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

For nearly 10 years I have written about science and technology and I’ve been an early adopter of new tech for much longer. As a teenager in the mid-1990s I annoyed the hell out of my family by jamming up the phone line for hours with a dial-up modem; connecting to bulletin board communities all over the country.When I started writing professionally about technology in 2016 I was all for our seemingly inevitable transhumanist future. When the chip is ready I want it immediately stuck in my head, I remember saying proudly in our busy office. Why not improve ourselves where we can?Since then, my general view on technology has dramatically shifted. Watching a growing class of super-billionaires erode the democratizing nature of technology by maintaining corporate controls over what we use and how we use it has fundamentally changed my personal relationship with technology. Seeing deeply disturbing philosophical stances like longtermism, effective altruism, and singulartarianism envelop the minds of those rich, powerful men controlling the world has only further entrenched inequality.A recent Black Mirror episode really rammed home the perils we face by having technology so controlled by capitalist interests. A sick woman is given a brain implant connected to a cloud server to keep her alive. The system is managed through a subscription service where the user pays for monthly access to the cognitive abilities managed by the implant. As time passes, that subscription cost gets more and more expensive - and well, it’s Black Mirror, so you can imagine where things end up. Titled 'Common People', the episode is from series 7 of Black MirrorNetflix The enshittification of our digital world has been impossible to ignore. You’re not imagining things, Google Search is getting worse.But until the emergence of AI (or, as we’ll discuss later, language learning models that pretend to look and sound like an artificial intelligence) I’ve never been truly concerned about a technological innovation, in and of itself.A recent article looked at how generative AI tech such as ChatGPT is being used by university students. The piece was authored by a tech admin at New York University and it’s filled with striking insights into how AI is shaking the foundations of educational institutions.Not unsurprisingly, students are using ChatGPT for everything from summarizing complex texts to completely writing essays from scratch. But one of the reflections quoted in the article immediately jumped out at me.When a student was asked why they relied on generative AI so much when putting work together they responded, “You’re asking me to go from point A to point B, why wouldn’t I use a car to get there?”My first response was, of course, why wouldn’t you? It made complete sense.For a second.And then I thought, hang on, what is being lost by speeding from point A to point B in a car? What if the quickest way from point A to point B wasn't the best way to get there?Depositphotos Let’s further the analogy. You need to go to the grocery store. It’s a 10-minute walk away but a three-minute drive. Why wouldn’t you drive?Well, the only benefit of driving is saving time. That’s inarguable. You’ll be back home and cooking up your dinner before the person on foot even gets to the grocery store.Congratulations. You saved yourself about 20 minutes. In a world where efficiency trumps everything this is the best choice. Use that extra 20 minutes in your day wisely.But what are the benefits of not driving, taking the extra time, and walking?First, you have environmental benefits. Not using a car unnecessarily; spewing emissions into the air, either directly from combustion or indirectly for those with electric cars.Secondly, you have health benefits from the little bit of exercise you get by walking. Our stationary lives are quite literally killing us so a 20-minute walk a day is likely to be incredibly positive for your health.But there are also more abstract benefits to be gained by walking this short trip from A to B.Walking connects us to our neighborhood. It slows things down. Helps us better understand the community and environment we are living in. A recent study summarized the benefits of walking around your neighborhood, suggesting the practice leads to greater social connectedness and reduced feelings of isolation.So what are we losing when we use a car to get from point A to point B? Potentially a great deal.But let’s move out of abstraction and into the real world.An article in the Columbia Journalism Review asked nearly 20 news media professionals how they were integrating AI into their personal workflow. The responses were wildly varied. Some journalists refused to use AI for anything more than superficial interview transcription, while others use it broadly, to edit text, answer research questions, summarize large bodies of science text, or search massive troves of data for salient bits of information.In general, the line almost all those media professionals shared was they would never explicitly use AI to write their articles. But for some, almost every other stage of the creative process in developing a story was fair game for AI assistance.I found this a little horrifying. Farming out certain creative development processes to AI felt not only ethically wrong but also like key cognitive stages were being lost, skipped over, considered unimportant.I’ve never considered myself to be an extraordinarily creative person. I don’t feel like I come up with new or original ideas when I work. Instead, I see myself more as a compiler. I enjoy finding connections between seemingly disparate things. Linking ideas and using those pieces as building blocks to create my own work. As a writer and journalist I see this process as the whole point.A good example of this is a story I published in late 2023 investigating the relationship between long Covid and psychedelics. The story began earlier in the year when I read an intriguing study linking long Covid with serotonin abnormalities in the gut. Being interested in the science of psychedelics, and knowing that psychedelics very much influence serotonin receptors, I wondered if there could be some kind of link between these two seemingly disparate topics.The idea sat in the back of my mind for several months, until I came across a person who told me they had been actively treating their own long Covid symptoms with a variety of psychedelic remedies. After an expansive and fascinating interview I started diving into different studies looking to understand how certain psychedelics affect the body, and whether there could be any associations with long Covid treatments.Eventually I stumbled across a few compelling associations. It took weeks of reading different scientific studies, speaking to various researchers, and thinking about how several discordant threads could be somehow linked.Could AI have assisted me in the process of developing this story?No. Because ultimately, the story comprised an assortment of novel associations that I drew between disparate ideas all encapsulated within the frame of a person’s subjective experience.And it is this idea of novelty that is key to understanding why modern AI technology is not actually intelligence but a simulation of intelligence. LLMs are a sophisticated language imitator, delivering responses that resemble what they think a response would look likeDepositphotos ChatGPT, and all the assorted clones that have emerged over the last couple of years, are a form of technology called LLMs (large language models). At the risk of enraging those who actually work in this mind-bendingly complex field, I’m going to dangerously over-simplify how these things work.It’s important to know that when you ask a system like ChatGPT a question it doesn’t understand what you are asking it. The response these systems generate to any prompt is simply a simulation of what it computes a response would look like based on a massive dataset.So if I were to ask the system a random question like, “What color are cats?”, the system would scrape the world’s trove of information on cats and colors to create a response that mirrors the way most pre-existing text talks about cats and colors. The system builds its response word by word, creating something that reads coherently to us, by establishing a probability for what word should follow each prior word. It’s not thinking, it’s imitating.What these generative AI systems are spitting out are word salad amalgams of what it thinks the response to your prompt should look like, based on training from millions of books and webpages that have been previously published.Setting aside for a moment the accuracy of the responses these systems deliver, I am more interested (or concerned) with the cognitive stages that this technology allows us to skip past.For thousands of years we have used technology to improve our ability to manage highly complex tasks. The idea is called cognitive offloading, and it’s as simple as writing something down on a notepad or saving a contact number on your smartphone. There are pros and cons to cognitive offloading, and scientists have been digging into the phenomenon for years.As long as we have been doing it, there have been people criticizing the practice. The legendary Greek philosopher Socrates was notorious for his skepticism around the written word. He believed knowledge emerged through a dialectical process so writing itself was reductive. He even went so far as to suggest (according to his student Plato, who did write things down) that writing makes us dumber. “For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them. You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, since they are not wise, but only appear wise.” Wrote Plato, quoting Socrates Almost every technological advancement in human history can be seen to be accompanied by someone suggesting it will be damaging. Calculators have destroyed our ability to properly do math. GPS has corrupted our spatial memory. Typewriters killed handwriting. Computer word processors killed typewriters. Video killed the radio star.And what have we lost? Well, zooming in on writing, for example, a 2020 study claimed brain activity is greater when a note is handwritten as opposed to being typed on a keyboard. And then a 2021 study suggested memory retention is better when using a pen and paper versus a stylus and tablet. So there are certainly trade-offs whenever we choose to use a technological tool to offload a cognitive task.There’s an oft-told story about gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson. It may be apocryphal but it certainly is meaningful. He once said he sat down and typed out the entirety of The Great Gatsby, word for word. According to Thompson, he wanted to know what it felt like to write a great novel. Thompson was infamous for writing everything on typewriters, even when computers emerged in the 1990sPublic Domain I don’t want to get all wishy-washy here, but these are the brass tacks we are ultimately falling on. What does it feel like to think? What does it feel like to be creative? What does it feel like to understand something?A recent interview with Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft, reveals how deeply AI has infiltrated his life and work. Not only does Nadella utilize nearly a dozen different custom-designed AI agents to manage every part of his workflow – from summarizing emails to managing his schedule – but he also uses AI to get through podcasts quickly on his way to work. Instead of actually listening to the podcasts he has transcripts uploaded to an AI assistant who he then chats to about the information while commuting.Why listen to the podcast when you can get the gist through a summary? Why read a book when you can listen to the audio version at X2 speed? Or better yet, watch the movie? Or just read a Wikipedia entry. Or get AI to summarize the wikipedia entry.I’m not here to judge anyone on the way they choose to use technology. Do what you want with ChatGPT. But for a moment consider what you may be skipping over by racing from point A to point B.Sure, you can give ChatGPT a set of increasingly detailed prompts; adding complexity to its summary of a scientific journal or a podcast, but at what point do the prompts get so granular that you may as well read the journal entry itself? If you get generative AI to skim and summarize something, what is it missing? If something was worth being written then surely it is worth being read?If there is a more succinct way to say something then maybe we should say it more succinctly.In a magnificent article for The New Yorker, Ted Chiang perfectly summed up the deep contradiction at the heart of modern generative AI systems. He argues language, and writing, is fundamentally about communication. If we write an email to someone we can expect the person at the other end to receive those words and consider them with some kind of thought or attention. But modern AI systems (or these simulations of intelligence) are erasing our ability to think, consider, and write. Where does it all end? For Chiang it's pretty dystopian feedback loop of dialectical slop. “We are entering an era where someone might use a large language model to generate a document out of a bulleted list, and send it to a person who will use a large language model to condense that document into a bulleted list. Can anyone seriously argue that this is an improvement?” Ted Chiang

Savvy Games Group has made a lot of news as it has built the newest financial empire in games with acquisitions of companies.Read More

It’s been almost one year since Philadelphia’s University of the Arts (UArts) announced its abrupt closure, leaving students, faculty, and alumni bewildered, and outraged. There were a total nine buildings that went up for auction as part of the closure. Scout—a women-owned, Philadelphia-based development and design company—successfully acquired two of them: Dorrance Hamilton Hall, built in 1826 on Broad Street; and Furness Residence Hall, a Victorian masterpiece named after its architect, Frank Furness. Scout announced today public programming that will soon take place at the former UArts buildings it acquired, the first step in its adaptive reuse proposal for the 19th-century buildings. The longterm vision entails maintaining the Hamilton and Furness buildings as hubs for artistic activity in Philadelphia’s Center City. DIGSAU and AOS are helping Scout create a vision plan for the buildings, and ISA Architects is behind a temporary installation that will debut in June. Scout is likewise organizing a “Celebration of Life” to commemorate the Philadelphia mainstay founded in 1876, shuttered in 2024. Scout is partnering with local architects to activate former UArts interior and exterior spaces with public programming. (Mike Persico) “It didn’t feel right to start jumping into the next chapter without acknowledging the past, and allowing space for closure,” Scout founder and managing partner Lindsey Scannapieco told AN. This idea for a Celebration of Life, she noted, will “provide closure, and also cleanse the ground a bit before moving into its next iteration.” Grief and Memory Work At Hamilton Hall, the Celebration of Life for UArts will take place from June 4–8. There, former UArts students, faculty, and alumni will be welcomed back into the campus for performances and programming. Scout has also invited a death doula to guide visitors through “grief and memory work,” Scannapieco said. “Everyone was obviously devastated about the closure. There was a lot of pain and grief. It was very sudden, and very opaque. There were horror stories about enrolled students, professors with tenure. So many people were impacted by it,” Scannapieco added. “The question became, what happens to this real estate in the center of our city? And what does it mean to have this gap in creative, cultural, and student energy downtown?” “No institutions put in bids for the buildings, but people were still very interested in keeping these buildings art-centric,” Scannapieco continued. “We had an incredible outpouring of public support which inspired us to work our butts off to compete in the auction. It was a miracle, to be honest, that we were able to pull it off.” The buildings were left untouched after the bankruptcy auction, notice the flyers still on the walls. (Mike Persico) The Celebration of Life will be followed by more programming in mid-June at the Furness building with Frankie’s Summer Club, a seasonal outdoor hospitality space chock full of wine, ice cream, and more in partnership with local chef Michael Ferreri. ISA Architects is behind the setting inspired by an unbuilt design from Louis Kahn circa 1975 for the nearby Kimmel Center site. Bonafide Community Builders Scout has built a reputation for converting historic Philadelphia buildings into usable, modern spaces like the Bok Building, a former technical high school that now hosts workspaces for makers, businesses, nonprofits, and artists. The Bok has over 250,000 visitors a year and is “home to over 225 small businesses, artists, and makers,” Scannapieco said. “Everything from jewelry designers to architecture studios, interior designers, ceramic workers, glass blowers, a daycare, doggy daycare. A fourth of the building is nonprofits,” she noted, “like Black Star Film Festival, the Garces Foundation, and Girls Inc. There’s also Diadora, an Italian sneaker company, and Bowery Presents, a concert promoter.” Scout’s vision for the Hamilton and Furness buildings is similar to the Bok, although the former UArts structures are much more centrally located, and smaller. Scout will lease out spaces to a comparable group of artists, architects, designers, and nonprofits. Equipment is leftover from UArts, like the ceramics studio pictured above. (Mike Persico) A leftover metal foundry, ceramic workshops, and wood shops are still in situ at the Hamilton and Furness buildings, among other handy ephemera like kilns, so artists can pick up where they left off. There are also 45 dormitory units in the Furness building that Scout hopes to convert into artist housing, and residencies. “Something we’ve heard about over the years from the creative community is the lack of affordable housing access, specifically for artists,” Scannapieco said. “So we’ll be working over time to bring those online as affordable artist housing, and for artist-in-residency programs with nearby institutional partners. Visiting artists can come live and work alongside Philadelphia working artists. Just thinking about the energy exchange that can happen from that is something we’re really excited about.” A more detailed version of the vision plan will be announced in the coming months, Scout said. The first tenants are slated to move in this fall, and the project will be rolled out in phases. Public programming information for the upcoming Celebration of Life is listed on Scout’s website. There will also be opportunities for community driven performances via this sign-up link.

Chicago, like many U.S. cities, has a history of building public housing and then tearing it down. Cabrini-Green, a textbook example, was demolished decades ago, along with so many other storied campuses around the country like Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis. The National Public Housing Museum (NPHM) opened its doors last month in Chicago’s near West Side to help tell this multivalent, often times tumultuous story. It’s sited at 919 South Ada Street inside the last remaining vestige of Jane Addams Homes, a New Deal–era campus by Holabird & Root. The institution is the first of its kind. NPHM was founded by public housing residents—its goal is to become “a place to experience stories of hope and personal achievement amid struggle, resistance, and resilience,” NPHM said in a statement. WPA posters at the National Public Housing Museum (Barry Brecheisen) AN first reported on the project in 2016, when the Chicago Housing Authority approved the redevelopment of the site. Landon Bone Baker Architects (LBBA) oversaw the adaptive reuse effort, shepherded by Peter Landon. The campaign took 18 years to complete from start to finish—the most noticeable changes on the exterior are new signage, painted onto the brick facade, and a new entryway. Sunny Fischer cofounded NPHM and now sits on the board. She grew up in the Bronx at a public housing campus. Fischer called NPHM a Site of Conscience, or a space to remember and address past injustices and their ongoing legacies. “As a Site of Conscience, we join museums around the world committed to telling complicated and difficult stories, preserving history, and imagining a more just future,” Fischer said. View Inside the Turovitz Apartment (Barry Brecheisen) Upon entry, visitors can see illustrative WPA advertisements for public housing, bygone relics from a time when the federal government invested in such things. Three historic apartments were reconstructed at a 1:1 to scale to show how different generations of public housing residents lived. Instead of your conventional gift shop, the museum store is co-operatively run by public housing residents. NPHM also has a REC Room, a curated space by DJ Spinderella showcasing the beats and melodies born on public housing campuses. The Doris Conant Demand the Impossible Advocacy Space is meant to encourage discussions about social justice. Art by Amanda Williams, Olalekan Jeyifous, and Alphawood Foundation Sculpture Garden animates the building, together with WPA-era Animal Court sculptures by Edgar Miller. In the REC Room, records are on display in wood shelves. (Percy Ollie Jr. of Ollie Photography) Ephemera on display throughout NPHM speaks to the cultural, social, and economic dimensions of life in public housing. (Barry Brecheisen) Francine Washington grew up in public housing and is now a chairperson of the Central Advisory Committee for the Chicago Housing Authority. “This museum is personal,” Washington added. “It’s the first in the country to tell our stories—not just the bricks and buildings but the people who made public housing, home. We’ve always had a voice. Now we have a place that listens.” NPHM executive director Dr. Lisa Yun Lee said the longterm mission is solidifying housing’s place as a human right, not a commodity. Lee envisions it as an “important civic anchor that brings people together to imagine innovative solutions and envision a more equitable future.”

This week, President Trump traveled to the Middle East on a business and diplomacy mission, during which he greenlit the sale of hundreds of thousands of American-made AI chips to firms in the UAE and Saudi Arabia. These deals signal a major shift in the U.S.’s approach to cutting-edge AI technology. Previously, U.S. leaders had focused on limiting access to ultra-powerful chips, especially to countries that might pose national security threats. Now, Trump is using them as leverage for his larger trade ambitions. While Trump was at the Saudi-U.S. Investment Forum in Riyadh—held in parallel with his visit—the White House announced that Saudi Arabia was committing $600 billion in investments in the United States, “building economic ties that will endure for generations to come,” Onstage at the conference, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang announced his company was entering a massive partnership with Humain, a new company owned by the Saudi kingdom’s Public Investment Fund, and sending them hundreds of thousands of chips. Rival chipmaker AMD announced its own $10 billion Saudi Arabian project. Another deal in the works could send hundreds of thousands of chips to the Emirati firm G42. While Trump allies heralded the deal as mutually beneficial to all parties, some national security experts have concerns about the longterm impacts of spreading these chips around the world. “AI chips should not be bargaining chips for broader trade deals,” says Janet Egan, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). “They underpin US AI dominance, and we have to be really careful to not make short term decisions that might be beneficial for trade in the near term, but cede AI leadership in the longer term.”Early this year the Chinese company Deepseek revealed that it had developed a very powerful model mostly using Nvidia chips obtained before the Biden administration closed an export loophole in 2023, heightening the intensity of the race. President Biden, in his final weeks, ratcheted up export controls, including limits on countries in the Gulf. Last week, the Trump administration ripped up those rules, with a spokesperson calling them “overly complex, bureaucratic” and saying they “would stymie American innovation.” They then switched to a new tack: linking countries’ access to AI chips with larger trade negotiations. Transitioning to a negotiation-based approach, the administration argued, could allow for more flexibility from country-to-country and allow Trump to secure key business concessions from Middle Eastern partners. Business and governments in the Middle East have massive ambitions for AI, aiming to position themselves at the forefront of this emerging technology. They benefit from several strategic advantages to do so, including access to boundless energy, free-flowing capital thanks to oil and sovereign wealth funds, and a lack of government restrictions—allowing them to rapidly push through massive infrastructure projects. But until now, the Middle East had lacked one crucial puzzle piece: Access to cutting-edge American chips from companies like Nvidia.Now, the amount of chips that U.S. companies will reportedly send to the UAE and Saudi Arabia is massive: “We're talking about something larger than any AI training system that exists in the world today," says Alasdair Phillips-Robins, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Conceivably, the ultra-powerful models built with this training system could synthesize automated cyber-attacks, intelligence collection, and weapons development. This is potentially problematic to some U.S. analysts, given Saudi Arabia and the UAE’s close ties with China. In previous years, American spy agencies issued warnings that G42 could be a conduit for siphoning advanced American technology to China. G42 denied any connections to the Chinese government or military.“If you think about which country should be leading the future of potentially the most critical and transformative technology we've ever had, I would not want that to be a non-democratic authoritarian regime,” Egan says. On Tuesday, the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, led by Michigan Republican John Moolenaar, wrote on Twitter that the new chip deals “present a vulnerability for the CCP to exploit.” Sam Winter-Levy, another Carnegie Endowment fellow, worries that the deal will encourage U.S. AI companies to move to the Gulf, where they might get better deals on energy and avoid U.S. regulations and community pushback. Prominent U.S. companies have wasted no time in seizing the new opportunity presented by the Trump administration. OpenAI’s Sam Altman, Nvidia’s Jensen Huang, and AMD’s Lisa Su all attended the Saudi-U.S.Investment Forum. The AI startup Scale AI—which has a partnership with the U.S. government to develop AI safety standards—announced its intentions to open an office in Saudi Arabia. Google, too, advanced an AI hub in the country. "You could end up in a position where some large proportion of U.S. computing power has been offshored to a bunch of states that can wield leverage over U.S. foreign policy to shape it in ways that may not align with US national interests,” says Winter-Levy,. Winter-Levy also contends that these AI chip deals go against Trump’s past emphasis on an “America first” foreign policy approach. "This is offshoring data centers that could be built in the United States. This is offshoring chips that could be going to US tech companies,” he says. “It's hard to reconcile this with an America First approach to industrial policy or economic policy in general.”

Both Canada and the United States have deep-seated affordability problems, but only the former is doing anything substantial about it. Forthcoming housing cooperatives at 2444 Eglinton Avenue in Toronto, and in Upper Hammonds Plains, Nova Scotia, are helping put a dent in Canada’s affordable housing shortage. Vancouver’s home prices today are close to $1 million, and rental prices in Toronto are equally astronomical. To buck this trend, Canada’s Co-operative Housing Development Program (CHDP) unlocked $1.5 billion in federal financing to support new cooperative housing. This is all happening as part of Canada’s National Housing Strategy, a $115 billion plan to boost affordability.  “In Toronto, the housing crisis is as severe as it’s ever been,” UT Daniels professor Keisha St. Louis-McBurnie, a Toronto-based urban planner at Monumental, told AN.  “We’ve seen real growth in housing encampments, especially during COVID-19,” St. Louis-McBurnie said. “There’s been very limited new transitional and supportive housing across [Toronto]. Households are getting priced out of the market, including professional middle-income ones. Folks who are low-income that require the most housing support are not able to access new affordable housing, especially in consideration to what’s getting built in Toronto.” A Brutalist housing co-op on Eglinton Avenue in Toronto (Ken Lund/Flickr/CC BY 2.0) Claire Weisz’s office, WXY, as of this year has locations in New York and Toronto. Weisz recently spoke at the Canadian Club Toronto, in a round table moderated by Alex Bozikovic, about urbanism. “Huge troves of affordable housing in New York has, in recent years, been taken from people who can’t afford down payments on co-ops,” Weisz told AN. “We’ve sacrificed so much. Some organizations have tried to stop this, but without policy support from the city, it’s really in vain.” “My big worry is that right now, like Toronto, New York is starting to be like the rest of the U.S. and rely on developer-led for-profits, versus not-for-profits,” Weisz added. “There needs to be a reawakening of not-for-profit development coalitions.” “The Co-operative Housing Sector is Booming” The Canadian National Housing Strategy’s longterm goal is to build 156,000 affordable units and repair over 298,000 existing ones. Housing cooperatives are getting built all over Canada as part of the program, from British Columbia, Ontario, and Nova Scotia. Planning departments are prioritizing the needs of First Nations communities and Black Canadians to help rectify past injustices. This is happening as rent prices skyrocket, and Toronto’s skyline is populated with new landmarks by Frank Gehry, Studio Gang, BIG, and others. Cooperative housing was first built in Canada in the 1930s. Regent Park in Toronto was the country’s first public housing campus, finished in 1949. This legacy continued through the 1960s and ’70s, when radical co-ops like Rochdale College and Neill-Wycik were built for University of Toronto students. Willow Park Housing Co-op (1966) went up in Winnipeg thanks to CHF Canada, a joint initiative by the Canadian Labour Congress and the Co-operative Union of Canada. The New Democratic Party (NDP) constructed abundant cooperative housing in Vancouver. Milton Park got built in Montreal in the 1980s. Between 1973 and 1993, CHF Canada built a total 92,000 cooperatively-owned units. (This history was captured by Leslie Coles in Under Construction: A History of Co-operative Housing in Canada.) All this momentum was brought to a halt during successive Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien Premierships, however, when government support for supportive housing was cut, much like what was happening in the U.S. at that time under the Clinton administration with the Faircloth Amendment. Regent Park’s original architecture was demolished in 2005 as part of the Regent Park Revitalization Plan, and replaced with a private, mixed-income community. (Kevin Costain/Wikimedia Commons /CC BY 2.0) A regime of state-imposed austerity ensued, leading up to the affordability crisis both Canada and the U.S. have today. Unlike the United States, however, Canada seems to have learned from its past mistakes. Thanks to Canada’s Co-operative Housing Development Program, eight co-ops are getting built right now. Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow has prioritized new affordable housing construction and land trusts, and is doing much to fight gentrification. BC Builds is an initiative helping fast track cooperative housing in Vancouver City Council. “Since the 1990s there’s been a shift in liberal to conservative and neoliberal federal governments,” St. Louis-McBurnie said. “This resulted in reduced public investment in significant social programs, including public and not-for-profit housing. These successive governments devolved responsibility for funding affordable housing to provincial governments across the country, Ontario in particular. Places like Regent Park now have a public-private partnership model, meaning it’s now on the private market. Alexandra Park is going through a similar privatization process.” “But now, there’s interest in alternatives” to market rate development St. Louis-McBurnie affirmed, “and the co-operative housing sector is booming.” Provinces and cities are also implementing “communal land trust models to support the scaling and retaining of assets,” she said. “They’re trying to figure out ways for bringing independently-owned co-ops into the land trust model.” Housing as Human Right The largest co-op underway in Canada today is 2444 Eglinton Avenue by Henriquez Partners and Claude Cormier + Associés. The Toronto development will yield 918 homes, including 612 affordable, rent-geared-to-income (RGI) units. Retail offerings will be sited at the base level. From afar, 2444 Eglinton Avenue will stand out thanks to its polychromatic porthole windows. Further afield in Perth, Ontario, 38 new cooperative units will be built. Farther east in Upper Hammonds Plains, Nova Scotia, a co-operative housing development will yield 136 row house units primarily for Black Canadians. That project is happening through a partnership between the Upper Hammonds Plains Community Land Trust and the Upper Hammonds Plains Housing Co-operative. Curtis Whiley, a sixth-generation African Nova Scotian, is steering the housing cooperative project in Upper Hammonds. Meanwhile in New Minas, Nova Scotia, there will be 32 more cooperative homes. Rendering of 2444 Eglinton Avenue Co-ops (Courtesy Henriquez Partners) Africville was a close-knit Black community in Halifax located on Treat 1 territory destroyed by the City of Halifax in the 1960s. Today, land trusts like the one in Nova Scotia are effective means for establishing housing secure communities of color. The Toronto Chinatown Land Trust likewise empowers people to stay in place, an outfit helmed by Chiyi Tam who is a planner and UT Daniels faculty member. “We have not seen any investment like this, I would say, in terms of housing development almost exclusively for Black communities in Canada’s history,” St. Louis-McBurnie said. Hogan’s Alley’s Black community was displaced by the Vancouver government to make way for the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts in 1971. Now, members of the NDP and Hogan’s Alley Society—a Black-led, not-for-profit developer of Afrocentric affordable housing—are working together to shore up Black land stewardship in the old neighborhood and help rectify the past injustice. “Transferring land over to the Hogan Alley land trust will allow for the Black community to return and for greater autonomy in housing construction,” St. Louis-McBurnie added. “What If We Built a New Co-op City in Brooklyn?” Federal spending was allocated in the Biden administration’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, or the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, to dismantle highways that ripped through inner cities and destroyed African American neighborhoods, like I-81 in Syracuse, New York. But this week, House GOP members moved to cancel the I-81 highway removal project. The Trump administration’s proposed 2026 national budget has slashed spending on projects that “fall outside [the President’s] new priorities” and “promote radical equity policies,” the White House said. Is it possible for architects, politicians, and planners in the U.S. to replicate Canada’s success given the current political climate?  It seems, for now, it would have to happen with aggressive leadership at the city and state levels—trade unions and nonprofits would also have to step up. This is already taking place, for instance, at Penn South, a sprawling Mitchell-Lama housing cooperative in Manhattan by the United Housing Foundation (UHF). Today, Bernheimer Architecture (BA) and the AFL-CIO Housing Investment Trust are helping upgrade the handsome midcentury campus. Penn South’s rehabilitation is in conjunction with BA, the AFL-CIO, and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). “Penn South is a very unique campus, and its needs are different from most other campuses in New York City,” Andy Bernheimer told AN. “NYSERDA is helping us inform design and construction moving forward, which will entail reskinning the buildings and making them more energy efficient.” Co-op City is situated on a sprawling 320-acre site in the north Bronx. (Zara Pfeifer) Co-op City shopping plaza (Zara Pfeifer) In New York today, mayoral candidates are increasingly interested in revisiting the Mitchell-Lama Program’s success, a UHF campaign that built 135,000 cooperative housing units between 1955 and 1978, like Penn South and the Bronx’s Co-op City, another historic campus by Herman Jessor. In Albany, New York State elected officials have proposed a new Social Housing Development Authority, which would allocate government spending toward public housing, co-ops, and land trusts to battle gentrification. “I don’t think there’s enough money to simply restart a program like Mitchell-Lama, as far as I can tell,” Weisz told AN. “But if you look at all of the older Mitchell-Lamas flipping to the market, it’s clear we need to preserve the ones that are left, and there needs to be a new generation of co-ops. All over the city, when people have to pay market rates instead of mortgages, they’re rent burdened.” Homes for Living is a new book by Jonathan Tarleton that speaks to the tumultuous privatization of New York’s cooperative housing stock, a burgeoning problem. “Maybe there’s a way to build a funding and oversight mechanism for existing co-ops worried about going under water, and for households to sign up for a program that helps them to stay in [Mitchell-Lama],” Weisz elaborated. “Maybe there could even be a program for rental apartments to get into that program?” WXY is currently working on a Mitchell-Lama campus in the Bronx, Stevenson Commons, together with Habitat for Humanity. The goal is to maintain Stevenson Common’s affordability with rent-stabilized flats at very low rates. Parking lots at Stevenson Commons were rezoned to allow for new housing, which helps maintain affordability, while new public spaces and tennis clubs were added. There will be incentives to help seniors age in place, and for multigenerational households. Rochdale Village in Queens (Zara Pfeifer) Weisz sees opportunities to finance cooperative housing with ulterior means, like capital raised from Habitat for Humanity, but also congestion pricing. “We should be using new lines and TOD to actually support neighborhoods and co-ops, and people that are ultimately the ones who stay and support neighborhoods,” she said. “Why not subsidize co-op structures? The only way to do that is if there’s city-owned land, because, otherwise, the land cost is so expensive, you have to develop it at market rate.” “There’s a lot of city sites that have been identified for housing,” Weisz noted. “There’s all sorts of sites in the city’s hands right beside the Manhattan Bridge, for instance, or along the BQE. All of those sites could become new co-ops. What if we built a new Co-op City in Brooklyn?”

Researchers reviewed ocean floor samples collected during the Deep Sea Drilling Project in 1975. Credit: Deposit Photos / Oleg Dorokhin Get the Popular Science daily newsletter💡 Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday. There was a time long ago when the Atlantic Ocean didn’t exist. The general understanding among geologists is that the body of water originated between 83 to 113 million years ago, when South America and Africa split into their two respective continents to form the Equatorial Atlantic Gateway. However, Earth’s marine history appears to require a multimillion-year revision thanks to a recent discovery roughly half a mile beneath the ocean floor. The evidence is explored in a study published in the June edition of the journal Global and Planetary Change. According to geologists at the UK’s Heriot Watt University, gigantic waves of mud and sand sediment about 250 miles off the coast of Guinea-Bissau in West Africa indicate the Atlantic Ocean actually formed around four million years earlier than previous estimates. To understand just how intense all of this movement was, imagine waves that are about half a mile long and over 300 feet high.  “A whole field formed in one particular location to the west of the Guinea Plateau, just at the final ‘pinch-point’ of the separating continents of South America and Africa,” study co-author Uisdean Nicholson explained in a statement. Nicholson and their colleagues initially came across these layers of mud waves after comparing seismic data with core samples collected from wells during the Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP) of 1975. Five layers in particular were utilized to recreate the tectonic processes that broke apart the ancient supercontinent of Gondwana during the Mesozoic Era. “One layer was particularly striking: it included vast fields of sediment waves and ‘contourite drifts’—mud mounds that form under strong bottom currents,” said Nicholson. These waves initially formed as dense, salty water poured out from the newly created Equatorial Atlantic Gateway, “like a giant waterfall that formed below the ocean surface,” he added. Just before the geologic event, huge salt deposits formed at the bottom of what is now the South Atlantic. After the gateway opened, the underground mudfall occurred when dense, relatively fresh Central Atlantic water in the north combined with very salty waters in the south. The resulting sedimentary evidence examined by the study’s authors now indicates this opening seems to have started closer to 117 million years ago. “This was a really important time in Earth’s history when the climate went through some major changes,” explained study co-author Débora Duarte. “Up until 117 million years ago, the Earth had been cooling for some time, with huge amounts of carbon being stored in the emerging basins, likely lakes, of the Equatorial Atlantic. But then the climate warmed significantly from 117 to 110 million years ago.” Duarte and Nicholson believe part of that major climatic change  helped from the Atlantic Ocean, as seawater inundated the newly formed basins. “As the gateway gradually opened, this initially reduced the efficiency of carbon burial, which would have had an important warming effect,” said Duarte. “And eventually, a full Atlantic circulation system emerged as the gateway grew deeper and wider, and the climate began a period of long-term cooling during the Late Cretaceous period.” The ramifications go beyond revising Earth’s geological timeline or the gateway’s role in Mesozoic climate change. Better understanding the influence of oceanic evolutionary journeys on ancient climate patterns can help to predict what the future holds for the planet.  “Today’s ocean currents play a key role in regulating global temperatures,” explained Nicholson. “Disruptions, such as those caused by melting ice caps, could have profound consequences.”