugs that have been made within the state, says Coleman. “Federal law requires any drug that is going to be distributed in interstate commerce to have FDA approval,” he says. White isn’t too worried about that. Montana already has manufacturing facilities for biotech and pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer. “That was one of the specific advantages [of focusing] on Montana, because everything can be done in state,” he says. He also believes that the current administration is “predisposed” to change federal laws around interstate drug manufacturing. (FDA commissioner Marty Makary has been a vocal critic of the agency and the pace at which it approves new drugs.) At any rate, the clinics are coming to Montana, says Livingston. “We have half a dozen that are interested, and maybe two or three that are definitively going to set up shop out there.” He won’t name names, but he says some of the interested clinicians already have clinics in the US, while others are abroad.  Mac Davis—founder and CEO of Minicircle, the company that developed the controversial “anti-aging” gene therapy—told MIT Technology Review he was “looking into it.” “I think this can be an opportunity for America and Montana to really kind of corner the market when it comes to medical tourism,” says Livingston. “There is no other place in the world with this sort of regulatory environment.”

House Republicans have proposed banning states from regulating AI for the next ten years. The sweeping moratorium, quietly tucked into the Budget Reconciliation Bill last Sunday, would block most state and local governments from enforcing AI regulations until 2035 if passed. The proposed legislation stated that “no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems,” for 10 years. Industry experts warn that this potential regulatory vacuum would come precisely when AI systems are becoming more powerful and pervasive across the US society. Oversight gap raises concerns The moratorium would create an unprecedented situation: rapidly evolving AI technology would operate without state-level guardrails during what may be its most transformative decade. “The proposed decade-long moratorium on state-level AI regulations presents a double-edged sword,” said Abhivyakti Sengar, practice director at Everest Group. “On one hand, it aims to prevent a fragmented regulatory environment that could stifle innovation, on the other hand, it risks creating a regulatory vacuum, leaving critical decisions about AI governance in the hands of private entities without sufficient oversight.” The proposed legislation includes specific exceptions. According to the bill text, states would still be allowed to enforce laws that have “the primary purpose and effect of which is to remove legal impediments to, or facilitate the deployment or operation of, an artificial intelligence model, artificial intelligence system, or automated decision system.” States could also enforce laws that streamline “licensing, permitting, routing, zoning, procurement, or reporting procedures” for AI systems. However, the bill explicitly prohibits states from imposing “any substantive design, performance, data-handling, documentation, civil liability, taxation, fee, or other requirement” specifically on AI unless such requirements are applied equally to non-AI systems with similar functions. This limitation would prevent states from creating AI-specific oversight frameworks that address the technology’s unique capabilities and risks. State AI regulations threatened If enacted, the impact could be significant. Several states have been developing AI oversight frameworks that would likely become unenforceable under the federal provision. Various state-level efforts to regulate AI systems — from algorithmic transparency requirements to data privacy protections for AI training — could be effectively neutralized without public debate or input. The moratorium particularly threatens state data privacy protections. Without these state laws, consumers have few guarantees regarding how AI systems use their data, obtain consent, or make decisions affecting their lives. Global standards diverge The US approach now stands in stark contrast to the European Union’s comprehensive AI Act, which imposes strict requirements on high-risk AI systems. “As the US diverges from the EU’s stringent AI regulatory framework, multinational enterprises may face the challenge of navigating conflicting standards,” Sengar noted. This divergence potentially leads to “increased compliance costs and operational complexities.” Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst and CEO at Greyhound Research, sees a splintering global AI landscape ahead. “America’s moratorium will likely deepen the regulatory divergence with Europe,” said Gogia. “This will accelerate the fragmentation of global AI product design, where use-case eligibility and ethical thresholds vary dramatically by geography.” Enterprises face a new reality For businesses, the regulatory clarity comes with difficult strategic decisions. Companies must determine how aggressively to implement AI systems during this regulation-free decade. Many large companies aren’t waiting for government guidance. “Even before public oversight being put on hold, large enterprises have already launched internal AI governance councils,” Gogia explained. “These internal regimes — led by CISOs, legal, and risk teams — are becoming the primary referees for responsible AI use.” But Gogia cautioned against over-reliance on self-regulation: “While these structures are necessary, they are not a long-term substitute for statutory accountability.” Legal uncertainty remains Despite the moratorium on regulations, experts warn that companies still face significant liability risks. “The absence of clear legal guidelines could result in heightened legal uncertainty, as courts grapple with AI-related disputes without established precedents,” said Sengar. Gogia puts it more bluntly: “Even in a regulatory freeze, enterprises remain legally accountable. I believe the lack of specific laws does not eliminate legal exposure — it merely shifts the battleground from compliance desks to courtrooms.” While restricting state action, the legislation simultaneously expands the federal government’s AI footprint. The bill allocates $500 million to the Department of Commerce for AI modernization through 2035. The money targets legacy system replacement, operational efficiency improvements, and cybersecurity enhancements using AI technologies. This dual approach positions the federal government as both the primary AI regulator and a major AI customer, consolidating tremendous influence over the technology’s direction. Finding balance Industry observers emphasize the need for thoughtful governance despite the moratorium. “In this rapidly evolving landscape, a balanced approach that fosters innovation while ensuring accountability and public trust is paramount,” Sengar noted. Gogia offers a succinct assessment of the situation: “The 10-year moratorium on US state and local AI regulation removes complexity but not risk. I believe innovation does need room, but room without direction risks misalignment between corporate ethics and public interest.”

Image: Sandfall InteractiveThe RPG Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 by French studio Sandfall Interactive is already the surprise hit of 2025 and it's of course led to many questions about a possible port to the Switch 2. So, will something like this happen in the future? Speaking to the YouTube channel 'mistermv' recently, Sandfall's CEO Guillaume Broche apparently explained how the success of the game had "kind of" changed everything and while it's still too early to say, there are now a lot more opportunities showing up for the developer - with the team open to the idea of it: "Yeah, it’s definitely something that could be interesting.” Although it's not a confirmation or anything like that, it's nice to see the studio at least acknowledge the Switch 2 and how a port could be something that happens eventually if everything pans out. A lot of the success so far appears to have been word-of-mouth and Xbox's Game Pass service has also added to its exposure. Our pals at Push Square called it a daring and quirky RPG that's an absolute must-play - awarding it nine out of ten stars: "Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 is one of the most refreshing and original RPGs in years, even if it’s not immediately obvious from the outside looking in. The intriguing setup expands to provide an engrossing, excellent narrative with lovable and charismatic characters. The exemplary combat goes above and beyond its turn-based traditions with flashy fights and new ways to damage. This is the kind of experience that proves there’s still so much potential and creativity in the bigger-budget video game space — Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 is simply sublime." Push SquarePaint by numbers QTE in the place to be Have you had the chance to play this breakout hit yet? Would you be interested in a Switch 2 port? Tell us in the comments. [source mp1st.com] See Also Share:0 0 Liam is a news writer and reviewer across Hookshot Media. He's been writing about games for more than 15 years and is a lifelong fan of many iconic video game characters. Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment... Related Articles Nintendo Updates Its User Agreement To Crack Down On Emulation Offenders may find their Switch bricked Here's A Look At The Back Of Mario Kart World's Switch 2 Box Art The race begins next month Nintendo Defends Switch 2's Perceived Lack Of Innovation "we feel that it is a very Nintendo-like product" Cyberpunk 2077 Dev Tells Studios "Do Not Underestimate The Physical Edition" "The right thing to do was to have it out on the cartridge." Xbox Branded Handheld Photos Leak, And It's Not Quite As Slick As The Switch 2 Those fingerprints don't help