To keep your towels germ-free, you need to wash them often. And don't use fabric softener.

Where others have become obsessed with speed and trends, Sergio Membrillas has built a career on slowing down and staying true to his craft. Over 13 years as a professional illustrator, he's evolved a distinct style – bold, graphic, and quietly playful – that feels both timeless and entirely his own. But this evolution, as he's quick to point out, wasn't something he forced. "I believe evolution is essential for every artist," Sergio reflects. "Change is not something I resist; it's something I enjoy and welcome as part of the creative journey." His work, initially influenced by a love of Mid-Century graphic design, has gradually absorbed references as diverse as Etruscan art, Mesopotamian motifs, and early 20th-century traditional tattoos. It's a portfolio built on curiosity, not conformity. Despite his stylistic clarity, Sergio's process remains refreshingly analogue at its core. He still begins each project with pencil and paper, leaning into the tactility of drawing by hand. "I've always valued having a physical relationship with art," he says. "There's something essential about feeling the wood of the pencil, manually erasing mistakes, rather than simply double-tapping a screen." His philosophy of working slowly, attentively, and with purpose shows in the balanced compositions and confident use of negative space that has become his signature. Sergio credits his background in graphic design for this instinctive sense of structure. "There has always been a strong graphic sensibility within me," he says, noting that the discipline of design continues to inform his illustration practice, particularly in editorial and poster work where clarity and storytelling must co-exist. Yet, like many creative careers, his path into illustration wasn't plotted from the start. Initially, Sergio imagined illustration would complement his design projects, not become the main event. "At first, I thought I would incorporate my illustrations into my graphic design projects – but in the end, it turned out to be the other way around." A commission for EasyJet's in-flight magazine marked a pivotal moment that reframed illustration from a hobby to a profession. "It made me realize that being an illustrator is a real profession, just like any other." Fast-forward to today, and Sergio's client list reads like a who's who of publishing and design, from The New Yorker to Pentagram. While the calibre of collaborators has changed, what matters most remains the same: trust. "When a client trusts your work and approaches projects with an open mind, collaboration flourishes," he says. It's in these open, trusting relationships that Sergio finds the space to experiment and further develop his ideas. Unsurprisingly, editorial work holds a special place for him. "Editorial projects offer wider creative margins, allowing for greater flexibility and innovation," he explains. Compared to the tighter confines of advertising, editorial illustration offers the opportunity to tell nuanced stories, and Sergio is clear that he views every assignment, regardless of format, as a collaborative effort. If one thing is clear, though, it's that he's not that he's afraid to say no when needed. Maintaining a strong personal voice is non-negotiable. "I always strive to stay true to myself and ensure that every project I undertake reflects a clear personal signature," he says. For Sergio, authenticity isn't just a matter of artistic pride; it's what differentiates an illustrator in a saturated, increasingly automated industry. Valencia is home for Sergio, a city he credits with much of his creative energy. "Oh, Valencia! It's a beautiful city that inspires me and brings me joy," he says, describing it as a European cousin to Los Angeles with its sun-soaked streets and vibrant cultural scene. The blend of tradition and modernity fuels his practice, offering constant inspiration without the sensory overload that often accompanies larger creative hubs. Given the pressure many creatives feel to keep pace with shifting trends, Sergio's approach feels almost radical. "I'm not particularly interested in trends," he says. "What truly matters to me is the feeling of having done something meaningful and fulfilling by the end of the day." Instead of chasing what's fashionable, he draws inspiration from a surprisingly eclectic bookshelf, mixing everything from Wim Crouwel's graphic design classics to studies on Scandinavian tattoos and Alec Soth's photography. It's a reminder that fresh ideas rarely come from looking where everyone else is looking. In the era of AI and content overload, the role of the illustrator is changing, but Sergio remains optimistic. While machine learning might churn out images at record speed, it can't replicate the nuance and emotional intelligence that underpin great illustration. "Illustrators can tell stories, evoke emotions, and create meaningful connections that machines simply cannot replicate," he says. "Our role is shifting, but the value of authentic, thoughtful illustration remains indispensable." That insistence on authenticity carries through to the advice he offers younger illustrators navigating a commercial landscape. "Create work that makes you happy when you go to sleep at night," Sergio advises. "It's important to find projects that align with your values and passions so your artistic voice remains authentic." It's an ethos that has carried him through more than a decade of creative highs and industry shifts. Perhaps it's the real secret behind the clarity of his practice, which he has built not on chasing trends or algorithms but on careful craft, deliberate evolution, and the simple, enduring joy of a well-made pencil and a blank piece of paper.

06/05 — 2025 by abduzeedo Explore the vibrant branding and visual identity of Leiria Film Fest 2025, designed for broad appeal and lasting impact. The 12th edition of the Leiria Film Fest, held from May 19-25, 2025, presented an opportunity for a compelling visual refresh. Paulo Graça, known as Senhor Paulinho, embraced a design philosophy that is both vibrant and inclusive, setting a new standard for film festival branding and visual identity. His work reflects cinema's power to captivate audiences across generations. This approach moves beyond simple promotion. It seeks to forge an emotional connection, celebrating cinema's universal appeal. Senhor Paulinho's graphic concept uses an illustrative, almost "naive" aesthetic. This choice relies on simple shapes and hand-drawn lines. These elements evoke the spontaneity seen in children's drawings. They also recall the classic texture of film stock. This handcrafted feel bridges the gap between creating art and imagining stories. These two acts are central to both filmmaking and drawing. Such a visual identity extends beyond mere aesthetics. It serves a deeper symbolic purpose: inviting all ages into the cinematic experience. It creates an accessible and emotionally resonant graphic universe, paying tribute to projection, the moving image, and cinema's visual memory. The visual elements were designed for versatility. They scale across various platforms without losing impact. From printed materials like posters and programs to digital banners, festival merchandise, and venue signage, the branding remains cohesive. This adaptability ensures a strong visual identity throughout all communication stages. The imagery, featuring bold eyes and abstract film-like motifs, resonates with the festival's focus on competitive and special sessions, children's events, and even an after-party. This comprehensive branding and visual identity strategy aims to do more than simply advertise an event. It aims to spark curiosity and foster emotional engagement. It celebrates cinema's enduring ability to unite, inspire, and ignite imagination. The design extends an open invitation, welcoming everyone to a shared cultural experience that is both joyful and profound. It reinforces the festival's commitment to community and the arts. The success of the Leiria Film Fest's visual identity lies in its ability to communicate warmth and accessibility while maintaining a sophisticated design language. It is a testament to how thoughtful branding can elevate an event, making it more memorable and inviting. This project provides a valuable case study for designers seeking to create impactful and inclusive visual narratives. Graphic Design by Paulo Graça a.k.a. Senhor Paulinho. Visit his work at https://paulograca.com/en/projects/leiria-film-fest-2025. Branding and visual identity artifacts  Tags branding

Email authentication protocols like SPF, DKIM, and DMARC play a critical role in protecting domains from spoofing and phishing. However, when SEGs are introduced into the email path, the interaction with these protocols becomes more complex. Security gateways(SEGs) are a core part of many organizations’ email infrastructure. They act as intermediaries between the public internet and internal mail systems, inspecting, filtering, and routing messages. This blog examines how security gateways handle SPF, DKIM, and DMARC, with real-world examples from popular gateways such as Proofpoint, Mimecast, and Avanan. We’ll also cover best practices for maintaining authentication integrity and avoiding misconfigurations that can compromise email authentication or lead to false DMARC failures. Security gateways often sit at the boundary between your organization and the internet, managing both inbound and outbound email traffic. Their role affects how email authentication protocols behave. An inbound SEG examines emails coming into your organization. It checks SPF, DKIM, and DMARC to determine if the message is authentic and safe before passing it to your internal mail servers. An outbound SEG handles emails sent from your domain. It may modify headers, rewrite envelope addresses, or even apply DKIM signing. All of these can impact SPF,  DKIM, or DMARC validation on the recipient’s side. Understanding how SEGs influence these flows is crucial to maintaining proper authentication and avoiding unexpected DMARC failures. Inbound Handling of SPF, DKIM, and DMARC by Common Security Gateways When an email comes into your organization, your security gateway is the first to inspect it. It checks whether the message is real, trustworthy, and properly authenticated. Let’s look at how different SEGs handle these checks. Avanan (by Check Point) SPF: Avanan verifies whether the sending server is authorized to send emails for the domain by checking the SPF record. DKIM: It verifies if the message was signed by the sending domain and if that signature is valid. DMARC: It uses the results of the SPF and DKIM check to evaluate DMARC. However, final enforcement usually depends on how DMARC is handled by Microsoft 365 or Gmail, as Avanan integrates directly with them. Avanan offers two methods of integration:1. API integration: Avanan connects via APIs, no change in MX, usually Monitor or Detect modes.2. Inline integration: Avanan is placed inline in the mail flow (MX records changed), actively blocking or remediating threats. Proofpoint Email Protection SPF: Proofpoint checks SPF to confirm the sender’s IP is authorized to send on behalf of the domain. You can set custom rules (e.g. treat “softfail” as “fail”). DKIM: It verifies DKIM signatures and shows clear pass/fail results in logs. DMARC: It fully evaluates DMARC by combining SPF and DKIM results with alignment checks. Administrators can configure how to handle messages that fail DMARC, such as rejecting, quarantining, or delivering them. Additionally, Proofpoint allows whitelisting specific senders you trust, even if their emails fail authentication checks. Integration Methods Inline Mode: In this traditional deployment, Proofpoint is positioned directly in the email flow by modifying MX records. Emails are routed through Proofpoint’s infrastructure, allowing it to inspect and filter messages before they reach the recipient’s inbox. This mode provides pre-delivery protection and is commonly used in on-premises or hybrid environments. API-Based (Integrated Cloud Email Security – ICES) Mode: Proofpoint offers API-based integration, particularly with cloud email platforms like Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace. In this mode, Proofpoint connects to the email platform via APIs, enabling it to monitor and remediate threats post-delivery without altering the email flow. This approach allows for rapid deployment and seamless integration with existing cloud email services. Mimecast SPF: Mimecast performs SPF checks to verify whether the sending server is authorized by the domain’s SPF record. Administrators can configure actions for SPF failures, including block, quarantine, permit, or tag with a warning. This gives flexibility in balancing security with business needs. DKIM: It validates DKIM signatures by checking that the message was correctly signed by the sending domain and that the content hasn’t been tampered with. If the signature fails, Mimecast can take actions based on your configured policies. DMARC: It fully evaluates DMARC by combining the results of SPF and DKIM with domain alignment checks. You can choose to honor the sending domain’s DMARC policy (none, quarantine, reject) or apply custom rules, for example, quarantining or tagging messages that fail DMARC regardless of the published policy. This allows more granular control for businesses that want to override external domain policies based on specific contexts. Integration Methods Inline Deployment: Mimecast is typically deployed as a cloud-based secure email gateway. Organizations update their domain’s MX records to point to Mimecast, so all inbound (and optionally outbound) emails pass through it first. This allows Mimecast to inspect, filter, and process emails before delivery, providing robust protection. API Integrations: Mimecast also offers API-based services through its Mimecast API platform, primarily for management, archival, continuity, and threat intelligence purposes. However, API-only email protection is not Mimecast’s core model. Instead, the APIs are used to enhance the inline deployment, not replace it. Barracuda Email Security Gateway SPF: Barracuda checks the sender’s IP against the domain’s published SPF record. If the check fails, you can configure the system to block, quarantine, tag, or allow the message, depending on your policy preferences. DKIM: It validates whether the incoming message includes a valid DKIM signature. The outcome is logged and used to inform further policy decisions or DMARC evaluations. DMARC: It combines SPF and DKIM results, checks for domain alignment, and applies the DMARC policy defined by the sender. Administrators can also choose to override the DMARC policy, allowing messages to pass or be treated differently based on organizational needs (e.g., trusted senders or internal exceptions). Integration Methods Inline mode (more common and straightforward): Barracuda Email Security Gateway is commonly deployed inline by updating your domain’s MX records to point to Barracuda’s cloud or on-premises gateway. This ensures that all inbound emails pass through Barracuda first for filtering and SPF, DKIM, and DMARC validation before being delivered to your mail servers. Deployment Behind the Corporate Firewall: Alternatively, Barracuda can be deployed in transparent or bridge mode without modifying MX records. In this setup, the gateway is placed inline at the network level, such as behind a firewall, and intercepts mail traffic transparently. This method is typically used in complex on-premises environments where changing DNS records is not feasible. Cisco Secure Email (formerly IronPort) Cisco Secure Email acts as an inline gateway for inbound email, usually requiring your domain’s MX records to point to the Cisco Email Security Appliance or cloud service. SPF: Cisco Secure Email verifies whether the sending server is authorized in the sender domain’s SPF record. Administrators can set detailed policies on how to handle SPF failures. DKIM: It validates the DKIM signature on incoming emails and logs whether the signature is valid or has failed. DMARC: It evaluates DMARC by combining SPF and DKIM results along with domain alignment checks. Admins can configure specific actions, such as quarantine, reject, or tag, based on different failure scenarios or trusted sender exceptions. Integration methods On-premises Email Security Appliance (ESA): You deploy Cisco’s hardware or virtual appliance inline, updating MX records to route mail through it for filtering. Cisco Cloud Email Security: Cisco offers a cloud-based email security service where MX records are pointed to Cisco’s cloud infrastructure, which filters and processes inbound mail. Cisco Secure Email also offers advanced, rule-based filtering capabilities and integrates with Cisco’s broader threat protection ecosystem, enabling comprehensive inbound email security. Outbound Handling of SPF, DKIM, and DMARC by Common Security Gateways When your organization sends emails, security gateways can play an active role in processing and authenticating those messages. Depending on the configuration, a gateway might rewrite headers, re-sign messages, or route them through different IPs – all actions that can help or hurt the authentication process. Let’s look at how major SEGs handle outbound email flow. Avanan – Outbound Handling and Integration Methods Outbound Logic Avanan analyzes outbound emails primarily to detect data loss, malware, and policy violations. In API-based integration, emails are sent directly by the original mail server (e.g., Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace), so SPF and DKIM signatures remain intact. Avanan does not alter the message or reroute traffic, which helps maintain full DMARC alignment and domain reputation. Integration Methods 1. API Integration: Connects to Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace via API. No MX changes are needed. Emails are scanned after they are sent, with no modification to SPF, DKIM, or the delivery path.  How it works: Microsoft Graph API or Google Workspace APIs are used to monitor and intervene in outbound emails. Protection level: Despite no MX changes, it can offer inline-like protection, meaning it can block, quarantine, or encrypt emails before they are delivered externally. SPF/DKIM/DMARC impact: Preserves original headers and signatures since mail is sent directly from Microsoft/Google servers. 2. Inline Integration: Requires changing MX records to route email through Avanan. In this mode, Avanan can intercept and inspect outbound emails before delivery. Depending on the configuration, this may affect SPF or DKIM if not properly handled. How it works: Requires adding Avanan’s Protection level: Traditional inline security with full visibility and control, including encryption, DLP, policy enforcement, and advanced threat protection. SPF/DKIM/DMARC impact: SPF configuration is needed by adding Avanan’s include mechanism to the sending domain’s SPF record. The DKIM record of the original sending source is preserved. For configurations, you can refer to the steps in this blog. Proofpoint – Outbound Handling and Integration Methods Outbound Logic Proofpoint analyzes outbound emails to detect and prevent data loss (DLP), to identify advanced threats (malware, phishing, BEC) originating from compromised internal accounts, and to ensure compliance. Their API integration provides crucial visibility and powerful remediation capabilities, while their traditional gateway (MX record) deployment delivers true inline, pre-delivery blocking for outbound traffic. Integration methods 1. API Integration: No MX record changes are required for this deployment method. Integration is done with Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace. How it works: Through its API integration, Proofpoint gains deep visibility into outbound emails and provides layered security and response features, including: Detect and alert: Identifies sensitive content (Data Loss Prevention violations), malicious attachments, or suspicious links in outbound emails. Post-delivery remediation (TRAP): A key capability of the API model is Threat Response Auto-Pull (TRAP), which enables Proofpoint to automatically recall, quarantine, or delete emails after delivery. This is particularly useful for internally sent messages or those forwarded to other users. Enhanced visibility: Aggregates message metadata and logs into Proofpoint’s threat intelligence platform, giving security teams a centralized view of outbound risks and user behavior. Protection level: API-based integration provides strong post-delivery detection and response, as well as visibility into DLP incidents and suspicious behavior.  SPF/DKIM/DMARC impact: Proofpoint does not alter SPF, DKIM, or DMARC because emails are sent directly through Microsoft or Google servers. Since Proofpoint’s servers are not involved in the actual sending process, the original authentication headers remain intact. 2. Gateway Integration (MX Record/Smart Host): This method requires updating MX records or routing outbound mail through Proofpoint via a smart host. How it works: Proofpoint acts as an inline gateway, inspecting emails before delivery. Inbound mail is filtered via MX changes; outbound mail is relayed through Proofpoint’s servers. Threat and DLP filtering: Scans outbound messages for sensitive content, malware, and policy violations. Real-time enforcement: Blocks, encrypts, or quarantines emails before they’re delivered. Policy controls: Applies rules based on content, recipient, or behavior. Protection level: Provides strong, real-time protection for outbound traffic with pre-delivery enforcement, DLP, and encryption. SPF/DKIM/DMARC impact: Proofpoint becomes the sending server: SPF: You need to configure ProofPoint’s SPF. DKIM: Can sign messages; requires DKIM setup. DMARC: DMARC passes if SPF and DKIM are set up properly. Please refer to this article to configure SPF and DKIM for ProofPoint. Mimecast – Outbound Handling and Integration Methods Outbound Logic Mimecast inspects outbound emails to prevent data loss (DLP), detect internal threats such as malware and impersonation, and ensure regulatory compliance. It primarily functions as a Secure Email Gateway (SEG), meaning it sits directly in the outbound email flow. While Mimecast offers APIs, its core outbound protection is built around this inline gateway model. Integration Methods 1. Gateway Integration (MX Record change required) This is Mimecast’s primary method for outbound email protection. Organizations route their outbound traffic through Mimecast by configuring their email server (e.g., Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, etc.) to use Mimecast as a smart host. This enables Mimecast to inspect and enforce policies on all outgoing emails in real time. How it works: Updating outbound routing in your email system (smart host settings), or Using Mimecast SMTP relay to direct messages through their infrastructure. Mimecast then scans, filters, and applies policies before the email reaches the final recipient. Protection level: Advanced DLP: Identifies and prevents sensitive data leaks. Impersonation and Threat Protection: Blocks malware, phishing, and abuse from compromised internal accounts. Email Encryption and Secure Messaging: Applies encryption policies or routes messages via secure portals. Regulatory Compliance: Enforces outbound compliance rules based on content, recipient, or metadata. SPF/DKIM/DMARC impact: SPF: Your SPF record must include Mimecast’s SPF mechanism based on your region to avoid SPF failures. DKIM: A new DKIM record should be configured to make sure your emails are DKIM signed when routing through Mimecast. DMARC: With correct SPF and DKIM setup, Mimecast ensures DMARC alignment, maintaining your domain’s sending reputation. Please refer to the steps in this detailed article to set up SPF and DKIM for Mimecast. 2. API Integration (Complementary to Gateway) Mimecast’s APIs complement the main gateway by providing automation, reporting, and management tools rather than handling live outbound mail flow. They allow you to manage policies, export logs, search archived emails, and sync users. APIs enhance visibility and operational tasks but do not provide real-time filtering or blocking of outbound messages. Since APIs don’t process live mail, they have no direct effect on SPF, DKIM, or DMARC; those depend on your gateway (smart host) setup. Barracuda – Outbound Handling and Integration Methods Outbound Logic Barracuda analyzes outbound emails to prevent data loss (DLP), block malware, stop phishing/impersonation attempts from compromised internal accounts, and ensure compliance. Barracuda offers flexible deployment options, including both traditional gateway (MX record) and API-based integrations. While both contribute to outbound security, their roles are distinct. Integration Methods 1. Gateway Integration (MX Record / Smart Host) — Primary Inline Security How it works: All outbound emails pass through Barracuda’s security stack for real-time inspection, threat blocking, and policy enforcement before delivery. Protection level: Comprehensive DLP (blocking, encrypting, or quarantining sensitive content)  Outbound spam and virus filtering  Enforcement of compliance and content policies This approach offers a high level of control and immediate threat mitigation on outbound mail flow. SPF/DKIM/DMARC impact: SPF: Update SPF records to include Barracuda’s sending IPs or SPF include mechanism. DKIM: Currently, no explicit setup is needed; DKIM of the main sending source is preserved. Refer to this article for more comprehensive guidance on Barracuda SEG configuration. 2. API Integration (Complementary & Advanced Threat Focus) How it works: The API accesses cloud email environments to analyze historical and real-time data, learning normal communication patterns to detect anomalies in outbound emails. It also supports post-delivery remediation, enabling the removal of malicious emails from internal mailboxes after sending. Protection level: Advanced AI-driven detection and near real-time blocking of outbound threats, plus strong post-delivery cleanup capabilities. SPF/DKIM/DMARC impact: Since mail is sent directly by the original mail server (e.g., Microsoft 365), SPF and DKIM signatures remain intact, preserving DMARC alignment and domain reputation. Cisco Secure Email (formerly IronPort) – Outbound Handling and Integration Methods Outbound Logic Cisco Secure Email protects outbound email by preventing data loss (DLP), blocking spam and malware from internal accounts, stopping business email compromise (BEC) and impersonation attacks, and ensuring compliance. Cisco provides both traditional gateway appliances/cloud gateways and modern API-based solutions for layered outbound security. Integration Methods 1. Gateway Integration (MX Record / Smart Host) – Cisco Secure Email Gateway (ESA) How it works: Organizations update MX records to route mail through the Cisco Secure Email Gateway or configure their mail server (e.g., Microsoft 365, Exchange) to smart host outbound email via the gateway. All outbound mail is inspected and policies enforced before delivery. Protection level: Granular DLP (blocking, encrypting, quarantining sensitive content) Outbound spam and malware filtering to protect IP reputation Email encryption for sensitive outbound messages Comprehensive content and attachment policy enforcement SPF: Check this article for comprehensive guidance on Cisco SPF settings. DKIM: Refer to this article for detailed guidance on Cisco DKIM settings. 2. API Integration – Cisco Secure Email Threat Defense How it works: Integrates directly via API with Microsoft 365 (and potentially Google Workspace), continuously monitoring email metadata, content, and user behavior across inbound, outbound, and internal messages. Leverages Cisco’s threat intelligence and AI to detect anomalous outbound activity linked to BEC, account takeover, and phishing. Post-Delivery Remediation: Automates the removal or quarantine of malicious or policy-violating emails from mailboxes even after sending. Protection level: Advanced, AI-driven detection of sophisticated outbound threats with real-time monitoring and automated remediation. Complements gateway filtering by adding cloud-native visibility and swift post-send action. SPF/DKIM/DMARC impact: Since emails are sent directly by the original mail server, SPF and DKIM signatures remain intact, preserving DMARC alignment and domain reputation. If you have any questions or need assistance, feel free to reach out to EasyDMARC technical support.

Events Letterheads Per L'Horta: An Intimate International Meet The masses amass in Almàssera for an inspiring four days painting in the Valencian sun. Better Letters Jun 5, 2025 • 8 min read Letterheads Per L'Horta in Almàssera, Valencia, 1–4 May 2025. This time last month, over 45 guests from 11 countries were feeling the post-Letterheads blues after four days in the small town of Almàssera, just outside Valencia, Spain. Letterheads Per L'Horta was organised by Nico Barrios, and it was a wonderfully intimate experience, with a host of activities to enjoy and learn from.Something that made the event feel extra special was the involvement of people from the local community, who were just as much a part of it as those that had travelled from as far afield as Australia and Mexico to attend. This included bidding in the auction for a souvenir of the long weekend in May spent with friends, new and old.Almàssera and L'HortaAlmàssera is a small town set within a vast expanse of small-scale agricultural production. While each plot of land is known as a huerto (allotment), they are collectively referred to as horta, which doesn't really have a direct translation. The Horta Nord (North Horta) that surrounds Almàssera is the largest and best surviving example of this type of terrain.We were based in the town's Museu de l'Horta (Horta Museum), which consists of an old and a modern building with a yard between them that housed the panel jam area.A traditional alquería (farmhouse) in l'horta, a view down on the meet, and the tents protecting the panel jam area.Inside the modern building there was a selection of pieces from Juan Nava's 2022 Gráfica Urbana de Valencia (Urban Graphics of Valencia) exhibition. There was also a trip down memory lane for Valencian locals in the form of another exhibition, L'ombra de les lletres (the shadow of the letters), with photos of signs spanning the period 1880–2000.L'ombra de les lletres was originally curated by Tomàs Gorria in 2024. Pedal PowerAlmàssera, and the city of Valencia, are easily navigated by bicycle, which Nico used to facilitate a cycling tour of the old signs of l'horta. In addition to the stories of the individual companies advertised, he was also able to identify the painters responsible for some of the signs.The tour took guests into the heart of l'horta, which, as a largely agricultural area, boasts a surprising number of old and hand-painted signs.Panel JammingAfter a windy first day or so, the event was bathed in beautiful Mediterranean sunshine. The protective tents were essential, although those in the middle had to carefully manage their colour schemes in light of the red hue they cast across the easels.Getting painty in l'horta: Nathan Collis, Xis Gomes, Maria Cano, Mike Meyer, and Loughlin Brady Smith.Panels set to dry in the early evening sun.WorkshopsAcross the first three days, Thursday to Saturday, there was a series of lettering and calligraphy workshops that were also open to those outside of the Letterheads event proper.Pictured are workshops being led by Ester Gradolí, Juanjo López, and Joan Quiros.TV TimeThe meet was profiled in the local newspaper on the day before it opened, and then a TV crew turned up to cover proceedings.Local press coverage and Letterheads Per L'Horta host Nico Barrios being interviewed for the TV report. 0:00 /1:34 Letterheads Per L'Horta makes the news! If you look closely at the top of the paper that Daniel Esteve Carbonell is working on it says "Collons de rètol" (it's only a fucking sign) which clearly escaped the attention of the censors. Talks & DemosIn addition to workshops, the museum building also hosted a busy programme of talks. These were delivered by the Asociación de Diseñadores de la Comunidad Valenciana (Valencian Graphic Design Association), the errorerror.studio creative typography studio, graphic designer Juan Nava, and type designer Juanjo López.Juan Nava talking about the evolution of his Letras Recuperadas (Recovered Letters) project, previously featured here at bl.ag online.One of the highlights was hearing from veteran local sign painters Ricardo Moreno and Paco Vivó, both of whom appear in the Tipos Que Importan film that was screened. They were interviewed by Nico and brought a host of goods with them, including their sign kits, photographic portfolios, work samples, books, and other reference materials.Ricardo (in glasses) and Paco (with beard) were mobbed after talking about their lives on the brush in Valencia.Following the session, everyone moved outside to watch Paco Vivó paint one of the motifs that he produced many times in his career: the Pepsi-Cola bottle top.Paco Vivó painted his demonstration piece on a canvas which was subsequently sold in the auction.Meanwhile, over in the town square, David Vanderh had set up his screenprinting station to apply Nico's event design in a single colour to any material that the public brought to him.The live screenprinting was in just blue, while the official event t-shirt combined this with a striking orange.Panels on Show and on SaleOn the Sunday, a small exhibition was mounted with the panels that folks could bid on in the auction. This was an open invitation, with those from the neighbourhood stopping by to inspect and snag some goods.Panels getting ready for new owners in the charity auction.Panels by Veronika Skilte (Vermut), Joe Coleman (Mental on the Rental), Rachel E Millar (Rotulos, Gracias), and Victor Calligraphy.This panel (right) by Joe Coleman was inspired by the truck lettering that was a lucky incidental on the earlier cycling tour.The auction raised over 2,000€ in support of those affected by the devastating DANA floods in 2024.The assembled crowd were ready with open wallets as the auction got underway.The auction was expertly hosted by Mike Meyer and Nico Barrios, with Nil Muge logging all the winning bids and accounting for the cash payments.Thank YouAs with any event, the photos never show the challenges that must be overcome behind the scenes. Some of these were substantial but Nico took each one in his stride, maintaining a smile throughout. Thank you, Nico, for facilitating these special days that will live long in the collective memory.Letterheads Per L'Horta host Nico Barrios.Letterheads Per L'Horta was hosted by Nico Barrios with the support of the following organisations: AVV Carraixet d'Almàssera; Ajuntament d'Almàssera; BLAG; A.S. Handover; 1 Shot; ADCV; gráffica. Also check out the event's dedicated Instagram account, @letterheadsperlhorta, for even more photos and videos. More LetterheadsFuture Meets

As a Canadian who has spent the last two and a half years working as an intern architect in Helsinki, these questions have been on my mind. In my current role, I have had the opportunity to participate in numerous architectural competitions arranged by Finnish municipalities and public institutions. It has been my observation that the Finnish system of open, anonymous architectural competitions consistently produces elegant and highly functional public buildings at reasonable cost and at great benefit to the lives of the everyday people for whom the projects are intended to serve. Could Canada benefit from the adoption of a similar model? ‘Public project’ has never been a clearly defined term and may bring to mind the image of a bustling library for some while conjuring the image of a municipal power substation for others. In the context of this discussion, I will use the term to refer to projects that are explicitly in-service of the broader public such as community centres, museums, and other cultural venues. Finland’s architectural competition system Frequented by nearly 2 million visitors per year, the Oodi Central Library in Helsinki, Finland, has become a thriving cultural hub and an internationally recognized symbol of Finnish design innovation. Designed by ALA Architects, the project was procured through a 2-stage, open, international architectural competition. Photo by Ninara (flickr, CC BY 2.0) In Finland, most notable public projects begin with an architectural competition. Some are limited to invited participants only, but the majority of these competitions are open to international submissions. Importantly, the authors of any given proposal remain anonymous with regards to the jury. This ensures that all proposals are evaluated purely on quality without bias towards established firms over lesser known competitors. The project budget is known in advance to the competition entrants and cost feasibility is an important factor weighed by the jury. However, the cost for the design services to be procured from the winning entry is fixed ahead of time, preventing companies from lowballing offers in the hopes of securing an interesting commission despite the inevitable compromises in quality that come with under-resourced design work. The result: inspired, functional public spaces are the norm, not the exception. Contrasted against the sea of forgettable public architecture to be found in cities large and small across Canada, the Finnish model paints a utopic picture. Several award-winning projects in my current place of employment in Helsinki have been the result of successes in open architectural competitions. The origin of the firm itself stemmed from a winning competition entry for a church in a small village submitted by the firm’s founder while he was still completing his architectural studies.  At that time, many architecture firms in Finland were founded in this manner with the publicity of a competition win serving as a career launching off point for young architects. While less common today, many students and recent graduates still participate in these design competitions. On the occasion that a young practitioner wins a competition, they are required to assemble a team with the necessary expertise and qualifications to satisfy the requirements of the jury. I believe there is a direct link between the high architectural quality outcomes of these competitions and the fact that they are conducted anonymously. The opening of these competitions to submissions from companies outside of Finland further enhances the diversity of entries and fosters international interest in the goings-on of Finland’s architectural scene. Nonetheless, it is worth acknowledging that exemplary projects have also resulted from invited and privately organized competitions. Ultimately, the mindset of the client, the selection of an appropriate jury, and the existence of sufficient incentives for architects to invest significant time in their proposals play a more critical role in shaping the quality of the final outcome. Tikkurila Church and Housing in Vantaa, Finland, hosts a diverse range of functions including a café, community event spaces and student housing. Designed by OOPEAA in collaboration with a local builder, the project was realized as the result of a competition organized by local Finnish and Swedish parishes. Photo by Marc Goodwin Finland’s competition system, administered by the Finnish Association of Architects (SAFA), is not limited to major public projects such as museums, libraries and city halls. A significant number of idea competitions are organized seeking compelling visions for urban masterplans. The quality of this system has received international recognition. To quote a research paper from a Swedish university on the structure, criteria and judgement process of Finnish architectural competitions, “The Finnish (competition) experience can provide a rich information source for scholars and students studying the structure and process of competition system and architectural judgement, as well as those concerned with commissioning and financing of competitions due to innovative solutions found in the realms of urban revitalization, poverty elimination, environmental pollution, cultural and socio-spatial renewals, and democratization of design and planning process.” This has not gone entirely under the radar in Canada. According to the website of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC), “Competitions are common in countries such as Finland, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. These competitions have resulted in a high quality of design as well as creating public interest in the role of architecture in national and community life.” Canada’s architectural competition system In Canada, the RAIC sets general competition guidelines while provincial and territorial architect associations are typically responsible for the oversight of any endorsed architectural competition. Although the idea of implementing European architectural competition models has been gaining traction in recent years, competitions remain relatively rare even for significant public projects. While Canada is yet to fully embrace competition systems as a powerful tool for ensuring higher quality public spaces, success stories from various corners of the country have opened up constructive conversations. In Edmonton, unconventional, competitive procurement efforts spearheaded by city architect Carol Belanger have produced some remarkable public buildings. This has not gone unnoticed in other parts of the country where consistent banality is the norm for public projects. Jasper Place Branch Library designed by HCMA and Dub Architects is one of several striking projects in Edmonton built under reimagined commissioning processes which broaden the pool of design practices eligible to participate and give greater weight to design quality as an evaluation criterion. Photo by Hubert Kang The wider applicability of competition systems as a positive mechanism for securing better public architecture has also started to receive broader discussion. In my hometown of Ottawa, this system has been used to procure several powerful monuments and, more recently, to select a design for the redevelopment of a key city block across from Parliament Hill. The volume and quality of entries, including from internationally renowned architectural practices, attests to the strengths of the open competition format. Render of the winning entry for the Block 2 Redevelopment in Ottawa. This 2-stage competition was overseen directly by the RAIC. Design and render by Zeidler Architecture Inc. in cooperation with David Chipperfield Architects. Despite these successes, there is significant room for improvement. A key barrier to wider adoption of competition practices according to the RAIC is “…that potential sponsors are not familiar with competitions or may consider the competition process to be complicated, expensive, and time consuming.” This is understandable for private actors, but an unsatisfactory answer in the case of public, tax-payer funded projects. Finland’s success has come through the normalization of competitions for public project procurement. We should endeavour to do the same. Maintaining design contribution anonymity prior to jury decision has thus far been the exception, not the norm in Canada. This reduces the credibility of the jury without improving the result. Additionally, the financing of such competitions has been piece-meal and inconsistent. For example, several world-class schools have been realized in Quebec as the result of competitions funded by a provincial investment.  With the depletion of that fund, it is no longer clear if any further schools will be commissioned in Quebec under a similar model. While high quality documentation has been produced, there is a risk that developed expertise will be lost if the team of professionals responsible for overseeing the process is not retained. École du Zénith in Shefford, Quebec, designed by Pelletier de Fontenay + Leclerc Architectes is one of six elegant and functional schools commission by the province through an anonymous competition process. Photo by James Brittain A path forward Now more than ever, it is essential that our public projects instill in us a sense of pride and reflect our uniquely Canadian values. This will continue to be a rare occurrence until more ambitious measures are taken to ensure the consistent realization of beautiful, innovative and functional public spaces that connect us with one another. In service of this objective, Canada should incentivize architectural competitions by normalizing their use for major public projects such as national museums, libraries and cultural centres. A dedicated Competitions Fund could be established to support provinces, territories and cities who demonstrate initiative in the pursuit of more ambitious, inspiring and equitable public projects. A National Competitions Expert could be appointed to ensure retention and dissemination of expertise. Maintaining the anonymity of competition entrants should be established as the norm. At a moment when talk of removing inter-provincial trade barriers has re-entered public discourse, why not consider striking down red tape that prevents out-of-province firms from participating in architectural competitions? Alas, one can dream. Competitions are no silver bullet. However, recent trials within our borders should give us confidence that architectural competitions are a relatively low-risk, high-reward proposition. To this end, Finland’s open, anonymous competition system offers a compelling case study from which we would be well served to take inspiration. Isaac Edmonds is a Canadian working for OOPEAA – Office for Peripheral Architecture in Helsinki, Finland. My observations of the Finnish competition system’s ability to consistently produce functional, beautiful buildings inform my interest in procurement methods that elevate the quality of our shared public realm. The post Op-Ed: Could Canada benefit from adopting Finland’s architectural competition system? appeared first on Canadian Architect.

After stellar FY25 results; This consumer electronics company’s promoters sold 1,00,00,000 shares; Reinvest proceeds to boost growth and liquidity, Retain 45.8% stake  DSIJ

미스트랄 코드는 보안과 컴플라이언스를 중시하는 대기업 환경을 대상으로 한 AI 코딩 어시스턴트로, AI 모델, IDE 내 어시스턴트, 로컬 배포 옵션, 엔터프라이즈용 툴링을 하나의 패키지로 통합한 것이 특징이다. 기반 기술은 오픈소스 AI 코딩 도구인 ‘컨티뉴(Continue)’를 활용했다. 현재 젯브레인IDE와 VS코드용 비공개 베타 버전으로 이 기술을 체험할 수 있으며, 정식 출시는 곧 이뤄질 예정이

Every few weeks, it seems like there’s a new headline about a lawyer getting in trouble for submitting filings containing, in the words of one judge, “bogus AI-generated research.” The details vary, but the throughline is the same: an attorney turns to a large language model (LLM) like ChatGPT to help them with legal research (or worse, writing), the LLM hallucinates cases that don’t exist, and the lawyer is none the wiser until the judge or opposing counsel points out their mistake. In some cases, including an aviation lawsuit from 2023, attorneys have had to pay fines for submitting filings with AI-generated hallucinations. So why haven’t they stopped?The answer mostly comes down to time crunches, and the way AI has crept into nearly every profession. Legal research databases like LexisNexis and Westlaw have AI integrations now. For lawyers juggling big caseloads, AI can seem like an incredibly efficient assistant. Most lawyers aren’t necessarily using ChatGPT to write their filings, but they are increasingly using it and other LLMs for research. Yet many of these lawyers, like much of the public, don’t understand exactly what LLMs are or how they work. One attorney who was sanctioned in 2023 said he thought ChatGPT was a “super search engine.” It took submitting a filing with fake citations to reveal that it’s more like a random-phrase generator — one that could give you either correct information or convincingly phrased nonsense.Andrew Perlman, the dean of Suffolk University Law School, argues many lawyers are using AI tools without incident, and the ones who get caught with fake citations are outliers. “I think that what we’re seeing now — although these problems of hallucination are real, and lawyers have to take it very seriously and be careful about it — doesn’t mean that these tools don’t have enormous possible benefits and use cases for the delivery of legal services,” Perlman said. Legal databases and research systems like Westlaw are incorporating AI services.In fact, 63 percent of lawyers surveyed by Thomson Reuters in 2024 said they’ve used AI in the past, and 12 percent said they use it regularly. Respondents said they use AI to write summaries of case law and to research “case law, statutes, forms or sample language for orders.” The attorneys surveyed by Thomson Reuters see it as a time-saving tool, and half of those surveyed said “exploring the potential for implementing AI” at work is their highest priority. “The role of a good lawyer is as a ‘trusted advisor’ not as a producer of documents,” one respondent said. But as plenty of recent examples have shown, the documents produced by AI aren’t always accurate, and in some cases aren’t real at all.RelatedIn one recent high-profile case, lawyers for journalist Tim Burke, who was arrested for publishing unaired Fox News footage in 2024, submitted a motion to dismiss the case against him on First Amendment grounds. After discovering that the filing included “significant misrepresentations and misquotations of supposedly pertinent case law and history,” Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, of Florida’s middle district, ordered the motion to be stricken from the case record. Mizelle found nine hallucinations in the document, according to the Tampa Bay Times.Mizelle ultimately let Burke’s lawyers, Mark Rasch and Michael Maddux, submit a new motion. In a separate filing explaining the mistakes, Rasch wrote that he “assumes sole and exclusive responsibility for these errors.” Rasch said he used the “deep research” feature on ChatGPT pro, which The Verge has previously tested with mixed results, as well as Westlaw’s AI feature.Rasch isn’t alone. Lawyers representing Anthropic recently admitted to using the company’s Claude AI to help write an expert witness declaration submitted as part of the copyright infringement lawsuit brought against Anthropic by music publishers. That filing included a citation with an “inaccurate title and inaccurate authors.” Last December, misinformation expert Jeff Hancock admitted he used ChatGPT to help organize citations in a declaration he submitted in support of a Minnesota law regulating deepfake use. Hancock’s filing included “two citation errors, popularly referred to as ‘hallucinations,’” and incorrectly listed authors for another citation. These documents do, in fact, matter — at least in the eyes of judges. In a recent case, a California judge presiding over a case against State Farm was initially swayed by arguments in a brief, only to find that the case law cited was completely made up. “I read their brief, was persuaded (or at least intrigued) by the authorities that they cited, and looked up the decisions to learn more about them – only to find that they didn’t exist,” Judge Michael Wilner wrote.Perlman said there are several less risky ways lawyers use generative AI in their work, including finding information in large tranches of discovery documents, reviewing briefs or filings, and brainstorming possible arguments or possible opposing views. “I think in almost every task, there are ways in which generative AI can be useful — not a substitute for lawyers’ judgment, not a substitute for the expertise that lawyers bring to the table, but in order to supplement what lawyers do and enable them to do their work better, faster, and cheaper,” Perlman said.But like anyone using AI tools, lawyers who rely on them to help with legal research and writing need to be careful to check the work they produce, Perlman said. Part of the problem is that attorneys often find themselves short on time — an issue he says existed before LLMs came into the picture. “Even before the emergence of generative AI, lawyers would file documents with citations that didn’t really address the issue that they claimed to be addressing,” Perlman said. “It was just a different kind of problem. Sometimes when lawyers are rushed, they insert citations, they don’t properly check them; they don’t really see if the case has been overturned or overruled.” (That said, the cases do at least typically exist.)Another, more insidious problem is the fact that attorneys — like others who use LLMs to help with research and writing — are too trusting of what AI produces. “I think many people are lulled into a sense of comfort with the output, because it appears at first glance to be so well crafted,” Perlman said.Alexander Kolodin, an election lawyer and Republican state representative in Arizona, said he treats ChatGPT as a junior-level associate. He’s also used ChatGPT to help write legislation. In 2024, he included AI text in part of a bill on deepfakes, having the LLM provide the “baseline definition” of what deepfakes are and then “I, the human, added in the protections for human rights, things like that it excludes comedy, satire, criticism, artistic expression, that kind of stuff,” Kolodin told The Guardian at the time. Kolodin said he “may have” discussed his use of ChatGPT with the bill’s main Democratic cosponsor but otherwise wanted it to be “an Easter egg” in the bill. The bill passed into law. Kolodin — who was sanctioned by the Arizona State Bar in 2020 for his involvement in lawsuits challenging the result of the 2020 election — has also used ChatGPT to write first drafts of amendments, and told The Verge he uses it for legal research as well. To avoid the hallucination problem, he said, he just checks the citations to make sure they’re real.“You don’t just typically send out a junior associate’s work product without checking the citations,” said Kolodin. “It’s not just machines that hallucinate; a junior associate could read the case wrong, it doesn’t really stand for the proposition cited anyway, whatever. You still have to cite-check it, but you have to do that with an associate anyway, unless they were pretty experienced.”Kolodin said he uses both ChatGPT’s pro “deep research” tool and the LexisNexis AI tool. Like Westlaw, LexisNexis is a legal research tool primarily used by attorneys. Kolodin said that in his experience, it has a higher hallucination rate than ChatGPT, which he says has “gone down substantially over the past year.” AI use among lawyers has become so prevalent that in 2024, the American Bar Association issued its first guidance on attorneys’ use of LLMs and other AI tools. Lawyers who use AI tools “have a duty of competence, including maintaining relevant technological competence, which requires an understanding of the evolving nature” of generative AI, the opinion reads. The guidance advises lawyers to “acquire a general understanding of the benefits and risks of the GAI tools” they use — or, in other words, to not assume that an LLM is a “super search engine.” Attorneys should also weigh the confidentiality risks of inputting information relating to their cases into LLMs and consider whether to tell their clients about their use of LLMs and other AI tools, it states.Perlman is bullish on lawyers’ use of AI. “I do think that generative AI is going to be the most impactful technology the legal profession has ever seen and that lawyers will be expected to use these tools in the future,” he said. “I think that at some point, we will stop worrying about the competence of lawyers who use these tools and start worrying about the competence of lawyers who don’t.”Others, including one of the judges who sanctioned lawyers for submitting a filing full of AI-generated hallucinations, are more skeptical. “Even with recent advances,” Wilner wrote, “no reasonably competent attorney should out-source research and writing to this technology — particularly without any attempt to verify the accuracy of that material.”See More:

Once again, Sam Altman wants to show you the future. The CEO of OpenAI is standing on a sparse stage in San Francisco, preparing to reveal his next move to an attentive crowd. “We needed some way for identifying, authenticating humans in the age of AGI,” Altman explains, referring to artificial general intelligence. “We wanted a way to make sure that humans stayed special and central.” The solution Altman came up with is looming behind him. It’s a white sphere about the size of a beach ball, with a camera at its center. The company that makes it, known as Tools for Humanity, calls this mysterious device the Orb. Stare into the heart of the plastic-and-silicon globe and it will map the unique furrows and ciliary zones of your iris. Seconds later, you’ll receive inviolable proof of your humanity: a 12,800-digit binary number, known as an iris code, sent to an app on your phone. At the same time, a packet of cryptocurrency called Worldcoin, worth approximately $42, will be transferred to your digital wallet—your reward for becoming a “verified human.” Altman co-founded Tools for Humanity in 2019 as part of a suite of companies he believed would reshape the world. Once the tech he was developing at OpenAI passed a certain level of intelligence, he reasoned, it would mark the end of one era on the Internet and the beginning of another, in which AI became so advanced, so human-like, that you would no longer be able to tell whether what you read, saw, or heard online came from a real person. When that happened, Altman imagined, we would need a new kind of online infrastructure: a human-verification layer for the Internet, to distinguish real people from the proliferating number of bots and AI “agents.”And so Tools for Humanity set out to build a global “proof-of-humanity” network. It aims to verify 50 million people by the end of 2025; ultimately its goal is to sign up every single human being on the planet. The free crypto serves as both an incentive for users to sign up, and also an entry point into what the company hopes will become the world’s largest financial network, through which it believes “double-digit percentages of the global economy” will eventually flow. Even for Altman, these missions are audacious. “If this really works, it’s like a fundamental piece of infrastructure for the world,” Altman tells TIME in a video interview from the passenger seat of a car a few days before his April 30 keynote address.Internal hardware of the Orb in mid-assembly in March. Davide Monteleone for TIMEThe project’s goal is to solve a problem partly of Altman’s own making. In the near future, he and other tech leaders say, advanced AIs will be imbued with agency: the ability to not just respond to human prompting, but to take actions independently in the world. This will enable the creation of AI coworkers that can drop into your company and begin solving problems; AI tutors that can adapt their teaching style to students’ preferences; even AI doctors that can diagnose routine cases and handle scheduling or logistics. The arrival of these virtual agents, their venture capitalist backers predict, will turbocharge our productivity and unleash an age of material abundance.But AI agents will also have cascading consequences for the human experience online. “As AI systems become harder to distinguish from people, websites may face difficult trade-offs,” says a recent paper by researchers from 25 different universities, nonprofits, and tech companies, including OpenAI. “There is a significant risk that digital institutions will be unprepared for a time when AI-powered agents, including those leveraged by malicious actors, overwhelm other activity online.” On social-media platforms like X and Facebook, bot-driven accounts are amassing billions of views on AI-generated content. In April, the foundation that runs Wikipedia disclosed that AI bots scraping their site were making the encyclopedia too costly to sustainably run. Later the same month, researchers from the University of Zurich found that AI-generated comments on the subreddit /r/ChangeMyView were up to six times more successful than human-written ones at persuading unknowing users to change their minds.  Photograph by Davide Monteleone for TIMEBuy a copy of the Orb issue hereThe arrival of agents won’t only threaten our ability to distinguish between authentic and AI content online. It will also challenge the Internet’s core business model, online advertising, which relies on the assumption that ads are being viewed by humans. “The Internet will change very drastically sometime in the next 12 to 24 months,” says Tools for Humanity CEO Alex Blania. “So we have to succeed, or I’m not sure what else would happen.”For four years, Blania’s team has been testing the Orb’s hardware abroad. Now the U.S. rollout has arrived. Over the next 12 months, 7,500 Orbs will be arriving in dozens of American cities, in locations like gas stations, bodegas, and flagship stores in Los Angeles, Austin, and Miami. The project’s founders and fans hope the Orb’s U.S. debut will kickstart a new phase of growth. The San Francisco keynote was titled: “At Last.” It’s not clear the public appetite matches the exultant branding. Tools for Humanity has “verified” just 12 million humans since mid 2023, a pace Blania concedes is well behind schedule. Few online platforms currently support the so-called “World ID” that the Orb bestows upon its visitors, leaving little to entice users to give up their biometrics beyond the lure of free crypto. Even Altman isn’t sure whether the whole thing can work. “I can see [how] this becomes a fairly mainstream thing in a few years,” he says. “Or I can see that it’s still only used by a small subset of people who think about the world in a certain way.” Blania (left) and Altman debut the Orb at World’s U.S. launch in San Francisco on April 30, 2025. Jason Henry—The New York Times/ReduxYet as the Internet becomes overrun with AI, the creators of this strange new piece of hardware are betting that everybody in the world will soon want—or need—to visit an Orb. The biometric code it creates, they predict, will become a new type of digital passport, without which you might be denied passage to the Internet of the future, from dating apps to government services. In a best-case scenario, World ID could be a privacy-preserving way to fortify the Internet against an AI-driven deluge of fake or deceptive content. It could also enable the distribution of universal basic income (UBI)—a policy that Altman has previously touted—as AI automation transforms the global economy. To examine what this new technology might mean, I reported from three continents, interviewed 10 Tools for Humanity executives and investors, reviewed hundreds of pages of company documents, and “verified” my own humanity. The Internet will inevitably need some kind of proof-of-humanity system in the near future, says Divya Siddarth, founder of the nonprofit Collective Intelligence Project. The real question, she argues, is whether such a system will be centralized—“a big security nightmare that enables a lot of surveillance”—or privacy-preserving, as the Orb claims to be. Questions remain about Tools for Humanity’s corporate structure, its yoking to an unstable cryptocurrency, and what power it would concentrate in the hands of its owners if successful. Yet it’s also one of the only attempts to solve what many see as an increasingly urgent problem. “There are some issues with it,” Siddarth says of World ID. “But you can’t preserve the Internet in amber. Something in this direction is necessary.”In March, I met Blania at Tools for Humanity’s San Francisco headquarters, where a large screen displays the number of weekly “Orb verifications” by country. A few days earlier, the CEO had attended a $1 million-per-head dinner at Mar-a-Lago with President Donald Trump, whom he credits with clearing the way for the company’s U.S. launch by relaxing crypto regulations. “Given Sam is a very high profile target,” Blania says, “we just decided that we would let other companies fight that fight, and enter the U.S. once the air is clear.” As a kid growing up in Germany, Blania was a little different than his peers. “Other kids were, like, drinking a lot, or doing a lot of parties, and I was just building a lot of things that could potentially blow up,” he recalls. At the California Institute of Technology, where he was pursuing research for a masters degree, he spent many evenings reading the blogs of startup gurus like Paul Graham and Altman. Then, in 2019, Blania received an email from Max Novendstern, an entrepreneur who had been kicking around a concept with Altman to build a global cryptocurrency network. They were looking for technical minds to help with the project. Over cappuccinos, Altman told Blania he was certain about three things. First, smarter-than-human AI was not only possible, but inevitable—and it would soon mean you could no longer assume that anything you read, saw, or heard on the Internet was human-created. Second, cryptocurrency and other decentralized technologies would be a massive force for change in the world. And third, scale was essential to any crypto network’s value. The Orb is tested on a calibration rig, surrounded by checkerboard targets to ensure precision in iris detection. Davide Monteleone for TIMEThe goal of Worldcoin, as the project was initially called, was to combine those three insights. Altman took a lesson from PayPal, the company co-founded by his mentor Peter Thiel. Of its initial funding, PayPal spent less than $10 million actually building its app—but pumped an additional $70 million or so into a referral program, whereby new users and the person who invited them would each receive $10 in credit. The referral program helped make PayPal a leading payment platform. Altman thought a version of that strategy would propel Worldcoin to similar heights. He wanted to create a new cryptocurrency and give it to users as a reward for signing up. The more people who joined the system, the higher the token’s value would theoretically rise. Since 2019, the project has raised $244 million from investors like Coinbase and the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. That money paid for the $50 million cost of designing the Orb, plus maintaining the software it runs on. The total market value of all Worldcoins in existence, however, is far higher—around $12 billion. That number is a bit misleading: most of those coins are not in circulation and Worldcoin’s price has fluctuated wildly. Still, it allows the company to reward users for signing up at no cost to itself. The main lure for investors is the crypto upside. Some 75% of all Worldcoins are set aside for humans to claim when they sign up, or as referral bonuses. The remaining 25% are split between Tools for Humanity’s backers and staff, including Blania and Altman. “I’m really excited to make a lot of money,” ” Blania says.From the beginning, Altman was thinking about the consequences of the AI revolution he intended to unleash. (On May 21, he announced plans to team up with famed former Apple designer Jony Ive on a new AI personal device.) A future in which advanced AI could perform most tasks more effectively than humans would bring a wave of unemployment and economic dislocation, he reasoned. Some kind of wealth redistribution might be necessary. In 2016, he partially funded a study of basic income, which gave $1,000 per-month handouts to low-income individuals in Illinois and Texas. But there was no single financial system that would allow money to be sent to everybody in the world. Nor was there a way to stop an individual human from claiming their share twice—or to identify a sophisticated AI pretending to be human and pocketing some cash of its own. In 2023, Tools for Humanity raised the possibility of using the network to redistribute the profits of AI labs that were able to automate human labor. “As AI advances,” it said, “fairly distributing access and some of the created value through UBI will play an increasingly vital role in counteracting the concentration of economic power.”Blania was taken by the pitch, and agreed to join the project as a co-founder. “Most people told us we were very stupid or crazy or insane, including Silicon Valley investors,” Blania says. At least until ChatGPT came out in 2022, transforming OpenAI into one of the world’s most famous tech companies and kickstarting a market bull-run. “Things suddenly started to make more and more sense to the external world,” Blania says of the vision to develop a global “proof-of-humanity” network. “You have to imagine a world in which you will have very smart and competent systems somehow flying through the Internet with different goals and ideas of what they want to do, and us having no idea anymore what we’re dealing with.”After our interview, Blania’s head of communications ushers me over to a circular wooden structure where eight Orbs face one another. The scene feels like a cross between an Apple Store and a ceremonial altar. “Do you want to get verified?” she asks. Putting aside my reservations for the purposes of research, I download the World App and follow its prompts. I flash a QR code at the Orb, then gaze into it. A minute or so later, my phone buzzes with confirmation: I’ve been issued my own personal World ID and some Worldcoin.The first thing the Orb does is check if you’re human, using a neural network that takes input from various sensors, including an infrared camera and a thermometer. Davide Monteleone for TIMEWhile I stared into the Orb, several complex procedures had taken place at once. A neural network took inputs from multiple sensors—an infrared camera, a thermometer—to confirm I was a living human. Simultaneously, a telephoto lens zoomed in on my iris, capturing the physical traits within that distinguish me from every other human on Earth. It then converted that image into an iris code: a numerical abstraction of my unique biometric data. Then the Orb checked to see if my iris code matched any it had seen before, using a technique allowing encrypted data to be compared without revealing the underlying information. Before the Orb deleted my data, it turned my iris code into several derivative codes—none of which on its own can be linked back to the original—encrypted them, deleted the only copies of the decryption keys, and sent each one to a different secure server, so that future users’ iris codes can be checked for uniqueness against mine. If I were to use my World ID to access a website, that site would learn nothing about me except that I’m human. The Orb is open-source, so outside experts can examine its code and verify the company’s privacy claims. “I did a colonoscopy on this company and these technologies before I agreed to join,” says Trevor Traina, a Trump donor and former U.S. ambassador to Austria who now serves as Tools for Humanity’s chief business officer. “It is the most privacy-preserving technology on the planet.”Only weeks later, when researching what would happen if I wanted to delete my data, do I discover that Tools for Humanity’s privacy claims rest on what feels like a sleight of hand. The company argues that in modifying your iris code, it has “effectively anonymized” your biometric data. If you ask Tools for Humanity to delete your iris codes, they will delete the one stored on your phone, but not the derivatives. Those, they argue, are no longer your personal data at all. But if I were to return to an Orb after deleting my data, it would still recognize those codes as uniquely mine. Once you look into the Orb, a piece of your identity remains in the system forever. If users could truly delete that data, the premise of one ID per human would collapse, Tools for Humanity’s chief privacy officer Damien Kieran tells me when I call seeking an explanation. People could delete and sign up for new World IDs after being suspended from a platform. Or claim their Worldcoin tokens, sell them, delete their data, and cash in again. This argument fell flat with European Union regulators in Germany, who recently declared that the Orb posed “fundamental data protection issues” and ordered the company to allow European users to fully delete even their anonymized data. (Tools for Humanity has appealed; the regulator is now reassessing the decision.) “Just like any other technology service, users cannot delete data that is not personal data,” Kieran said in a statement. “If a person could delete anonymized data that can’t be linked to them by World or any third party, it would allow bad actors to circumvent the security and safety that World ID is working to bring to every human.”On a balmy afternoon this spring, I climb a flight of stairs up to a room above a restaurant in an outer suburb of Seoul. Five elderly South Koreans tap on their phones as they wait to be “verified” by the two Orbs in the center of the room. “We don’t really know how to distinguish between AI and humans anymore,” an attendant in a company t-shirt explains in Korean, gesturing toward the spheres. “We need a way to verify that we’re human and not AI. So how do we do that? Well, humans have irises, but AI doesn’t.”The attendant ushers an elderly woman over to an Orb. It bleeps. “Open your eyes,” a disembodied voice says in English. The woman stares into the camera. Seconds later, she checks her phone and sees that a packet of Worldcoin worth 75,000 Korean won (about $54) has landed in her digital wallet. Congratulations, the app tells her. You are now a verified human.A visitor views the Orbs in Seoul on April 14, 2025. Taemin Ha for TIMETools for Humanity aims to “verify” 1 million Koreans over the next year. Taemin Ha for TIMEA couple dozen Orbs have been available in South Korea since 2023, verifying roughly 55,000 people. Now Tools for Humanity is redoubling its efforts there. At an event in a traditional wooden hanok house in central Seoul, an executive announces that 250 Orbs will soon be dispersed around the country—with the aim of verifying 1 million Koreans in the next 12 months. South Korea has high levels of smartphone usage, crypto and AI adoption, and Internet access, while average wages are modest enough for the free Worldcoin on offer to still be an enticing draw—all of which makes it fertile testing ground for the company’s ambitious global expansion. Yet things seem off to a slow start. In a retail space I visited in central Seoul, Tools for Humanity had constructed a wooden structure with eight Orbs facing each other. Locals and tourists wander past looking bemused; few volunteer themselves up. Most who do tell me they are crypto enthusiasts who came intentionally, driven more by the spirit of early adoption than the free coins. The next day, I visit a coffee shop in central Seoul where a chrome Orb sits unassumingly in one corner. Wu Ruijun, a 20-year-old student from China, strikes up a conversation with the barista, who doubles as the Orb’s operator. Wu was invited here by a friend who said both could claim free cryptocurrency if he signed up. The barista speeds him through the process. Wu accepts the privacy disclosure without reading it, and widens his eyes for the Orb. Soon he’s verified. “I wasn’t told anything about the privacy policy,” he says on his way out. “I just came for the money.”As Altman’s car winds through San Francisco, I ask about the vision he laid out in 2019: that AI would make it harder for us to trust each other online. To my surprise, he rejects the framing. “I’m much more [about] like: what is the good we can create, rather than the bad we can stop?” he says. “It’s not like, ‘Oh, we’ve got to avoid the bot overrun’ or whatever. It’s just that we can do a lot of special things for humans.” It’s an answer that may reflect how his role has changed over the years. Altman is now the chief public cheerleader of a $300 billion company that’s touting the transformative utility of AI agents. The rise of agents, he and others say, will be a boon for our quality of life—like having an assistant on hand who can answer your most pressing questions, carry out mundane tasks, and help you develop new skills. It’s an optimistic vision that may well pan out. But it doesn’t quite fit with the prophecies of AI-enabled infopocalypse that Tools for Humanity was founded upon.Altman waves away a question about the influence he and other investors stand to gain if their vision is realized. Most holders, he assumes, will have already started selling their tokens—too early, he adds. “What I think would be bad is if an early crew had a lot of control over the protocol,” he says, “and that’s where I think the commitment to decentralization is so cool.” Altman is referring to the World Protocol, the underlying technology upon which the Orb, Worldcoin, and World ID all rely. Tools for Humanity is developing it, but has committed to giving control to its users over time—a process they say will prevent power from being concentrated in the hands of a few executives or investors. Tools for Humanity would remain a for-profit company, and could levy fees on platforms that use World ID, but other companies would be able to compete for customers by building alternative apps—or even alternative Orbs. The plan draws on ideas that animated the crypto ecosystem in the late 2010s and early 2020s, when evangelists for emerging blockchain technologies argued that the centralization of power—especially in large so-called “Web 2.0” tech companies—was responsible for many of the problems plaguing the modern Internet. Just as decentralized cryptocurrencies could reform a financial system controlled by economic elites, so too would it be possible to create decentralized organizations, run by their members instead of CEOs. How such a system might work in practice remains unclear. “Building a community-based governance system,” Tools for Humanity says in a 2023 white paper, “represents perhaps the most formidable challenge of the entire project.”Altman has a pattern of making idealistic promises that shift over time. He founded OpenAI as a nonprofit in 2015, with a mission to develop AGI safely and for the benefit of all humanity. To raise money, OpenAI restructured itself as a for-profit company in 2019, but with overall control still in the hands of its nonprofit board. Last year, Altman proposed yet another restructure—one which would dilute the board’s control and allow more profits to flow to shareholders. Why, I ask, should the public trust Tools for Humanity’s commitment to freely surrender influence and power? “I think you will just see the continued decentralization via the protocol,” he says. “The value here is going to live in the network, and the network will be owned and governed by a lot of people.” Altman talks less about universal basic income these days. He recently mused about an alternative, which he called “universal basic compute.” Instead of AI companies redistributing their profits, he seemed to suggest, they could instead give everyone in the world fair access to super-powerful AI. Blania tells me he recently “made the decision to stop talking” about UBI at Tools for Humanity. “UBI is one potential answer,” he says. “Just giving [people] access to the latest [AI] models and having them learn faster and better is another.” Says Altman: “I still don’t know what the right answer is. I believe we should do a better job of distribution of resources than we currently do.” When I probe the question of why people should trust him, Altman gets irritated. “I understand that you hate AI, and that’s fine,” he says. “If you want to frame it as the downside of AI is that there’s going to be a proliferation of very convincing AI systems that are pretending to be human, and we need ways to know what is really human-authorized versus not, then yeah, I think you can call that a downside of AI. It’s not how I would naturally frame it.” The phrase human-authorized hints at a tension between World ID and OpenAI’s plans for AI agents. An Internet where a World ID is required to access most services might impede the usefulness of the agents that OpenAI and others are developing. So Tools for Humanity is building a system that would allow users to delegate their World ID to an agent, allowing the bot to take actions online on their behalf, according to Tiago Sada, the company’s chief product officer. “We’ve built everything in a way that can be very easily delegatable to an agent,” Sada says. It’s a measure that would allow humans to be held accountable for the actions of their AIs. But it suggests that Tools for Humanity’s mission may be shifting beyond simply proving humanity, and toward becoming the infrastructure that enables AI agents to proliferate with human authorization. World ID doesn’t tell you whether a piece of content is AI-generated or human-generated; all it tells you is whether the account that posted it is a human or a bot. Even in a world where everybody had a World ID, our online spaces might still be filled with AI-generated text, images, and videos.As I say goodbye to Altman, I’m left feeling conflicted about his project. If the Internet is going to be transformed by AI agents, then some kind of proof-of-humanity system will almost certainly be necessary. Yet if the Orb becomes a piece of Internet infrastructure, it could give Altman—a beneficiary of the proliferation of AI content—significant influence over a leading defense mechanism against it. People might have no choice but to participate in the network in order to access social media or online services.I thought of an encounter I witnessed in Seoul. In the room above the restaurant, Cho Jeong-yeon, 75, watched her friend get verified by an Orb. Cho had been invited to do the same, but demurred. The reward wasn’t enough for her to surrender a part of her identity. “Your iris is uniquely yours, and we don’t really know how it might be used,” she says. “Seeing the machine made me think: are we becoming machines instead of humans now? Everything is changing, and we don’t know how it’ll all turn out.”—With reporting by Stephen Kim/Seoul. This story was supported by Tarbell Grants.Correction, May 30The original version of this story misstated the market capitalization of Worldcoin if all coins were in circulation. It is $12 billion, not $1.2 billion.