Author Hi, I've downloaded a recent android app called NCM - Next Chess Move and it states that it uses stockfish on the device. I've did some digging up and it seems it's true, it's calculating moves even when the internet is off,Being interested in chess and studies this in the past I though then , because of the licensing for Stockfish, the source code for this app must be public right ? And if that is the case, any way I could find the source code for this app ?The license for Stockfish is GPLv3.  Author I'm  interested in this since I've been toying with the idea of creating a closed source 3D chess game and would be so much better to use Stockfish locally than on a server. Can anyone point in the right direction, please ?  Advertisement The author of NCM should be able to point you in the right direction Note that GPL affects all software around it. If you combine it with other software, the other software then carries the GPL license as well.In other words you cannot leverage GPL software and wrap it in closed source without also publishing the code of the closed source. It's tricky. There are ways to mix GPL and non-GPL software, but it needs a good lawyer who is comfortable with software generally and the nuance of the GPL specifically.It is tricky but possible to build up non-free tools and software that rely heavily on F/OSS systems, including GPL systems. For example, they might build a standalone chess engine and release the engine portions and interface under the terms of the GPL, and also have their UI and front-end that interfaces with it which they sell. There would need to be a clear, clean break between them, but it is possible to do and has been done on a few projects.I don't see them under an LGPL license, but those are similarly able to co-exist with proper lawyer involvement. Companies like EA have a page where they distribute the libraries with source and the implementation changes they made. Author Is it possible then to use Stockfish: 1. On a server and distribute the server code ?2. Build a binary framework, link to that and only distribute the binary framework if building an app with it ? Advertisement I am not a lawyer and cannot answer if any specific way is sufficient to avoid a lawsuit.The license is trying very hard to make it impossible to use the software in a non-free/open source context.  If you want to do it anyway and be legally safe, talk to a lawyer.Alternatively, don't go there. Yup, it's generally best to be 100% in or 100% out unless you have careful legal reviews by experienced lawyers. Working with GPL, release it all GPL and you are safe. Not touching anything with GPL, release it without source as a proprietary system and you are safe. It is possible to mix them, but only when you have lawyers involved asking difficult questions about the details. No lawyers, don't mix it.  GPL does not demand you reveal source code when the program is only interacted with over the internet. It only demands you publish the entire source code to the person whose machine it is running on, basically (besides granting the right to run, modify, publish, and publish modified versions und the same license). Also, as soon as you use a GPL component in a project, the entire project needs to be GPL, but you may use sub-components in the parent project that are non-GPL (such as MIT). But the overall parent project must be under a GPL license.If you want a GPL license that also enforces the open-sourcing when interacted with over the network, choose AGPL. You can use GPL dependencies in an AGPL parent project, but you cannot use AGPL dependencies in a GPL parent project. There is also the LGPL which is a bit less ideologically strict.

Peace Garden at UNESCO | © INFGM Located within the headquarters of UNESCO in Paris, the Peace Garden by Isamu Noguchi emerges not merely as a landscape installation but as a profound meditation on postwar diplomacy and cultural synthesis. Commissioned in the mid-1950s, the garden symbolizes the United Nations’ commitment to peace through mutual understanding and cultural dialogue. Peace Garden at UNESCO Technical Information Artist1-2: Isamu Noguchi Location: 7 Place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris, France Client: Marcel Breuer / UNESCO Area: 2,400 m2 | 25,800 Sq. Ft. Project Year: 1958 Photographs: © INFGM and Flick Users, See Caption Details It should be a quiet, moving place. – Isamu Noguchi 3 Peace Garden at UNESCO Photographs © INFGM © INFGM © INFGM © INFGM © INFGM © INFGM © bbonthebrink, Flickr User © Patrice Todisco © bbonthebrink, Flickr User © bbonthebrink, Flickr User © Dalbera, Flckr user © Dalbera, Flckr user Park View Park View Context and Commission Noguchi, a Japanese-American sculptor and designer, was a poignant choice for the task. His biography embodies a convergence of East and West, as well as a lifelong engagement with public space as a vehicle for social commentary. By the time of his UNESCO commission, Noguchi had already engaged with landscape-scale sculptures, memorials, and playgrounds. The Peace Garden offered an opportunity to distill these threads into a singular work situated at the crossroads of global diplomacy. His selection was shaped by the broader architectural ethos of the UNESCO campus, designed by an international team including Marcel Breuer, Pier Luigi Nervi, and Bernard Zehrfuss. The ensemble called for a complementary but ideologically rich intervention, a space that could resonate as much with symbolic gravitas as with formal clarity. This garden was Noguchi’s first realized landscape design, and its execution was made possible through a personal introduction from Marcel Breuer, the chief architect of the UNESCO headquarters. Breuer not only facilitated the commission but also supported Noguchi’s experimental vision, which would challenge prevailing notions of diplomatic landscaping. Notably, the garden was completed in 1958 and spans approximately 2,400 square meters. It was constructed by renowned Kyoto-based master gardener Sano Toemon, marking a cross-cultural collaboration between modernist sculpture and traditional Japanese craftsmanship. Design Philosophy and Symbolic Intent Noguchi approached the Peace Garden as both sculptor and spatial thinker. He resisted creating a traditional memorial or a didactic allegory of peace. Instead, he crafted a contemplative void, a space that, through its absence of overt narrative, invited personal reflection and multiple interpretations. Drawing on the vocabulary of Japanese rock gardens and Zen traditions, Noguchi created a space of abstract expression that nonetheless maintained universal accessibility. The garden is composed of roughly hewn granite stones, a central water basin, and minimal vegetation. Each element is carefully positioned, creating an orchestrated tension between natural materiality and deliberate composition. This spatial language evokes notions of impermanence, balance, and introspection. The garden does not dictate how peace should be understood; rather, it sets a stage for experiencing peace as a spatial and emotional condition. In Noguchi’s words, the garden was to be “a quiet, moving place” rather than a monument. While inspired by Japanese garden typologies, particularly the stroll garden (池泉回遊式), Noguchi chose not to replicate tradition. Instead, he abstracted and reinterpreted elements such as Mt. Horai rock formations, stepping stones, and a crouching basin. These forms subtly allude to symbolic motifs without prescribing a singular reading. Noguchi negotiated directly with the Japanese government to secure donations of ten tons of stone and plant materials including camellias, maples, cherry trees, and bamboo. This act itself underscored the garden’s role as a diplomatic gesture, embedding it with botanical references to Japanese identity while maintaining a universal design language. Material and Spatial Composition Set at the base of the UNESCO building, the Peace Garden establishes a counterpoint to the architectural massing surrounding it. Its recessed layout forms a kind of spatial cloister, shielding visitors from the city’s rhythm and inviting a slower, more inward pace. The materials, chiefly unpolished granite, gravel, and water, speak to both permanence and mutability. The granite stones, irregular yet intentional in placement, recall tectonic forms and ancient spiritual markers. The central water feature introduces subtle movement and sound, enhancing the sensory richness of the space. The garden’s compositional core is its sculptural use of stone, each placement a spatial decision echoing both tectonic memory and sculptural intentionality. Noguchi collaborated on-site with Sano Toemon, whose craftsmanship adapted in real-time to the artist’s rapidly evolving vision. According to Sano, it was only after intense on-site dialogue and shared experience that he could fully comprehend and execute Noguchi’s aesthetic strategy, a testament to the garden’s improvisational and relational genesis. Spatially, the garden is organized not around pathways but around moments. There is no linear procession or axial symmetry; instead, it offers a field of relationships. Voids and solids, shadows and reflections, horizontality and vertical interruptions all work together to create a space that must be experienced slowly and from multiple vantage points. The absence of overt hierarchy in the layout allows users to construct their own narratives. It is a non-prescriptive space in which silence, texture, and light become the principal mediums of meaning. Peace Garden at UNESCO Plans Floor Plan | © Isamu Noguchi Floor Plan | © Isamu Noguchi Peace Garden at UNESCO Image Gallery About Isamu Noguchi Isamu Noguchi (1904–1988) was a Japanese-American sculptor, landscape architect, and designer renowned for his fusion of Eastern and Western aesthetics. Trained under Constantin Brâncuși and deeply influenced by Japanese traditions, Noguchi’s work spanned sculpture, furniture, stage sets, and public spaces. His practice was rooted in a belief that art should be integrated into everyday life, often blurring the boundaries between art, architecture, and landscape. Notable for his minimal yet emotionally resonant forms, Noguchi’s legacy includes iconic works such as the Noguchi Table, the UNESCO Peace Garden in Paris, and the Isamu Noguchi Garden Museum in New York. Credits and Additional Notes Style: Stroll Garden, Contemporary Japanese Garden Main Contractor: Sano Toemon, in collaboration with Uetō Zōen Listening to Stone: The Art and Life of Isamu Noguchi by Hayden Herrera Torres, Ana Maria. Isamu Noguchi: Studies in Space. Tokyo: Marumo Publishing, 2000. pp. 96–109. Sasaki, Yōji. “What Isamu Noguchi Left Behind.” Japan Landscape, no. 16, Process Architecture, 1990, p. 87. Treib, Marc. Noguchi in Paris: The UNESCO Garden. San Francisco: William Stout Publishers and UNESCO Publishing, 2004. Overseas Japanese Gardens Database. “UNESCO Garden.” Accessed May 2025.

Well, we’ve reached the end of the road. Andor’s second and final season brought us 12 episodes of (mostly) exceptional Star Wars drama released in three-episode chunks, a format which served the structure of the show brilliantly, with each chunk representing one year in the four years leading up to Rogue One, but also meant that we didn’t get to savor the show for nearly as long.Suggested ReadingFallout Season 2 Teaser Confirms Lucy and Ghoul are Heading to New Vegas Share SubtitlesOffEnglishview videoSuggested ReadingFallout Season 2 Teaser Confirms Lucy and Ghoul are Heading to New Vegas Share SubtitlesOffEnglishEach week, we’ve gathered to discuss our reactions to the show’s latest episodes (you can find last week’s conversation here), and now, we do so for the last time. Join us as we say goodbye to this extraordinary series. Ethan Gach: I’m in camp Kleya, who called her arrival on Yavin in the final stretch of Andor “a bitter ending,” but perhaps somewhat more consoled than she was by Cassian reassurance that “nothing’s ending.”The final three episodes of season 2 were always going to be somewhat disappointing and bittersweet since we knew the show was ending and in some cases we knew where it would need to funnel people to set up Rogue One, but the final chapter still managed a surprising amount of high-stakes tension and unexpected backstory. How would you both rate the final episodes and what are you feeling now that the journey’s over?Carolyn Petit: I thought episode 10, with its look at how Luthen and Kleya formed their bond and her undertaking the terrible task of doing what needed to be done, was outstanding. (It also gave us an alien who instantly became one of my favorite Star Wars creatures ever!) Episodes 11 and 12 weren’t peak Andor, but I have to admit that the final slow-motion montage sequence really worked for me, and they had a political dimension I found somewhat surprising that I’ll discuss a bit more later.Zack Zwiezen: I was worried that the final episode would run out of steam as Tony Gilroy and co literally ran out of space for storytelling and had to slam the brakes to set up Rogue One. And while I enjoyed the montage slow-walk, I wonder if that works if you haven’t seen Rogue One. But overall, the final three episodes are really good. And I think the Kleya-Luthen focused episode is one of my favorite Andor episodes ever. I’m so happy she got a big spotlight before the end.CP: Me, too. That episode also helped cement, I think, that the show recognizes how necessary all of Luthen’s efforts were, even if those fussy ineffectual bureaucrats on Yavin don’t. This is an issue I’ve long had with how Star Wars has at times sanded away its own political dimensions in my view, something that Andor not only seeks to undo but takes farther than ever before. In truth, the act of blowing up the Death Star in the first film, that act which people cheered for in theaters in 1977 and that Star Wars fans for decades since have loved and admired, would, in universe, be considered an act of terrorism. That’s what the Empire would call it. That’s what governments do: they present their own violence as “legitimate” or “necessary” and the violence of those rebelling against them as “terrorism.” But there were times in Star Wars history where I felt like the people at the reins of the franchise wanted to send a message that you shouldn’t be “too extreme” in your resistance, don’t be a Saw Gerrera, do it through “proper channels.” And so I loved that Andor gave us that scene with Bail and some other politicians all kind of hemming and hawing over Luthen while the show, I think, was emphatically telling all of us, “Luthen was right. Maybe not every single little decision he made was right, but his ethos was fundamentally right and without someone like him, none of this would have been here.” And I loved it for that.ZZ: I think, and they talk about this in the behind the scenes, it’s very important that Luthen’s fight against the empire was really because Kleya wanted revenge.CP: Right. She’s the humanity that he’s fighting for. She’s what radicalizes him.ZZ: If he hadn’t found her and saved her, Luthen likely doesn’t become the rebel we know in Andor. And it also adds a new layer of complexity to their relationship. He was part of the army that brutalized her people. So she still has some lingering hatred for him. And yet she does care about him. And in that moment when she sneaks into the hospital to finish the job, you can feel that.EG: I think that scene with the Rebel Alliance leaders also helps show the Senate mentality creeping back in as the insurgency professionalizes itself.It’s easy to see why even after defeating the Empire in key battles it might struggle to rebuild or retain power, issues explored in Ahsoka and The Mandalorian. These last few episodes help situate Cassian between the uncompromising logic of Luthen’s spycraft and the “no one left behind” mentality of the Rebellion. Luthen’s final sacrifice is to die, and Cassian’s is to go back and risk everything just to save someone.ZZ: We should rewind a bit and talk about that moment between Luthen and Dedra. Or even further actually, and pour one out for Lonni, who I knew was dead the moment he sat down at that bench.CP: Yeah. When he mentioned his wife and kid, for a moment I thought mayyyyyyyybe Luthen would be like “You know what? I owe this guy.” But alas, no.ZZ: I also loved that line Luthen gave Klaya before the meeting: “I think we used up all the perfect.” CP: So good.LucasfilmZZ: And then we get Dedra Meero walking into Luthen’s shop as he’s destroying evidence. My wife literally gasped “OH SHIT!” at seeing Dedra at the door.EG: Only two artifacts may not be what they seem!CP: In a show that so often demands that characters put on a performance to blend into their surroundings, it was great seeing those two feel each other out and Luthen pretend for a bit that she was maybe not there to arrest him. But then, of course, he tries to kill himself, and you see that he was thinking a few steps ahead when he picked up the knife, though he made it seem like it was just part of their friendly dealings.ZZ: When he picked up the knife I was so distracted by him mentioning it being a Nautolan artifact (Kit Fisto’s species) that I didn’t realize why he picked a knife.CP: Hahaha, the perils of having a database of Star Wars knowledge in your brain!ZZ: And then after he’s taken to the hospital, we get that wonderful sequence with Klaya sneaking in and taking him off life support. Anybody else want a Hitman-like Star Wars game now?CP: If that alien Kleya pushes around as she’s pretending to be hospital personnel is in it, absolutely! But yes, that was a great infiltration sequence, both thrilling and kind of excruciating because we knew what she was going there to do.EG: It included some of the best Coruscant backdrops we’ve ever gotten, I think.CP: One other moment from that episode that I can’t stop thinking about was the flashback scene in which we see Imperial officers drag some civilians through town, put them up against a wall, and kill them. It was another gut-wrenching reminder of the Empire’s evil and another moment that felt weirdly resonant as more and more people are being arrested by agents who often won’t even show warrants or identification in the streets of our towns.ZZ: On the flipside of that horrible moment that made me feel a pit in my stomach, we have Dedra getting arrested for being reckless and not following orders by chasing after Luthen long after she was supposed to be off the Axis investigation. I have to admit I smiled when I realized it was all over for her.CP: Man, I don’t know. I mean I absolutely hate her, don’t get me wrong, and yet that final shot of her, where we see that she’s in a prison very much like the one Cassian was in last season (if not the same one) was complicated for me. Like, I think that kind of incarceration is just wrong in and of itself and so it elicited this weird moment of something like sympathy for her, which in no way means I forgive her for what she’s done. It’s just one of those reminders that it’s ultimately a systemic evil that will sometimes grind up the people operating inside of it and supporting it as much as those being actively persecuted.The leopards ate her face, in other words.ZZ: Space leopards.But I agree, yes, that the Empire is evil and the way it operates (like many real-world countries) is to crush people up to fuel the fires of growth and war. And I think it was very arrogant of her to believe she would be spared. Or maybe she truly bought into the lies that the Empire was good and doing the right thing? Surely, she won’t end up in some horrible place and left to rot forever.CP: Yep.ZZ: Meanwhile, her boss, after all of these failures and letting the info on the Death Star slip out, realizes what’s coming for him and knows he doesn’t want to be ripped apart by the machine he helped create. And takes an easier way out. CP: That was the first and only indication we ever got that Nemik’s manifesto is actually spreading around, right, that people are listening to it? That was a cool moment, I thought, where at first we think it’s non-diegetic, just the writers and filmmakers reminding us one last time of Nemik’s stirring words, but then we see, oh, no, Partagaz was actually listening to it, the fire is spreading. It’s out there.EG: I loved the scene right outside when the gun shot goes off.CP: Yeah, so clear that the guy knew Partagaz wasn’t just taking a moment to “collect his thoughts,” he knew exactly what was coming.ZZ: The slight “stand down” gesture to the troopers.EG: I appreciate the minor moments of humanity Andor evokes even between the worst people.CP: Yeah, they’re essential IMO.ZZ: It makes them more evil. They are human beings. People with feelings and thoughts. And yet they still do this shit.EG: Something also given to Krennic when he and Partagaz wish each other luck at facing Palpatine’s wrath. Unlike the more buffoonish bad guy energy he gives off in Rogue One.ZZ: Also, very fun to see a character call out the Death Star name. Partagaz thinks its dumb. It’s just one of those reminders that [the Empire is] ultimately a systemic evil that will sometimes grind up the people operating inside of it and supporting it as much as those being actively persecuted.ZZ: I’m so happy to see K-2SO back!CP: Yes. Not unlike C-3P0 he can be so exasperating at times (in an endearing and funny way), but when he goes full Terminator on Empire goons, man it feels good.For me, the whole tone of the scene with Andor and Melshi in the safehouse with Kleya and the communications jammed changed from “Oh shit, oh shit, get outta there!” to “LMAO y’all are about to get owned” as soon as K-2SO left the ship to go in for them, and it was glorious.ZZ: Yeah. The moment K-2SO shows up, it’s basically over for those imperial assholes and I loved it so much. I also like that the show uses its limited time with K-2SO to really develop a relationship between him and Cassian. They seem like buds!The part where they are playing space poker or whatever was great. Gilroy mentioned that after Bix leaves the place becomes a frat house, with Melshi moving in and them all drinking and partying between missions.CP: Ah, that totally makes sense!ZZ: I wonder if Andor is trying to drink away some pain and fill his life with friends to deal with losing Bix? That’s my read. He needs some buds and suds.CP: Definitely. There’s a part of me that still feels like Andor, the title character, could have maybe used a little bit more character development in this show, that with all of its moving pieces his own journey, both ideologically and as a person, maybe got a smidge sidelined. But I do like that we see him dreaming about his sister, since finding her was the big obsession driving him in the early episodes of season one. Now, I feel like he’s accepted that she’s gone but still the idea of her, his depth of feeling for her and the pain of losing her is part of what drives him to create a better world, not entirely unlike Luthen being driven by his love for Kleya. And speaking of love and the things that drive us, how did y’all feel about that final-final image of the show?ZZ: I loved it! To me it worked perfectly with a theme in Andor: hope.EG: “There is another.” lmao.CP: Right, to me it did in part feel like a nod to Star Wars’ obsession with dynasties and legacies, like we have to believe that, though Andor himself dies, what he stands for will live on not just as an idea but because he literally has a child. And yet, I still kinda liked it. We didn’t get a lightsaber but we did get a continued bloodline!ZZ: I think the show needed some hope at the end.EG: I think it was very thematically appropriate, even if I’m torn on the merits of mixing insurgency and family. It’s a division that feels a bit too tidy.ZZ: I think it did provide more reason for Bix leaving like she did. She was pregnant. She wanted to give her child a peaceful life and knew Andor would follow her if he knew. And in her mind, she’s thinking that they’ll get back together one day after the Empire has fallen. It’s both a very tragic final scene and also this reminder that there is more. This isn’t an ending.Screenshot: Lucasfilm / KotakuCP: Vel even tells him not to wait too long to reconnect, and we already know he never gets the chance! Really loved that those two, Cassian and Vel, got a moment here, too, and got to acknowledge all those they’ve lost along the way. But yes, you’re right, it was a lovely mix of deeply sad and hopeful, that final image. Luthen, Cassian, Saw, and so many others know they’re fighting for a world they themselves will likely not live to see. But that kid might.ZZ: And before we leave, I did like that we got one more tiny moment with Mon’s husbasndHe seems to be with the mother of the boy his daughter married? It was very fast. Couldn’t tell. But him just getting drunk in a limo on Coruscant, presumably throwing his wife under the bus and pledging loyalty to the Empire, seemed like all we needed to know about what happened to him.CP: Exactly. He is who we knew he was and his sad empty privileged life is his reward for it.I’d be curious to know how that final montage plays for folks who haven’t seen Rogue One. It really worked for me, seeing Cassian all dressed up for his fateful mission, the cuts to Dedra and other characters, and all around him, the Rebel base on Yavin, active and buzzing, about to change the galaxy, and now we know it’s all because of the efforts of so many people but among them, one Luthen Rael, an unsung hero of Star Wars. Are either of you planning on rewatching Rogue One any time soon?ZZ: I wanted to hold off until after this VG chat so I came into this without the weight of Rogue One on my mind. I plan on watching it this weekend! EG: I will say, as a parting thought, I don’t know that I needed the show to try and line up so neatly with Rogue One, perhaps the worst part of which is that silly blueprint handoff that directly leads into A New Hope. I do think some of the broader thrust of Andor and the unease and disquiet within its characters ended up being subsumed a little to neatly by the end of episode 12.CP: Oh, I agree. At a certain point in the final episode you really feel the show shift into “Okay, let’s get all the pieces in place for Rogue One” mode.ZZ: Yeah. It reminds me of the ending of Star Wars Episode III, where George Lucas sets up all the pieces for A New Hope and it feels less like an actual ending and more like a checkpoint.CP: And I think heading right from Andor into Rogue One will be quite jarring because—sorry Rogue One!—your dialogue is just not on the same level!ZZ: Nope! And what happened to Bail Organa! Did he get a haircut?CP: Hahaha.ZZ: But really, if that’s my biggest complaint about Andor—that its ending isn’t as strong as it could have been because of Rogue One—I’m still really happy.I’m not sure we’ll ever get a show like this again, or at least not for a long time. Real sets. Lots of actors. Incredible writing. Big budgets. Set in a large franchise. All this freedom. Even Gilroy has stated he’s not sure if this kind of thing will ever happen again.CP: It was glorious, and while I really hope we see more like it, I’ll try to just be grateful for the miracle that we ever got it at all. Now I just need Disney to put it on Blu-ray so I have it on physical media and it’s not trapped on a streaming service forever!ZZ: Rebellions and physical libraries of movies we love are built on hope. .

"Artificial intelligence, if we're being frank, is a con: a bill of goods you are being sold to line someone's pockets."That is the heart of the argument that linguist Emily Bender and sociologist Alex Hanna make in their new book The AI Con. It's a useful guide for anyone whose life has intersected with technologies sold as artificial intelligence and anyone who's questioned their real usefulness, which is most of us. Bender is a professor at the University of Washington who was named one of Time magazine's most influential people in artificial intelligence, and Hanna is the director of research at the nonprofit Distributed AI Research Institute and a former member of the ethical AI team at Google.The explosion of ChatGPT in late 2022 kicked off a new hype cycle in AI. Hype, as the authors define it, is the "aggrandizement" of technology that you are convinced you need to buy or invest in "lest you miss out on entertainment or pleasure, monetary reward, return on investment, or market share." But it's not the first time, nor likely the last, that scholars, government leaders and regular people have been intrigued and worried by the idea of machine learning and AI.Bender and Hanna trace the roots of machine learning back to the 1950s, to when mathematician John McCarthy coined the term artificial intelligence. It was in an era when the United States was looking to fund projects that would help the country gain any kind of edge on the Soviets militarily, ideologically and technologically. "It didn't spring whole cloth out of Zeus's head or anything. This has a longer history," Hanna said in an interview with CNET. "It's certainly not the first hype cycle with, quote, unquote, AI."Today's hype cycle is propelled by the billions of dollars of venture capital investment into startups like OpenAI and the tech giants like Meta, Google and Microsoft pouring billions of dollars into AI research and development. The result is clear, with all the newest phones, laptops and software updates drenched in AI-washing. And there are no signs that AI research and development will slow down, thanks in part to a growing motivation to beat China in AI development. Not the first hype cycle indeed.Of course, generative AI in 2025 is much more advanced than the Eliza psychotherapy chatbot that first enraptured scientists in the 1970s. Today's business leaders and workers are inundated with hype, with a heavy dose of FOMO and seemingly complex but often misused jargon. Listening to tech leaders and AI enthusiasts, it might seem like AI will take your job to save your company money. But the authors argue that neither is wholly likely, which is one reason why it's important to recognize and break through the hype.So how do we recognize AI hype? These are a few telltale signs, according to Bender and Hanna, that we share below. The authors outline more questions to ask and strategies for AI hype busting in their book, which is out now in the US.Watch out for language that humanizes AIAnthropomorphizing, or the process of giving an inanimate object human-like characteristics or qualities, is a big part of building AI hype. An example of this kind of language can be found when AI companies say their chatbots can now "see" and "think."These can be useful comparisons when trying to describe the ability of new object-identifying AI programs or deep-reasoning AI models, but they can also be misleading. AI chatbots aren't capable of seeing of thinking because they don't have brains. Even the idea of neural nets, Hanna noted in our interview and in the book, is based on human understanding of neurons from the 1950s, not actually how neurons work, but it can fool us into believing there's a brain behind the machine.That belief is something we're predisposed to because of how we as humans process language. We're conditioned to imagine that there is a mind behind the text we see, even when we know it's generated by AI, Bender said. "We interpret language by developing a model in our minds of who the speaker was," Bender added.In these models, we use our knowledge of the person speaking to create meaning, not just using the meaning of the words they say. "So when we encounter synthetic text extruded from something like ChatGPT, we're going to do the same thing," Bender said. "And it is very hard to remind ourselves that the mind isn't there. It's just a construct that we have produced."The authors argue that part of why AI companies try to convince us their products are human-like is that this sets the foreground for them to convince us that AI can replace humans, whether it's at work or as creators. It's compelling for us to believe that AI could be the silver bullet fix to complicated problems in critical industries like health care and government services.But more often than not, the authors argue, AI isn't bring used to fix anything. AI is sold with the goal of efficiency, but AI services end up replacing qualified workers with black box machines that need copious amounts of babysitting from underpaid contract or gig workers. As Hanna put it in our interview, "AI is not going to take your job, but it will make your job shittier."Be dubious of the phrase 'super intelligence'If a human can't do something, you should be wary of claims that an AI can do it. "Superhuman intelligence, or super intelligence, is a very dangerous turn of phrase, insofar as it thinks that some technology is going to make humans superfluous," Hanna said. In "certain domains, like pattern matching at scale, computers are quite good at that. But if there's an idea that there's going to be a superhuman poem, or a superhuman notion of research or doing science, that is clear hype." Bender added, "And we don't talk about airplanes as superhuman flyers or rulers as superhuman measurers, it seems to be only in this AI space that that comes up."The idea of AI "super intelligence" comes up often when people talk about artificial general intelligence. Many CEOs struggle to define what exactly AGI is, but it's essentially AI's most advanced form, potentially capable of making decisions and handling complex tasks. There's still no evidence we're anywhere near a future enabled by AGI, but it's a popular buzzword.Many of these future-looking statements from AI leaders borrow tropes from science fiction. Both boosters and doomers — how Bender and Hanna describe AI enthusiasts and those worried about the potential for harm — rely on sci-fi scenarios. The boosters imagine an AI-powered futuristic society. The doomers bemoan a future where AI robots take over the world and wipe out humanity.The connecting thread, according to the authors, is an unshakable belief that AI is smarter than humans and inevitable. "One of the things that we see a lot in the discourse is this idea that the future is fixed, and it's just a question of how fast we get there," Bender said. "And then there's this claim that this particular technology is a step on that path, and it's all marketing. It is helpful to be able to see behind it."Part of why AI is so popular is that an autonomous functional AI assistant would mean AI companies are fulfilling their promises of world-changing innovation to their investors. Planning for that future — whether it's a utopia or dystopia — keeps investors looking forward as the companies burn through billions of dollars and admit they'll miss their carbon emission goals. For better or worse, life is not science fiction. Whenever you see someone claiming their AI product is straight out of a movie, it's a good sign to approach with skepticism. Ask what goes in and how outputs are evaluatedOne of the easiest ways to see through AI marketing fluff is to look and see whether the company is disclosing how it operates. Many AI companies won't tell you what content is used to train their models. But they usually disclose what the company does with your data and sometimes brag about how their models stack up against competitors. That's where you should start looking, typically in their privacy policies.One of the top complaints and concerns from creators is how AI models are trained. There are many lawsuits over alleged copyright infringement, and there are a lot of concerns over bias in AI chatbots and their capacity for harm. "If you wanted to create a system that is designed to move things forward rather than reproduce the oppressions of the past, you would have to start by curating your data," Bender said. Instead, AI companies are grabbing "everything that wasn't nailed down on the internet," Hanna said.If you're hearing about an AI product for the first time, one thing in particular to look out for is any kind of statistic that highlights its effectiveness. Like many other researchers, Bender and Hanna have called out that a finding with no citation is a red flag. "Anytime someone is selling you something but not giving you access to how it was evaluated, you are on thin ice," Bender said.It can be frustrating and disappointing when AI companies don't disclose certain information about how their AI products work and how they were developed. But recognizing those holes in their sales pitch can help deflate hype, even though it would be better to have the information. For more, check out our full ChatGPT glossary and how to turn off Apple Intelligence.