• What in the world are we doing? Scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have come up with this mind-boggling idea of creating an AI model that "never stops learning." Seriously? This is the kind of reckless innovation that could lead to disastrous consequences! Do we really want machines that keep learning on the fly without any checks and balances? Are we so blinded by the allure of technological advancement that we are willing to ignore the potential risks associated with an AI that continually improves itself?

    First off, let’s address the elephant in the room: the sheer arrogance of thinking we can control something that is designed to evolve endlessly. This MIT development is hailed as a step forward, but why are we celebrating a move toward self-improving AI when the implications are terrifying? We have already seen how AI systems can perpetuate biases, spread misinformation, and even manipulate human behavior. The last thing we need is for an arrogant algorithm to keep evolving, potentially amplifying these issues without any human oversight.

    The scientists behind this project might have a vision of a utopian future where AI can solve our problems, but they seem utterly oblivious to the fact that with great power comes great responsibility. Who is going to regulate this relentless learning process? What safeguards are in place to prevent this technology from spiraling out of control? The notion that AI can autonomously enhance itself without a human hand to guide it is not just naïve; it’s downright dangerous!

    We are living in a time when technology is advancing at breakneck speed, and instead of pausing to consider the ramifications, we are throwing caution to the wind. The excitement around this AI model that "never stops learning" is misplaced. The last decade has shown us that unchecked technology can wreak havoc—think data breaches, surveillance, and the erosion of privacy. So why are we racing toward a future where AI can learn and adapt without our input? Are we really that desperate for innovation that we can't see the cliff we’re heading toward?

    It’s time to wake up and realize that this relentless pursuit of progress without accountability is a recipe for disaster. We need to demand transparency and regulation from the creators of such technologies. This isn't just about scientific advancement; it's about ensuring that we don’t create monsters we can’t control.

    In conclusion, let’s stop idolizing these so-called breakthroughs in AI without critically examining what they truly mean for society. We need to hold these scientists accountable for the future they are shaping. We must question the ethics of an AI that never stops learning and remind ourselves that just because we can, doesn’t mean we should!

    #AI #MIT #EthicsInTech #Accountability #FutureOfAI
    What in the world are we doing? Scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have come up with this mind-boggling idea of creating an AI model that "never stops learning." Seriously? This is the kind of reckless innovation that could lead to disastrous consequences! Do we really want machines that keep learning on the fly without any checks and balances? Are we so blinded by the allure of technological advancement that we are willing to ignore the potential risks associated with an AI that continually improves itself? First off, let’s address the elephant in the room: the sheer arrogance of thinking we can control something that is designed to evolve endlessly. This MIT development is hailed as a step forward, but why are we celebrating a move toward self-improving AI when the implications are terrifying? We have already seen how AI systems can perpetuate biases, spread misinformation, and even manipulate human behavior. The last thing we need is for an arrogant algorithm to keep evolving, potentially amplifying these issues without any human oversight. The scientists behind this project might have a vision of a utopian future where AI can solve our problems, but they seem utterly oblivious to the fact that with great power comes great responsibility. Who is going to regulate this relentless learning process? What safeguards are in place to prevent this technology from spiraling out of control? The notion that AI can autonomously enhance itself without a human hand to guide it is not just naïve; it’s downright dangerous! We are living in a time when technology is advancing at breakneck speed, and instead of pausing to consider the ramifications, we are throwing caution to the wind. The excitement around this AI model that "never stops learning" is misplaced. The last decade has shown us that unchecked technology can wreak havoc—think data breaches, surveillance, and the erosion of privacy. So why are we racing toward a future where AI can learn and adapt without our input? Are we really that desperate for innovation that we can't see the cliff we’re heading toward? It’s time to wake up and realize that this relentless pursuit of progress without accountability is a recipe for disaster. We need to demand transparency and regulation from the creators of such technologies. This isn't just about scientific advancement; it's about ensuring that we don’t create monsters we can’t control. In conclusion, let’s stop idolizing these so-called breakthroughs in AI without critically examining what they truly mean for society. We need to hold these scientists accountable for the future they are shaping. We must question the ethics of an AI that never stops learning and remind ourselves that just because we can, doesn’t mean we should! #AI #MIT #EthicsInTech #Accountability #FutureOfAI
    This AI Model Never Stops Learning
    Scientists at Massachusetts Institute of Technology have devised a way for large language models to keep learning on the fly—a step toward building AI that continually improves itself.
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    340
    1 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
  • Looking Back at Two Classics: ILM Deploys the Fleet in ‘Star Trek: First Contact’ and ‘Rogue One: A Star Wars Story’

    Guided by visual effects supervisor John Knoll, ILM embraced continually evolving methodologies to craft breathtaking visual effects for the iconic space battles in First Contact and Rogue One.
    By Jay Stobie
    Visual effects supervisor John Knollconfers with modelmakers Kim Smith and John Goodson with the miniature of the U.S.S. Enterprise-E during production of Star Trek: First Contact.
    Bolstered by visual effects from Industrial Light & Magic, Star Trek: First Contactand Rogue One: A Star Wars Storypropelled their respective franchises to new heights. While Star Trek Generationswelcomed Captain Jean-Luc Picard’screw to the big screen, First Contact stood as the first Star Trek feature that did not focus on its original captain, the legendary James T. Kirk. Similarly, though Rogue One immediately preceded the events of Star Wars: A New Hope, it was set apart from the episodic Star Wars films and launched an era of storytelling outside of the main Skywalker saga that has gone on to include Solo: A Star Wars Story, The Mandalorian, Andor, Ahsoka, The Acolyte, and more.
    The two films also shared a key ILM contributor, John Knoll, who served as visual effects supervisor on both projects, as well as an executive producer on Rogue One. Currently, ILM’s executive creative director and senior visual effects supervisor, Knoll – who also conceived the initial framework for Rogue One’s story – guided ILM as it brought its talents to bear on these sci-fi and fantasy epics. The work involved crafting two spectacular starship-packed space clashes – First Contact’s Battle of Sector 001 and Rogue One’s Battle of Scarif. Although these iconic installments were released roughly two decades apart, they represent a captivating case study of how ILM’s approach to visual effects has evolved over time. With this in mind, let’s examine the films’ unforgettable space battles through the lens of fascinating in-universe parallels and the ILM-produced fleets that face off near Earth and Scarif.
    A final frame from the Battle of Scarif in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story.
    A Context for Conflict
    In First Contact, the United Federation of Planets – a 200-year-old interstellar government consisting of more than 150 member worlds – braces itself for an invasion by the Borg – an overwhelmingly powerful collective composed of cybernetic beings who devastate entire planets by assimilating their biological populations and technological innovations. The Borg only send a single vessel, a massive cube containing thousands of hive-minded drones and their queen, pushing the Federation’s Starfleet defenders to Earth’s doorstep. Conversely, in Rogue One, the Rebel Alliance – a fledgling coalition of freedom fighters – seeks to undermine and overthrow the stalwart Galactic Empire – a totalitarian regime preparing to tighten its grip on the galaxy by revealing a horrifying superweapon. A rebel team infiltrates a top-secret vault on Scarif in a bid to steal plans to that battle station, the dreaded Death Star, with hopes of exploiting a vulnerability in its design.
    On the surface, the situations could not seem to be more disparate, particularly in terms of the Federation’s well-established prestige and the Rebel Alliance’s haphazardly organized factions. Yet, upon closer inspection, the spaceborne conflicts at Earth and Scarif are linked by a vital commonality. The threat posed by the Borg is well-known to the Federation, but the sudden intrusion upon their space takes its defenses by surprise. Starfleet assembles any vessel within range – including antiquated Oberth-class science ships – to intercept the Borg cube in the Typhon Sector, only to be forced back to Earth on the edge of defeat. The unsanctioned mission to Scarif with Jyn Ersoand Cassian Andorand the sudden need to take down the planet’s shield gate propels the Rebel Alliance fleet into rushing to their rescue with everything from their flagship Profundity to GR-75 medium transports. Whether Federation or Rebel Alliance, these fleets gather in last-ditch efforts to oppose enemies who would embrace their eradication – the Battles of Sector 001 and Scarif are fights for survival.
    From Physical to Digital
    By the time Jonathan Frakes was selected to direct First Contact, Star Trek’s reliance on constructing traditional physical modelsfor its features was gradually giving way to innovative computer graphicsmodels, resulting in the film’s use of both techniques. “If one of the ships was to be seen full-screen and at length,” associate visual effects supervisor George Murphy told Cinefex’s Kevin H. Martin, “we knew it would be done as a stage model. Ships that would be doing a lot of elaborate maneuvers in space battle scenes would be created digitally.” In fact, physical and CG versions of the U.S.S. Enterprise-E appear in the film, with the latter being harnessed in shots involving the vessel’s entry into a temporal vortex at the conclusion of the Battle of Sector 001.
    Despite the technological leaps that ILM pioneered in the decades between First Contact and Rogue One, they considered filming physical miniatures for certain ship-related shots in the latter film. ILM considered filming physical miniatures for certain ship-related shots in Rogue One. The feature’s fleets were ultimately created digitally to allow for changes throughout post-production. “If it’s a photographed miniature element, it’s not possible to go back and make adjustments. So it’s the additional flexibility that comes with the computer graphics models that’s very attractive to many people,” John Knoll relayed to writer Jon Witmer at American Cinematographer’s TheASC.com.
    However, Knoll aimed to develop computer graphics that retained the same high-quality details as their physical counterparts, leading ILM to employ a modern approach to a time-honored modelmaking tactic. “I also wanted to emulate the kit-bashing aesthetic that had been part of Star Wars from the very beginning, where a lot of mechanical detail had been added onto the ships by using little pieces from plastic model kits,” explained Knoll in his chat with TheASC.com. For Rogue One, ILM replicated the process by obtaining such kits, scanning their parts, building a computer graphics library, and applying the CG parts to digitally modeled ships. “I’m very happy to say it was super-successful,” concluded Knoll. “I think a lot of our digital models look like they are motion-control models.”
    John Knollconfers with Kim Smith and John Goodson with the miniature of the U.S.S. Enterprise-E during production of Star Trek: First Contact.
    Legendary Lineages
    In First Contact, Captain Picard commanded a brand-new vessel, the Sovereign-class U.S.S. Enterprise-E, continuing the celebrated starship’s legacy in terms of its famous name and design aesthetic. Designed by John Eaves and developed into blueprints by Rick Sternbach, the Enterprise-E was built into a 10-foot physical model by ILM model project supervisor John Goodson and his shop’s talented team. ILM infused the ship with extraordinary detail, including viewports equipped with backlit set images from the craft’s predecessor, the U.S.S. Enterprise-D. For the vessel’s larger windows, namely those associated with the observation lounge and arboretum, ILM took a painstakingly practical approach to match the interiors shown with the real-world set pieces. “We filled that area of the model with tiny, micro-scale furniture,” Goodson informed Cinefex, “including tables and chairs.”
    Rogue One’s rebel team initially traversed the galaxy in a U-wing transport/gunship, which, much like the Enterprise-E, was a unique vessel that nonetheless channeled a certain degree of inspiration from a classic design. Lucasfilm’s Doug Chiang, a co-production designer for Rogue One, referred to the U-wing as the film’s “Huey helicopter version of an X-wing” in the Designing Rogue One bonus featurette on Disney+ before revealing that, “Towards the end of the design cycle, we actually decided that maybe we should put in more X-wing features. And so we took the X-wing engines and literally mounted them onto the configuration that we had going.” Modeled by ILM digital artist Colie Wertz, the U-wing’s final computer graphics design subtly incorporated these X-wing influences to give the transport a distinctive feel without making the craft seem out of place within the rebel fleet.
    While ILM’s work on the Enterprise-E’s viewports offered a compelling view toward the ship’s interior, a breakthrough LED setup for Rogue One permitted ILM to obtain realistic lighting on actors as they looked out from their ships and into the space around them. “All of our major spaceship cockpit scenes were done that way, with the gimbal in this giant horseshoe of LED panels we got fromVER, and we prepared graphics that went on the screens,” John Knoll shared with American Cinematographer’s Benjamin B and Jon D. Witmer. Furthermore, in Disney+’s Rogue One: Digital Storytelling bonus featurette, visual effects producer Janet Lewin noted, “For the actors, I think, in the space battle cockpits, for them to be able to see what was happening in the battle brought a higher level of accuracy to their performance.”
    The U.S.S. Enterprise-E in Star Trek: First Contact.
    Familiar Foes
    To transport First Contact’s Borg invaders, John Goodson’s team at ILM resurrected the Borg cube design previously seen in Star Trek: The Next Generationand Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, creating a nearly three-foot physical model to replace the one from the series. Art consultant and ILM veteran Bill George proposed that the cube’s seemingly straightforward layout be augmented with a complex network of photo-etched brass, a suggestion which produced a jagged surface and offered a visual that was both intricate and menacing. ILM also developed a two-foot motion-control model for a Borg sphere, a brand-new auxiliary vessel that emerged from the cube. “We vacuformed about 15 different patterns that conformed to this spherical curve and covered those with a lot of molded and cast pieces. Then we added tons of acid-etched brass over it, just like we had on the cube,” Goodson outlined to Cinefex’s Kevin H. Martin.
    As for Rogue One’s villainous fleet, reproducing the original trilogy’s Death Star and Imperial Star Destroyers centered upon translating physical models into digital assets. Although ILM no longer possessed A New Hope’s three-foot Death Star shooting model, John Knoll recreated the station’s surface paneling by gathering archival images, and as he spelled out to writer Joe Fordham in Cinefex, “I pieced all the images together. I unwrapped them into texture space and projected them onto a sphere with a trench. By doing that with enough pictures, I got pretty complete coverage of the original model, and that became a template upon which to redraw very high-resolution texture maps. Every panel, every vertical striped line, I matched from a photograph. It was as accurate as it was possible to be as a reproduction of the original model.”
    Knoll’s investigative eye continued to pay dividends when analyzing the three-foot and eight-foot Star Destroyer motion-control models, which had been built for A New Hope and Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, respectively. “Our general mantra was, ‘Match your memory of it more than the reality,’ because sometimes you go look at the actual prop in the archive building or you look back at the actual shot from the movie, and you go, ‘Oh, I remember it being a little better than that,’” Knoll conveyed to TheASC.com. This philosophy motivated ILM to combine elements from those two physical models into a single digital design. “Generally, we copied the three-footer for details like the superstructure on the top of the bridge, but then we copied the internal lighting plan from the eight-footer,” Knoll explained. “And then the upper surface of the three-footer was relatively undetailed because there were no shots that saw it closely, so we took a lot of the high-detail upper surface from the eight-footer. So it’s this amalgam of the two models, but the goal was to try to make it look like you remember it from A New Hope.”
    A final frame from Rogue One: A Star Wars Story.
    Forming Up the Fleets
    In addition to the U.S.S. Enterprise-E, the Battle of Sector 001 debuted numerous vessels representing four new Starfleet ship classes – the Akira, Steamrunner, Saber, and Norway – all designed by ILM visual effects art director Alex Jaeger. “Since we figured a lot of the background action in the space battle would be done with computer graphics ships that needed to be built from scratch anyway, I realized that there was no reason not to do some new designs,” John Knoll told American Cinematographer writer Ron Magid. Used in previous Star Trek projects, older physical models for the Oberth and Nebula classes were mixed into the fleet for good measure, though the vast majority of the armada originated as computer graphics.
    Over at Scarif, ILM portrayed the Rebel Alliance forces with computer graphics models of fresh designs, live-action versions of Star Wars Rebels’ VCX-100 light freighter Ghost and Hammerhead corvettes, and Star Wars staples. These ships face off against two Imperial Star Destroyers and squadrons of TIE fighters, and – upon their late arrival to the battle – Darth Vader’s Star Destroyer and the Death Star. The Tantive IV, a CR90 corvette more popularly referred to as a blockade runner, made its own special cameo at the tail end of the fight. As Princess Leia Organa’spersonal ship, the Tantive IV received the Death Star plans and fled the scene, destined to be captured by Vader’s Star Destroyer at the beginning of A New Hope. And, while we’re on the subject of intricate starship maneuvers and space-based choreography…
    Although the First Contact team could plan visual effects shots with animated storyboards, ILM supplied Gareth Edwards with a next-level virtual viewfinder that allowed the director to select his shots by immersing himself among Rogue One’s ships in real time. “What we wanted to do is give Gareth the opportunity to shoot his space battles and other all-digital scenes the same way he shoots his live-action. Then he could go in with this sort of virtual viewfinder and view the space battle going on, and figure out what the best angle was to shoot those ships from,” senior animation supervisor Hal Hickel described in the Rogue One: Digital Storytelling featurette. Hickel divulged that the sequence involving the dish array docking with the Death Star was an example of the “spontaneous discovery of great angles,” as the scene was never storyboarded or previsualized.
    Visual effects supervisor John Knoll with director Gareth Edwards during production of Rogue One: A Star Wars Story.
    Tough Little Ships
    The Federation and Rebel Alliance each deployed “tough little ships”in their respective conflicts, namely the U.S.S. Defiant from Deep Space Nine and the Tantive IV from A New Hope. VisionArt had already built a CG Defiant for the Deep Space Nine series, but ILM upgraded the model with images gathered from the ship’s three-foot physical model. A similar tactic was taken to bring the Tantive IV into the digital realm for Rogue One. “This was the Blockade Runner. This was the most accurate 1:1 reproduction we could possibly have made,” model supervisor Russell Paul declared to Cinefex’s Joe Fordham. “We did an extensive photo reference shoot and photogrammetry re-creation of the miniature. From there, we built it out as accurately as possible.” Speaking of sturdy ships, if you look very closely, you can spot a model of the Millennium Falcon flashing across the background as the U.S.S. Defiant makes an attack run on the Borg cube at the Battle of Sector 001!
    Exploration and Hope
    The in-universe ramifications that materialize from the Battles of Sector 001 and Scarif are monumental. The destruction of the Borg cube compels the Borg Queen to travel back in time in an attempt to vanquish Earth before the Federation can even be formed, but Captain Picard and the Enterprise-E foil the plot and end up helping their 21st century ancestors make “first contact” with another species, the logic-revering Vulcans. The post-Scarif benefits take longer to play out for the Rebel Alliance, but the theft of the Death Star plans eventually leads to the superweapon’s destruction. The Galactic Civil War is far from over, but Scarif is a significant step in the Alliance’s effort to overthrow the Empire.
    The visual effects ILM provided for First Contact and Rogue One contributed significantly to the critical and commercial acclaim both pictures enjoyed, a victory reflecting the relentless dedication, tireless work ethic, and innovative spirit embodied by visual effects supervisor John Knoll and ILM’s entire staff. While being interviewed for The Making of Star Trek: First Contact, actor Patrick Stewart praised ILM’s invaluable influence, emphasizing, “ILM was with us, on this movie, almost every day on set. There is so much that they are involved in.” And, regardless of your personal preferences – phasers or lasers, photon torpedoes or proton torpedoes, warp speed or hyperspace – perhaps Industrial Light & Magic’s ability to infuse excitement into both franchises demonstrates that Star Trek and Star Wars encompass themes that are not competitive, but compatible. After all, what goes together better than exploration and hope?

    Jay Stobieis a writer, author, and consultant who has contributed articles to ILM.com, Skysound.com, Star Wars Insider, StarWars.com, Star Trek Explorer, Star Trek Magazine, and StarTrek.com. Jay loves sci-fi, fantasy, and film, and you can learn more about him by visiting JayStobie.com or finding him on Twitter, Instagram, and other social media platforms at @StobiesGalaxy.
    #looking #back #two #classics #ilm
    Looking Back at Two Classics: ILM Deploys the Fleet in ‘Star Trek: First Contact’ and ‘Rogue One: A Star Wars Story’
    Guided by visual effects supervisor John Knoll, ILM embraced continually evolving methodologies to craft breathtaking visual effects for the iconic space battles in First Contact and Rogue One. By Jay Stobie Visual effects supervisor John Knollconfers with modelmakers Kim Smith and John Goodson with the miniature of the U.S.S. Enterprise-E during production of Star Trek: First Contact. Bolstered by visual effects from Industrial Light & Magic, Star Trek: First Contactand Rogue One: A Star Wars Storypropelled their respective franchises to new heights. While Star Trek Generationswelcomed Captain Jean-Luc Picard’screw to the big screen, First Contact stood as the first Star Trek feature that did not focus on its original captain, the legendary James T. Kirk. Similarly, though Rogue One immediately preceded the events of Star Wars: A New Hope, it was set apart from the episodic Star Wars films and launched an era of storytelling outside of the main Skywalker saga that has gone on to include Solo: A Star Wars Story, The Mandalorian, Andor, Ahsoka, The Acolyte, and more. The two films also shared a key ILM contributor, John Knoll, who served as visual effects supervisor on both projects, as well as an executive producer on Rogue One. Currently, ILM’s executive creative director and senior visual effects supervisor, Knoll – who also conceived the initial framework for Rogue One’s story – guided ILM as it brought its talents to bear on these sci-fi and fantasy epics. The work involved crafting two spectacular starship-packed space clashes – First Contact’s Battle of Sector 001 and Rogue One’s Battle of Scarif. Although these iconic installments were released roughly two decades apart, they represent a captivating case study of how ILM’s approach to visual effects has evolved over time. With this in mind, let’s examine the films’ unforgettable space battles through the lens of fascinating in-universe parallels and the ILM-produced fleets that face off near Earth and Scarif. A final frame from the Battle of Scarif in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story. A Context for Conflict In First Contact, the United Federation of Planets – a 200-year-old interstellar government consisting of more than 150 member worlds – braces itself for an invasion by the Borg – an overwhelmingly powerful collective composed of cybernetic beings who devastate entire planets by assimilating their biological populations and technological innovations. The Borg only send a single vessel, a massive cube containing thousands of hive-minded drones and their queen, pushing the Federation’s Starfleet defenders to Earth’s doorstep. Conversely, in Rogue One, the Rebel Alliance – a fledgling coalition of freedom fighters – seeks to undermine and overthrow the stalwart Galactic Empire – a totalitarian regime preparing to tighten its grip on the galaxy by revealing a horrifying superweapon. A rebel team infiltrates a top-secret vault on Scarif in a bid to steal plans to that battle station, the dreaded Death Star, with hopes of exploiting a vulnerability in its design. On the surface, the situations could not seem to be more disparate, particularly in terms of the Federation’s well-established prestige and the Rebel Alliance’s haphazardly organized factions. Yet, upon closer inspection, the spaceborne conflicts at Earth and Scarif are linked by a vital commonality. The threat posed by the Borg is well-known to the Federation, but the sudden intrusion upon their space takes its defenses by surprise. Starfleet assembles any vessel within range – including antiquated Oberth-class science ships – to intercept the Borg cube in the Typhon Sector, only to be forced back to Earth on the edge of defeat. The unsanctioned mission to Scarif with Jyn Ersoand Cassian Andorand the sudden need to take down the planet’s shield gate propels the Rebel Alliance fleet into rushing to their rescue with everything from their flagship Profundity to GR-75 medium transports. Whether Federation or Rebel Alliance, these fleets gather in last-ditch efforts to oppose enemies who would embrace their eradication – the Battles of Sector 001 and Scarif are fights for survival. From Physical to Digital By the time Jonathan Frakes was selected to direct First Contact, Star Trek’s reliance on constructing traditional physical modelsfor its features was gradually giving way to innovative computer graphicsmodels, resulting in the film’s use of both techniques. “If one of the ships was to be seen full-screen and at length,” associate visual effects supervisor George Murphy told Cinefex’s Kevin H. Martin, “we knew it would be done as a stage model. Ships that would be doing a lot of elaborate maneuvers in space battle scenes would be created digitally.” In fact, physical and CG versions of the U.S.S. Enterprise-E appear in the film, with the latter being harnessed in shots involving the vessel’s entry into a temporal vortex at the conclusion of the Battle of Sector 001. Despite the technological leaps that ILM pioneered in the decades between First Contact and Rogue One, they considered filming physical miniatures for certain ship-related shots in the latter film. ILM considered filming physical miniatures for certain ship-related shots in Rogue One. The feature’s fleets were ultimately created digitally to allow for changes throughout post-production. “If it’s a photographed miniature element, it’s not possible to go back and make adjustments. So it’s the additional flexibility that comes with the computer graphics models that’s very attractive to many people,” John Knoll relayed to writer Jon Witmer at American Cinematographer’s TheASC.com. However, Knoll aimed to develop computer graphics that retained the same high-quality details as their physical counterparts, leading ILM to employ a modern approach to a time-honored modelmaking tactic. “I also wanted to emulate the kit-bashing aesthetic that had been part of Star Wars from the very beginning, where a lot of mechanical detail had been added onto the ships by using little pieces from plastic model kits,” explained Knoll in his chat with TheASC.com. For Rogue One, ILM replicated the process by obtaining such kits, scanning their parts, building a computer graphics library, and applying the CG parts to digitally modeled ships. “I’m very happy to say it was super-successful,” concluded Knoll. “I think a lot of our digital models look like they are motion-control models.” John Knollconfers with Kim Smith and John Goodson with the miniature of the U.S.S. Enterprise-E during production of Star Trek: First Contact. Legendary Lineages In First Contact, Captain Picard commanded a brand-new vessel, the Sovereign-class U.S.S. Enterprise-E, continuing the celebrated starship’s legacy in terms of its famous name and design aesthetic. Designed by John Eaves and developed into blueprints by Rick Sternbach, the Enterprise-E was built into a 10-foot physical model by ILM model project supervisor John Goodson and his shop’s talented team. ILM infused the ship with extraordinary detail, including viewports equipped with backlit set images from the craft’s predecessor, the U.S.S. Enterprise-D. For the vessel’s larger windows, namely those associated with the observation lounge and arboretum, ILM took a painstakingly practical approach to match the interiors shown with the real-world set pieces. “We filled that area of the model with tiny, micro-scale furniture,” Goodson informed Cinefex, “including tables and chairs.” Rogue One’s rebel team initially traversed the galaxy in a U-wing transport/gunship, which, much like the Enterprise-E, was a unique vessel that nonetheless channeled a certain degree of inspiration from a classic design. Lucasfilm’s Doug Chiang, a co-production designer for Rogue One, referred to the U-wing as the film’s “Huey helicopter version of an X-wing” in the Designing Rogue One bonus featurette on Disney+ before revealing that, “Towards the end of the design cycle, we actually decided that maybe we should put in more X-wing features. And so we took the X-wing engines and literally mounted them onto the configuration that we had going.” Modeled by ILM digital artist Colie Wertz, the U-wing’s final computer graphics design subtly incorporated these X-wing influences to give the transport a distinctive feel without making the craft seem out of place within the rebel fleet. While ILM’s work on the Enterprise-E’s viewports offered a compelling view toward the ship’s interior, a breakthrough LED setup for Rogue One permitted ILM to obtain realistic lighting on actors as they looked out from their ships and into the space around them. “All of our major spaceship cockpit scenes were done that way, with the gimbal in this giant horseshoe of LED panels we got fromVER, and we prepared graphics that went on the screens,” John Knoll shared with American Cinematographer’s Benjamin B and Jon D. Witmer. Furthermore, in Disney+’s Rogue One: Digital Storytelling bonus featurette, visual effects producer Janet Lewin noted, “For the actors, I think, in the space battle cockpits, for them to be able to see what was happening in the battle brought a higher level of accuracy to their performance.” The U.S.S. Enterprise-E in Star Trek: First Contact. Familiar Foes To transport First Contact’s Borg invaders, John Goodson’s team at ILM resurrected the Borg cube design previously seen in Star Trek: The Next Generationand Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, creating a nearly three-foot physical model to replace the one from the series. Art consultant and ILM veteran Bill George proposed that the cube’s seemingly straightforward layout be augmented with a complex network of photo-etched brass, a suggestion which produced a jagged surface and offered a visual that was both intricate and menacing. ILM also developed a two-foot motion-control model for a Borg sphere, a brand-new auxiliary vessel that emerged from the cube. “We vacuformed about 15 different patterns that conformed to this spherical curve and covered those with a lot of molded and cast pieces. Then we added tons of acid-etched brass over it, just like we had on the cube,” Goodson outlined to Cinefex’s Kevin H. Martin. As for Rogue One’s villainous fleet, reproducing the original trilogy’s Death Star and Imperial Star Destroyers centered upon translating physical models into digital assets. Although ILM no longer possessed A New Hope’s three-foot Death Star shooting model, John Knoll recreated the station’s surface paneling by gathering archival images, and as he spelled out to writer Joe Fordham in Cinefex, “I pieced all the images together. I unwrapped them into texture space and projected them onto a sphere with a trench. By doing that with enough pictures, I got pretty complete coverage of the original model, and that became a template upon which to redraw very high-resolution texture maps. Every panel, every vertical striped line, I matched from a photograph. It was as accurate as it was possible to be as a reproduction of the original model.” Knoll’s investigative eye continued to pay dividends when analyzing the three-foot and eight-foot Star Destroyer motion-control models, which had been built for A New Hope and Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, respectively. “Our general mantra was, ‘Match your memory of it more than the reality,’ because sometimes you go look at the actual prop in the archive building or you look back at the actual shot from the movie, and you go, ‘Oh, I remember it being a little better than that,’” Knoll conveyed to TheASC.com. This philosophy motivated ILM to combine elements from those two physical models into a single digital design. “Generally, we copied the three-footer for details like the superstructure on the top of the bridge, but then we copied the internal lighting plan from the eight-footer,” Knoll explained. “And then the upper surface of the three-footer was relatively undetailed because there were no shots that saw it closely, so we took a lot of the high-detail upper surface from the eight-footer. So it’s this amalgam of the two models, but the goal was to try to make it look like you remember it from A New Hope.” A final frame from Rogue One: A Star Wars Story. Forming Up the Fleets In addition to the U.S.S. Enterprise-E, the Battle of Sector 001 debuted numerous vessels representing four new Starfleet ship classes – the Akira, Steamrunner, Saber, and Norway – all designed by ILM visual effects art director Alex Jaeger. “Since we figured a lot of the background action in the space battle would be done with computer graphics ships that needed to be built from scratch anyway, I realized that there was no reason not to do some new designs,” John Knoll told American Cinematographer writer Ron Magid. Used in previous Star Trek projects, older physical models for the Oberth and Nebula classes were mixed into the fleet for good measure, though the vast majority of the armada originated as computer graphics. Over at Scarif, ILM portrayed the Rebel Alliance forces with computer graphics models of fresh designs, live-action versions of Star Wars Rebels’ VCX-100 light freighter Ghost and Hammerhead corvettes, and Star Wars staples. These ships face off against two Imperial Star Destroyers and squadrons of TIE fighters, and – upon their late arrival to the battle – Darth Vader’s Star Destroyer and the Death Star. The Tantive IV, a CR90 corvette more popularly referred to as a blockade runner, made its own special cameo at the tail end of the fight. As Princess Leia Organa’spersonal ship, the Tantive IV received the Death Star plans and fled the scene, destined to be captured by Vader’s Star Destroyer at the beginning of A New Hope. And, while we’re on the subject of intricate starship maneuvers and space-based choreography… Although the First Contact team could plan visual effects shots with animated storyboards, ILM supplied Gareth Edwards with a next-level virtual viewfinder that allowed the director to select his shots by immersing himself among Rogue One’s ships in real time. “What we wanted to do is give Gareth the opportunity to shoot his space battles and other all-digital scenes the same way he shoots his live-action. Then he could go in with this sort of virtual viewfinder and view the space battle going on, and figure out what the best angle was to shoot those ships from,” senior animation supervisor Hal Hickel described in the Rogue One: Digital Storytelling featurette. Hickel divulged that the sequence involving the dish array docking with the Death Star was an example of the “spontaneous discovery of great angles,” as the scene was never storyboarded or previsualized. Visual effects supervisor John Knoll with director Gareth Edwards during production of Rogue One: A Star Wars Story. Tough Little Ships The Federation and Rebel Alliance each deployed “tough little ships”in their respective conflicts, namely the U.S.S. Defiant from Deep Space Nine and the Tantive IV from A New Hope. VisionArt had already built a CG Defiant for the Deep Space Nine series, but ILM upgraded the model with images gathered from the ship’s three-foot physical model. A similar tactic was taken to bring the Tantive IV into the digital realm for Rogue One. “This was the Blockade Runner. This was the most accurate 1:1 reproduction we could possibly have made,” model supervisor Russell Paul declared to Cinefex’s Joe Fordham. “We did an extensive photo reference shoot and photogrammetry re-creation of the miniature. From there, we built it out as accurately as possible.” Speaking of sturdy ships, if you look very closely, you can spot a model of the Millennium Falcon flashing across the background as the U.S.S. Defiant makes an attack run on the Borg cube at the Battle of Sector 001! Exploration and Hope The in-universe ramifications that materialize from the Battles of Sector 001 and Scarif are monumental. The destruction of the Borg cube compels the Borg Queen to travel back in time in an attempt to vanquish Earth before the Federation can even be formed, but Captain Picard and the Enterprise-E foil the plot and end up helping their 21st century ancestors make “first contact” with another species, the logic-revering Vulcans. The post-Scarif benefits take longer to play out for the Rebel Alliance, but the theft of the Death Star plans eventually leads to the superweapon’s destruction. The Galactic Civil War is far from over, but Scarif is a significant step in the Alliance’s effort to overthrow the Empire. The visual effects ILM provided for First Contact and Rogue One contributed significantly to the critical and commercial acclaim both pictures enjoyed, a victory reflecting the relentless dedication, tireless work ethic, and innovative spirit embodied by visual effects supervisor John Knoll and ILM’s entire staff. While being interviewed for The Making of Star Trek: First Contact, actor Patrick Stewart praised ILM’s invaluable influence, emphasizing, “ILM was with us, on this movie, almost every day on set. There is so much that they are involved in.” And, regardless of your personal preferences – phasers or lasers, photon torpedoes or proton torpedoes, warp speed or hyperspace – perhaps Industrial Light & Magic’s ability to infuse excitement into both franchises demonstrates that Star Trek and Star Wars encompass themes that are not competitive, but compatible. After all, what goes together better than exploration and hope? – Jay Stobieis a writer, author, and consultant who has contributed articles to ILM.com, Skysound.com, Star Wars Insider, StarWars.com, Star Trek Explorer, Star Trek Magazine, and StarTrek.com. Jay loves sci-fi, fantasy, and film, and you can learn more about him by visiting JayStobie.com or finding him on Twitter, Instagram, and other social media platforms at @StobiesGalaxy. #looking #back #two #classics #ilm
    WWW.ILM.COM
    Looking Back at Two Classics: ILM Deploys the Fleet in ‘Star Trek: First Contact’ and ‘Rogue One: A Star Wars Story’
    Guided by visual effects supervisor John Knoll, ILM embraced continually evolving methodologies to craft breathtaking visual effects for the iconic space battles in First Contact and Rogue One. By Jay Stobie Visual effects supervisor John Knoll (right) confers with modelmakers Kim Smith and John Goodson with the miniature of the U.S.S. Enterprise-E during production of Star Trek: First Contact (Credit: ILM). Bolstered by visual effects from Industrial Light & Magic, Star Trek: First Contact (1996) and Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) propelled their respective franchises to new heights. While Star Trek Generations (1994) welcomed Captain Jean-Luc Picard’s (Patrick Stewart) crew to the big screen, First Contact stood as the first Star Trek feature that did not focus on its original captain, the legendary James T. Kirk (William Shatner). Similarly, though Rogue One immediately preceded the events of Star Wars: A New Hope (1977), it was set apart from the episodic Star Wars films and launched an era of storytelling outside of the main Skywalker saga that has gone on to include Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018), The Mandalorian (2019-23), Andor (2022-25), Ahsoka (2023), The Acolyte (2024), and more. The two films also shared a key ILM contributor, John Knoll, who served as visual effects supervisor on both projects, as well as an executive producer on Rogue One. Currently, ILM’s executive creative director and senior visual effects supervisor, Knoll – who also conceived the initial framework for Rogue One’s story – guided ILM as it brought its talents to bear on these sci-fi and fantasy epics. The work involved crafting two spectacular starship-packed space clashes – First Contact’s Battle of Sector 001 and Rogue One’s Battle of Scarif. Although these iconic installments were released roughly two decades apart, they represent a captivating case study of how ILM’s approach to visual effects has evolved over time. With this in mind, let’s examine the films’ unforgettable space battles through the lens of fascinating in-universe parallels and the ILM-produced fleets that face off near Earth and Scarif. A final frame from the Battle of Scarif in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (Credit: ILM & Lucasfilm). A Context for Conflict In First Contact, the United Federation of Planets – a 200-year-old interstellar government consisting of more than 150 member worlds – braces itself for an invasion by the Borg – an overwhelmingly powerful collective composed of cybernetic beings who devastate entire planets by assimilating their biological populations and technological innovations. The Borg only send a single vessel, a massive cube containing thousands of hive-minded drones and their queen, pushing the Federation’s Starfleet defenders to Earth’s doorstep. Conversely, in Rogue One, the Rebel Alliance – a fledgling coalition of freedom fighters – seeks to undermine and overthrow the stalwart Galactic Empire – a totalitarian regime preparing to tighten its grip on the galaxy by revealing a horrifying superweapon. A rebel team infiltrates a top-secret vault on Scarif in a bid to steal plans to that battle station, the dreaded Death Star, with hopes of exploiting a vulnerability in its design. On the surface, the situations could not seem to be more disparate, particularly in terms of the Federation’s well-established prestige and the Rebel Alliance’s haphazardly organized factions. Yet, upon closer inspection, the spaceborne conflicts at Earth and Scarif are linked by a vital commonality. The threat posed by the Borg is well-known to the Federation, but the sudden intrusion upon their space takes its defenses by surprise. Starfleet assembles any vessel within range – including antiquated Oberth-class science ships – to intercept the Borg cube in the Typhon Sector, only to be forced back to Earth on the edge of defeat. The unsanctioned mission to Scarif with Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones) and Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) and the sudden need to take down the planet’s shield gate propels the Rebel Alliance fleet into rushing to their rescue with everything from their flagship Profundity to GR-75 medium transports. Whether Federation or Rebel Alliance, these fleets gather in last-ditch efforts to oppose enemies who would embrace their eradication – the Battles of Sector 001 and Scarif are fights for survival. From Physical to Digital By the time Jonathan Frakes was selected to direct First Contact, Star Trek’s reliance on constructing traditional physical models (many of which were built by ILM) for its features was gradually giving way to innovative computer graphics (CG) models, resulting in the film’s use of both techniques. “If one of the ships was to be seen full-screen and at length,” associate visual effects supervisor George Murphy told Cinefex’s Kevin H. Martin, “we knew it would be done as a stage model. Ships that would be doing a lot of elaborate maneuvers in space battle scenes would be created digitally.” In fact, physical and CG versions of the U.S.S. Enterprise-E appear in the film, with the latter being harnessed in shots involving the vessel’s entry into a temporal vortex at the conclusion of the Battle of Sector 001. Despite the technological leaps that ILM pioneered in the decades between First Contact and Rogue One, they considered filming physical miniatures for certain ship-related shots in the latter film. ILM considered filming physical miniatures for certain ship-related shots in Rogue One. The feature’s fleets were ultimately created digitally to allow for changes throughout post-production. “If it’s a photographed miniature element, it’s not possible to go back and make adjustments. So it’s the additional flexibility that comes with the computer graphics models that’s very attractive to many people,” John Knoll relayed to writer Jon Witmer at American Cinematographer’s TheASC.com. However, Knoll aimed to develop computer graphics that retained the same high-quality details as their physical counterparts, leading ILM to employ a modern approach to a time-honored modelmaking tactic. “I also wanted to emulate the kit-bashing aesthetic that had been part of Star Wars from the very beginning, where a lot of mechanical detail had been added onto the ships by using little pieces from plastic model kits,” explained Knoll in his chat with TheASC.com. For Rogue One, ILM replicated the process by obtaining such kits, scanning their parts, building a computer graphics library, and applying the CG parts to digitally modeled ships. “I’m very happy to say it was super-successful,” concluded Knoll. “I think a lot of our digital models look like they are motion-control models.” John Knoll (second from left) confers with Kim Smith and John Goodson with the miniature of the U.S.S. Enterprise-E during production of Star Trek: First Contact (Credit: ILM). Legendary Lineages In First Contact, Captain Picard commanded a brand-new vessel, the Sovereign-class U.S.S. Enterprise-E, continuing the celebrated starship’s legacy in terms of its famous name and design aesthetic. Designed by John Eaves and developed into blueprints by Rick Sternbach, the Enterprise-E was built into a 10-foot physical model by ILM model project supervisor John Goodson and his shop’s talented team. ILM infused the ship with extraordinary detail, including viewports equipped with backlit set images from the craft’s predecessor, the U.S.S. Enterprise-D. For the vessel’s larger windows, namely those associated with the observation lounge and arboretum, ILM took a painstakingly practical approach to match the interiors shown with the real-world set pieces. “We filled that area of the model with tiny, micro-scale furniture,” Goodson informed Cinefex, “including tables and chairs.” Rogue One’s rebel team initially traversed the galaxy in a U-wing transport/gunship, which, much like the Enterprise-E, was a unique vessel that nonetheless channeled a certain degree of inspiration from a classic design. Lucasfilm’s Doug Chiang, a co-production designer for Rogue One, referred to the U-wing as the film’s “Huey helicopter version of an X-wing” in the Designing Rogue One bonus featurette on Disney+ before revealing that, “Towards the end of the design cycle, we actually decided that maybe we should put in more X-wing features. And so we took the X-wing engines and literally mounted them onto the configuration that we had going.” Modeled by ILM digital artist Colie Wertz, the U-wing’s final computer graphics design subtly incorporated these X-wing influences to give the transport a distinctive feel without making the craft seem out of place within the rebel fleet. While ILM’s work on the Enterprise-E’s viewports offered a compelling view toward the ship’s interior, a breakthrough LED setup for Rogue One permitted ILM to obtain realistic lighting on actors as they looked out from their ships and into the space around them. “All of our major spaceship cockpit scenes were done that way, with the gimbal in this giant horseshoe of LED panels we got from [equipment vendor] VER, and we prepared graphics that went on the screens,” John Knoll shared with American Cinematographer’s Benjamin B and Jon D. Witmer. Furthermore, in Disney+’s Rogue One: Digital Storytelling bonus featurette, visual effects producer Janet Lewin noted, “For the actors, I think, in the space battle cockpits, for them to be able to see what was happening in the battle brought a higher level of accuracy to their performance.” The U.S.S. Enterprise-E in Star Trek: First Contact (Credit: Paramount). Familiar Foes To transport First Contact’s Borg invaders, John Goodson’s team at ILM resurrected the Borg cube design previously seen in Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987) and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993), creating a nearly three-foot physical model to replace the one from the series. Art consultant and ILM veteran Bill George proposed that the cube’s seemingly straightforward layout be augmented with a complex network of photo-etched brass, a suggestion which produced a jagged surface and offered a visual that was both intricate and menacing. ILM also developed a two-foot motion-control model for a Borg sphere, a brand-new auxiliary vessel that emerged from the cube. “We vacuformed about 15 different patterns that conformed to this spherical curve and covered those with a lot of molded and cast pieces. Then we added tons of acid-etched brass over it, just like we had on the cube,” Goodson outlined to Cinefex’s Kevin H. Martin. As for Rogue One’s villainous fleet, reproducing the original trilogy’s Death Star and Imperial Star Destroyers centered upon translating physical models into digital assets. Although ILM no longer possessed A New Hope’s three-foot Death Star shooting model, John Knoll recreated the station’s surface paneling by gathering archival images, and as he spelled out to writer Joe Fordham in Cinefex, “I pieced all the images together. I unwrapped them into texture space and projected them onto a sphere with a trench. By doing that with enough pictures, I got pretty complete coverage of the original model, and that became a template upon which to redraw very high-resolution texture maps. Every panel, every vertical striped line, I matched from a photograph. It was as accurate as it was possible to be as a reproduction of the original model.” Knoll’s investigative eye continued to pay dividends when analyzing the three-foot and eight-foot Star Destroyer motion-control models, which had been built for A New Hope and Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (1980), respectively. “Our general mantra was, ‘Match your memory of it more than the reality,’ because sometimes you go look at the actual prop in the archive building or you look back at the actual shot from the movie, and you go, ‘Oh, I remember it being a little better than that,’” Knoll conveyed to TheASC.com. This philosophy motivated ILM to combine elements from those two physical models into a single digital design. “Generally, we copied the three-footer for details like the superstructure on the top of the bridge, but then we copied the internal lighting plan from the eight-footer,” Knoll explained. “And then the upper surface of the three-footer was relatively undetailed because there were no shots that saw it closely, so we took a lot of the high-detail upper surface from the eight-footer. So it’s this amalgam of the two models, but the goal was to try to make it look like you remember it from A New Hope.” A final frame from Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (Credit: ILM & Lucasfilm). Forming Up the Fleets In addition to the U.S.S. Enterprise-E, the Battle of Sector 001 debuted numerous vessels representing four new Starfleet ship classes – the Akira, Steamrunner, Saber, and Norway – all designed by ILM visual effects art director Alex Jaeger. “Since we figured a lot of the background action in the space battle would be done with computer graphics ships that needed to be built from scratch anyway, I realized that there was no reason not to do some new designs,” John Knoll told American Cinematographer writer Ron Magid. Used in previous Star Trek projects, older physical models for the Oberth and Nebula classes were mixed into the fleet for good measure, though the vast majority of the armada originated as computer graphics. Over at Scarif, ILM portrayed the Rebel Alliance forces with computer graphics models of fresh designs (the MC75 cruiser Profundity and U-wings), live-action versions of Star Wars Rebels’ VCX-100 light freighter Ghost and Hammerhead corvettes, and Star Wars staples (Nebulon-B frigates, X-wings, Y-wings, and more). These ships face off against two Imperial Star Destroyers and squadrons of TIE fighters, and – upon their late arrival to the battle – Darth Vader’s Star Destroyer and the Death Star. The Tantive IV, a CR90 corvette more popularly referred to as a blockade runner, made its own special cameo at the tail end of the fight. As Princess Leia Organa’s (Carrie Fisher and Ingvild Deila) personal ship, the Tantive IV received the Death Star plans and fled the scene, destined to be captured by Vader’s Star Destroyer at the beginning of A New Hope. And, while we’re on the subject of intricate starship maneuvers and space-based choreography… Although the First Contact team could plan visual effects shots with animated storyboards, ILM supplied Gareth Edwards with a next-level virtual viewfinder that allowed the director to select his shots by immersing himself among Rogue One’s ships in real time. “What we wanted to do is give Gareth the opportunity to shoot his space battles and other all-digital scenes the same way he shoots his live-action. Then he could go in with this sort of virtual viewfinder and view the space battle going on, and figure out what the best angle was to shoot those ships from,” senior animation supervisor Hal Hickel described in the Rogue One: Digital Storytelling featurette. Hickel divulged that the sequence involving the dish array docking with the Death Star was an example of the “spontaneous discovery of great angles,” as the scene was never storyboarded or previsualized. Visual effects supervisor John Knoll with director Gareth Edwards during production of Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (Credit: ILM & Lucasfilm). Tough Little Ships The Federation and Rebel Alliance each deployed “tough little ships” (an endearing description Commander William T. Riker [Jonathan Frakes] bestowed upon the U.S.S. Defiant in First Contact) in their respective conflicts, namely the U.S.S. Defiant from Deep Space Nine and the Tantive IV from A New Hope. VisionArt had already built a CG Defiant for the Deep Space Nine series, but ILM upgraded the model with images gathered from the ship’s three-foot physical model. A similar tactic was taken to bring the Tantive IV into the digital realm for Rogue One. “This was the Blockade Runner. This was the most accurate 1:1 reproduction we could possibly have made,” model supervisor Russell Paul declared to Cinefex’s Joe Fordham. “We did an extensive photo reference shoot and photogrammetry re-creation of the miniature. From there, we built it out as accurately as possible.” Speaking of sturdy ships, if you look very closely, you can spot a model of the Millennium Falcon flashing across the background as the U.S.S. Defiant makes an attack run on the Borg cube at the Battle of Sector 001! Exploration and Hope The in-universe ramifications that materialize from the Battles of Sector 001 and Scarif are monumental. The destruction of the Borg cube compels the Borg Queen to travel back in time in an attempt to vanquish Earth before the Federation can even be formed, but Captain Picard and the Enterprise-E foil the plot and end up helping their 21st century ancestors make “first contact” with another species, the logic-revering Vulcans. The post-Scarif benefits take longer to play out for the Rebel Alliance, but the theft of the Death Star plans eventually leads to the superweapon’s destruction. The Galactic Civil War is far from over, but Scarif is a significant step in the Alliance’s effort to overthrow the Empire. The visual effects ILM provided for First Contact and Rogue One contributed significantly to the critical and commercial acclaim both pictures enjoyed, a victory reflecting the relentless dedication, tireless work ethic, and innovative spirit embodied by visual effects supervisor John Knoll and ILM’s entire staff. While being interviewed for The Making of Star Trek: First Contact, actor Patrick Stewart praised ILM’s invaluable influence, emphasizing, “ILM was with us, on this movie, almost every day on set. There is so much that they are involved in.” And, regardless of your personal preferences – phasers or lasers, photon torpedoes or proton torpedoes, warp speed or hyperspace – perhaps Industrial Light & Magic’s ability to infuse excitement into both franchises demonstrates that Star Trek and Star Wars encompass themes that are not competitive, but compatible. After all, what goes together better than exploration and hope? – Jay Stobie (he/him) is a writer, author, and consultant who has contributed articles to ILM.com, Skysound.com, Star Wars Insider, StarWars.com, Star Trek Explorer, Star Trek Magazine, and StarTrek.com. Jay loves sci-fi, fantasy, and film, and you can learn more about him by visiting JayStobie.com or finding him on Twitter, Instagram, and other social media platforms at @StobiesGalaxy.
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
  • As AI faces court challenges from Disney and Universal, legal battles are shaping the industry's future | Opinion

    As AI faces court challenges from Disney and Universal, legal battles are shaping the industry's future | Opinion
    Silicon advances and design innovations do still push us forward – but the future landscape of the industry is also being sculpted in courtrooms and parliaments

    Image credit: Disney / Epic Games

    Opinion

    by Rob Fahey
    Contributing Editor

    Published on June 13, 2025

    In some regards, the past couple of weeks have felt rather reassuring.
    We've just seen a hugely successful launch for a new Nintendo console, replete with long queues for midnight sales events. Over the next few days, the various summer events and showcases that have sprouted amongst the scattered bones of E3 generated waves of interest and hype for a host of new games.
    It all feels like old times. It's enough to make you imagine that while change is the only constant, at least it's we're facing change that's fairly well understood, change in the form of faster, cheaper silicon, or bigger, more ambitious games.
    If only the winds that blow through this industry all came from such well-defined points on the compass. Nestled in amongst the week's headlines, though, was something that's likely to have profound but much harder to understand impacts on this industry and many others over the coming years – a lawsuit being brought by Disney and NBC Universal against Midjourney, operators of the eponymous generative AI image creation tool.
    In some regards, the lawsuit looks fairly straightforward; the arguments made and considered in reaching its outcome, though, may have a profound impact on both the ability of creatives and media companiesto protect their IP rights from a very new kind of threat, and the ways in which a promising but highly controversial and risky new set of development and creative tools can be used commercially.
    A more likely tack on Midjourney's side will be the argument that they are not responsible for what their customers create with the tool
    I say the lawsuit looks straightforward from some angles, but honestly overall it looks fairly open and shut – the media giants accuse Midjourney of replicating their copyrighted characters and material, and of essentially building a machine for churning out limitless copyright violations.
    The evidence submitted includes screenshot after screenshot of Midjourney generating pages of images of famous copyrighted and trademarked characters ranging from Yoda to Homer Simpson, so "no we didn't" isn't going to be much of a defence strategy here.
    A more likely tack on Midjourney's side will be the argument that they are not responsible for what their customers create with the tool – you don't sue the manufacturers of oil paints or canvases when artists use them to paint something copyright-infringing, nor does Microsoft get sued when someone writes something libellous in Word, and Midjourney may try to argue that their software belongs in that tool category, with users alone being ultimately responsible for how they use them.

    If that argument prevails and survives appeals and challenges, it would be a major triumph for the nascent generative AI industry and a hugely damaging blow to IP holders and creatives, since it would seriously undermine their argument that AI companies shouldn't be able to include copyrighted material into training data sets without licensing or compensation.
    The reason Disney and NBCU are going after Midjourney specifically seems to be partially down to Midjourney being especially reticent to negotiate with them about licensing fees and prompt restrictions; other generative AI firms have started talking, at least, about paying for content licenses for training data, and have imposed various limitations on their software to prevent the most egregious and obvious forms of copyright violation.
    In the process, though, they're essentially risking a court showdown over a set of not-quite-clear legal questions at the heart of this dispute, and if Midjourney were to prevail in that argument, other AI companies would likely back off from engaging with IP holders on this topic.
    To be clear, though, it seems highly unlikely that Midjourney will win that argument, at least not in the medium to long term. Yet depending on how this case moves forward, losing the argument could have equally dramatic consequences – especially if the courts find themselves compelled to consider the question of how, exactly, a generative AI system reproduces a copyrighted character with such precision without storing copyright-infringing data in some manner.
    The 2020s are turning out to be the decade in which many key regulatory issues come to a head all at once
    AI advocates have been trying to handwave around this notion from the outset, but at some point a court is going to have to sit down and confront the fact that the precision with which these systems can replicate copyrighted characters, scenes, and other materials requires that they must have stored that infringing material in some form.
    That it's stored as a scattered mesh of probabilities across the vertices of a high-dimensional vector array, rather than a straightforward, monolithic media file, is clearly important but may ultimately be considered moot. If the data is in the system and can be replicated on request, how that differs from Napster or The Pirate Bay is arguably just a matter of technical obfuscation.
    Not having to defend that technical argument in court thus far has been a huge boon to the generative AI field; if it is knocked over in that venue, it will have knock-on effects on every company in the sector and on every business that uses their products.
    Nobody can be quite sure which of the various rocks and pebbles being kicked on this slope is going to set off the landslide, but there seems to be an increasing consensus that a legal and regulatory reckoning is coming for generative AI.
    Consequently, a lot of what's happening in that market right now has the feel of companies desperately trying to establish products and lock in revenue streams before that happens, because it'll be harder to regulate a technology that's genuinely integrated into the world's economic systems than it is to impose limits on one that's currently only clocking up relatively paltry sales and revenues.

    Keeping an eye on this is crucial for any industry that's started experimenting with AI in its workflows – none more than a creative industry like video games, where various forms of AI usage have been posited, although the enthusiasm and buzz so far massively outweighs any tangible benefits from the technology.
    Regardless of what happens in legal and regulatory contexts, AI is already a double-edged sword for any creative industry.
    Used judiciously, it might help to speed up development processes and reduce overheads. Applied in a slapdash or thoughtless manner, it can and will end up wreaking havoc on development timelines, filling up storefronts with endless waves of vaguely-copyright-infringing slop, and potentially make creative firms, from the industry's biggest companies to its smallest indie developers, into victims of impossibly large-scale copyright infringement rather than beneficiaries of a new wave of technology-fuelled productivity.
    The legal threat now hanging over the sector isn't new, merely amplified. We've known for a long time that AI generated artwork, code, and text has significant problems from the perspective of intellectual property rights.
    Even if you're not using AI yourself, however – even if you're vehemently opposed to it on moral and ethical grounds, the Midjourney judgement and its fallout may well impact the creative work you produce yourself and how it ends up being used and abused by these products in future.
    This all has huge ramifications for the games business and will shape everything from how games are created to how IP can be protected for many years to come – a wind of change that's very different and vastly more unpredictable than those we're accustomed to. It's a reminder of just how much of the industry's future is currently being shaped not in development studios and semiconductor labs, but rather in courtrooms and parliamentary committees.
    The ways in which generative AI can be used and how copyright can persist in the face of it will be fundamentally shaped in courts and parliaments, but it's far from the only crucially important topic being hashed out in those venues.
    The ongoing legal turmoil over the opening up of mobile app ecosystems, too, will have huge impacts on the games industry. Meanwhile, the debates over loot boxes, gambling, and various consumer protection aspects related to free-to-play models continue to rumble on in the background.
    Because the industry moves fast while governments move slow, it's easy to forget that that's still an active topic for as far as governments are concerned, and hammers may come down at any time.
    Regulation by governments, whether through the passage of new legislation or the interpretation of existing laws in the courts, has always loomed in the background of any major industry, especially one with strong cultural relevance. The games industry is no stranger to that being part of the background heartbeat of the business.
    The 2020s, however, are turning out to be the decade in which many key regulatory issues come to a head all at once, whether it's AI and copyright, app stores and walled gardens, or loot boxes and IAP-based business models.
    Rulings on those topics in various different global markets will create a complex new landscape that will shape the winds that blow through the business, and how things look in the 2030s and beyond will be fundamentally impacted by those decisions.
    #faces #court #challenges #disney #universal
    As AI faces court challenges from Disney and Universal, legal battles are shaping the industry's future | Opinion
    As AI faces court challenges from Disney and Universal, legal battles are shaping the industry's future | Opinion Silicon advances and design innovations do still push us forward – but the future landscape of the industry is also being sculpted in courtrooms and parliaments Image credit: Disney / Epic Games Opinion by Rob Fahey Contributing Editor Published on June 13, 2025 In some regards, the past couple of weeks have felt rather reassuring. We've just seen a hugely successful launch for a new Nintendo console, replete with long queues for midnight sales events. Over the next few days, the various summer events and showcases that have sprouted amongst the scattered bones of E3 generated waves of interest and hype for a host of new games. It all feels like old times. It's enough to make you imagine that while change is the only constant, at least it's we're facing change that's fairly well understood, change in the form of faster, cheaper silicon, or bigger, more ambitious games. If only the winds that blow through this industry all came from such well-defined points on the compass. Nestled in amongst the week's headlines, though, was something that's likely to have profound but much harder to understand impacts on this industry and many others over the coming years – a lawsuit being brought by Disney and NBC Universal against Midjourney, operators of the eponymous generative AI image creation tool. In some regards, the lawsuit looks fairly straightforward; the arguments made and considered in reaching its outcome, though, may have a profound impact on both the ability of creatives and media companiesto protect their IP rights from a very new kind of threat, and the ways in which a promising but highly controversial and risky new set of development and creative tools can be used commercially. A more likely tack on Midjourney's side will be the argument that they are not responsible for what their customers create with the tool I say the lawsuit looks straightforward from some angles, but honestly overall it looks fairly open and shut – the media giants accuse Midjourney of replicating their copyrighted characters and material, and of essentially building a machine for churning out limitless copyright violations. The evidence submitted includes screenshot after screenshot of Midjourney generating pages of images of famous copyrighted and trademarked characters ranging from Yoda to Homer Simpson, so "no we didn't" isn't going to be much of a defence strategy here. A more likely tack on Midjourney's side will be the argument that they are not responsible for what their customers create with the tool – you don't sue the manufacturers of oil paints or canvases when artists use them to paint something copyright-infringing, nor does Microsoft get sued when someone writes something libellous in Word, and Midjourney may try to argue that their software belongs in that tool category, with users alone being ultimately responsible for how they use them. If that argument prevails and survives appeals and challenges, it would be a major triumph for the nascent generative AI industry and a hugely damaging blow to IP holders and creatives, since it would seriously undermine their argument that AI companies shouldn't be able to include copyrighted material into training data sets without licensing or compensation. The reason Disney and NBCU are going after Midjourney specifically seems to be partially down to Midjourney being especially reticent to negotiate with them about licensing fees and prompt restrictions; other generative AI firms have started talking, at least, about paying for content licenses for training data, and have imposed various limitations on their software to prevent the most egregious and obvious forms of copyright violation. In the process, though, they're essentially risking a court showdown over a set of not-quite-clear legal questions at the heart of this dispute, and if Midjourney were to prevail in that argument, other AI companies would likely back off from engaging with IP holders on this topic. To be clear, though, it seems highly unlikely that Midjourney will win that argument, at least not in the medium to long term. Yet depending on how this case moves forward, losing the argument could have equally dramatic consequences – especially if the courts find themselves compelled to consider the question of how, exactly, a generative AI system reproduces a copyrighted character with such precision without storing copyright-infringing data in some manner. The 2020s are turning out to be the decade in which many key regulatory issues come to a head all at once AI advocates have been trying to handwave around this notion from the outset, but at some point a court is going to have to sit down and confront the fact that the precision with which these systems can replicate copyrighted characters, scenes, and other materials requires that they must have stored that infringing material in some form. That it's stored as a scattered mesh of probabilities across the vertices of a high-dimensional vector array, rather than a straightforward, monolithic media file, is clearly important but may ultimately be considered moot. If the data is in the system and can be replicated on request, how that differs from Napster or The Pirate Bay is arguably just a matter of technical obfuscation. Not having to defend that technical argument in court thus far has been a huge boon to the generative AI field; if it is knocked over in that venue, it will have knock-on effects on every company in the sector and on every business that uses their products. Nobody can be quite sure which of the various rocks and pebbles being kicked on this slope is going to set off the landslide, but there seems to be an increasing consensus that a legal and regulatory reckoning is coming for generative AI. Consequently, a lot of what's happening in that market right now has the feel of companies desperately trying to establish products and lock in revenue streams before that happens, because it'll be harder to regulate a technology that's genuinely integrated into the world's economic systems than it is to impose limits on one that's currently only clocking up relatively paltry sales and revenues. Keeping an eye on this is crucial for any industry that's started experimenting with AI in its workflows – none more than a creative industry like video games, where various forms of AI usage have been posited, although the enthusiasm and buzz so far massively outweighs any tangible benefits from the technology. Regardless of what happens in legal and regulatory contexts, AI is already a double-edged sword for any creative industry. Used judiciously, it might help to speed up development processes and reduce overheads. Applied in a slapdash or thoughtless manner, it can and will end up wreaking havoc on development timelines, filling up storefronts with endless waves of vaguely-copyright-infringing slop, and potentially make creative firms, from the industry's biggest companies to its smallest indie developers, into victims of impossibly large-scale copyright infringement rather than beneficiaries of a new wave of technology-fuelled productivity. The legal threat now hanging over the sector isn't new, merely amplified. We've known for a long time that AI generated artwork, code, and text has significant problems from the perspective of intellectual property rights. Even if you're not using AI yourself, however – even if you're vehemently opposed to it on moral and ethical grounds, the Midjourney judgement and its fallout may well impact the creative work you produce yourself and how it ends up being used and abused by these products in future. This all has huge ramifications for the games business and will shape everything from how games are created to how IP can be protected for many years to come – a wind of change that's very different and vastly more unpredictable than those we're accustomed to. It's a reminder of just how much of the industry's future is currently being shaped not in development studios and semiconductor labs, but rather in courtrooms and parliamentary committees. The ways in which generative AI can be used and how copyright can persist in the face of it will be fundamentally shaped in courts and parliaments, but it's far from the only crucially important topic being hashed out in those venues. The ongoing legal turmoil over the opening up of mobile app ecosystems, too, will have huge impacts on the games industry. Meanwhile, the debates over loot boxes, gambling, and various consumer protection aspects related to free-to-play models continue to rumble on in the background. Because the industry moves fast while governments move slow, it's easy to forget that that's still an active topic for as far as governments are concerned, and hammers may come down at any time. Regulation by governments, whether through the passage of new legislation or the interpretation of existing laws in the courts, has always loomed in the background of any major industry, especially one with strong cultural relevance. The games industry is no stranger to that being part of the background heartbeat of the business. The 2020s, however, are turning out to be the decade in which many key regulatory issues come to a head all at once, whether it's AI and copyright, app stores and walled gardens, or loot boxes and IAP-based business models. Rulings on those topics in various different global markets will create a complex new landscape that will shape the winds that blow through the business, and how things look in the 2030s and beyond will be fundamentally impacted by those decisions. #faces #court #challenges #disney #universal
    WWW.GAMESINDUSTRY.BIZ
    As AI faces court challenges from Disney and Universal, legal battles are shaping the industry's future | Opinion
    As AI faces court challenges from Disney and Universal, legal battles are shaping the industry's future | Opinion Silicon advances and design innovations do still push us forward – but the future landscape of the industry is also being sculpted in courtrooms and parliaments Image credit: Disney / Epic Games Opinion by Rob Fahey Contributing Editor Published on June 13, 2025 In some regards, the past couple of weeks have felt rather reassuring. We've just seen a hugely successful launch for a new Nintendo console, replete with long queues for midnight sales events. Over the next few days, the various summer events and showcases that have sprouted amongst the scattered bones of E3 generated waves of interest and hype for a host of new games. It all feels like old times. It's enough to make you imagine that while change is the only constant, at least it's we're facing change that's fairly well understood, change in the form of faster, cheaper silicon, or bigger, more ambitious games. If only the winds that blow through this industry all came from such well-defined points on the compass. Nestled in amongst the week's headlines, though, was something that's likely to have profound but much harder to understand impacts on this industry and many others over the coming years – a lawsuit being brought by Disney and NBC Universal against Midjourney, operators of the eponymous generative AI image creation tool. In some regards, the lawsuit looks fairly straightforward; the arguments made and considered in reaching its outcome, though, may have a profound impact on both the ability of creatives and media companies (including game studios and publishers) to protect their IP rights from a very new kind of threat, and the ways in which a promising but highly controversial and risky new set of development and creative tools can be used commercially. A more likely tack on Midjourney's side will be the argument that they are not responsible for what their customers create with the tool I say the lawsuit looks straightforward from some angles, but honestly overall it looks fairly open and shut – the media giants accuse Midjourney of replicating their copyrighted characters and material, and of essentially building a machine for churning out limitless copyright violations. The evidence submitted includes screenshot after screenshot of Midjourney generating pages of images of famous copyrighted and trademarked characters ranging from Yoda to Homer Simpson, so "no we didn't" isn't going to be much of a defence strategy here. A more likely tack on Midjourney's side will be the argument that they are not responsible for what their customers create with the tool – you don't sue the manufacturers of oil paints or canvases when artists use them to paint something copyright-infringing, nor does Microsoft get sued when someone writes something libellous in Word, and Midjourney may try to argue that their software belongs in that tool category, with users alone being ultimately responsible for how they use them. If that argument prevails and survives appeals and challenges, it would be a major triumph for the nascent generative AI industry and a hugely damaging blow to IP holders and creatives, since it would seriously undermine their argument that AI companies shouldn't be able to include copyrighted material into training data sets without licensing or compensation. The reason Disney and NBCU are going after Midjourney specifically seems to be partially down to Midjourney being especially reticent to negotiate with them about licensing fees and prompt restrictions; other generative AI firms have started talking, at least, about paying for content licenses for training data, and have imposed various limitations on their software to prevent the most egregious and obvious forms of copyright violation (at least for famous characters belonging to rich companies; if you're an individual or a smaller company, it's entirely the Wild West out there as regards your IP rights). In the process, though, they're essentially risking a court showdown over a set of not-quite-clear legal questions at the heart of this dispute, and if Midjourney were to prevail in that argument, other AI companies would likely back off from engaging with IP holders on this topic. To be clear, though, it seems highly unlikely that Midjourney will win that argument, at least not in the medium to long term. Yet depending on how this case moves forward, losing the argument could have equally dramatic consequences – especially if the courts find themselves compelled to consider the question of how, exactly, a generative AI system reproduces a copyrighted character with such precision without storing copyright-infringing data in some manner. The 2020s are turning out to be the decade in which many key regulatory issues come to a head all at once AI advocates have been trying to handwave around this notion from the outset, but at some point a court is going to have to sit down and confront the fact that the precision with which these systems can replicate copyrighted characters, scenes, and other materials requires that they must have stored that infringing material in some form. That it's stored as a scattered mesh of probabilities across the vertices of a high-dimensional vector array, rather than a straightforward, monolithic media file, is clearly important but may ultimately be considered moot. If the data is in the system and can be replicated on request, how that differs from Napster or The Pirate Bay is arguably just a matter of technical obfuscation. Not having to defend that technical argument in court thus far has been a huge boon to the generative AI field; if it is knocked over in that venue, it will have knock-on effects on every company in the sector and on every business that uses their products. Nobody can be quite sure which of the various rocks and pebbles being kicked on this slope is going to set off the landslide, but there seems to be an increasing consensus that a legal and regulatory reckoning is coming for generative AI. Consequently, a lot of what's happening in that market right now has the feel of companies desperately trying to establish products and lock in revenue streams before that happens, because it'll be harder to regulate a technology that's genuinely integrated into the world's economic systems than it is to impose limits on one that's currently only clocking up relatively paltry sales and revenues. Keeping an eye on this is crucial for any industry that's started experimenting with AI in its workflows – none more than a creative industry like video games, where various forms of AI usage have been posited, although the enthusiasm and buzz so far massively outweighs any tangible benefits from the technology. Regardless of what happens in legal and regulatory contexts, AI is already a double-edged sword for any creative industry. Used judiciously, it might help to speed up development processes and reduce overheads. Applied in a slapdash or thoughtless manner, it can and will end up wreaking havoc on development timelines, filling up storefronts with endless waves of vaguely-copyright-infringing slop, and potentially make creative firms, from the industry's biggest companies to its smallest indie developers, into victims of impossibly large-scale copyright infringement rather than beneficiaries of a new wave of technology-fuelled productivity. The legal threat now hanging over the sector isn't new, merely amplified. We've known for a long time that AI generated artwork, code, and text has significant problems from the perspective of intellectual property rights (you can infringe someone else's copyright with it, but generally can't impose your own copyright on its creations – opening careless companies up to a risk of having key assets in their game being technically public domain and impossible to protect). Even if you're not using AI yourself, however – even if you're vehemently opposed to it on moral and ethical grounds (which is entirely valid given the highly dubious land-grab these companies have done for their training data), the Midjourney judgement and its fallout may well impact the creative work you produce yourself and how it ends up being used and abused by these products in future. This all has huge ramifications for the games business and will shape everything from how games are created to how IP can be protected for many years to come – a wind of change that's very different and vastly more unpredictable than those we're accustomed to. It's a reminder of just how much of the industry's future is currently being shaped not in development studios and semiconductor labs, but rather in courtrooms and parliamentary committees. The ways in which generative AI can be used and how copyright can persist in the face of it will be fundamentally shaped in courts and parliaments, but it's far from the only crucially important topic being hashed out in those venues. The ongoing legal turmoil over the opening up of mobile app ecosystems, too, will have huge impacts on the games industry. Meanwhile, the debates over loot boxes, gambling, and various consumer protection aspects related to free-to-play models continue to rumble on in the background. Because the industry moves fast while governments move slow, it's easy to forget that that's still an active topic for as far as governments are concerned, and hammers may come down at any time. Regulation by governments, whether through the passage of new legislation or the interpretation of existing laws in the courts, has always loomed in the background of any major industry, especially one with strong cultural relevance. The games industry is no stranger to that being part of the background heartbeat of the business. The 2020s, however, are turning out to be the decade in which many key regulatory issues come to a head all at once, whether it's AI and copyright, app stores and walled gardens, or loot boxes and IAP-based business models. Rulings on those topics in various different global markets will create a complex new landscape that will shape the winds that blow through the business, and how things look in the 2030s and beyond will be fundamentally impacted by those decisions.
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
  • Trump-Musk feud wipes $152 billion off Tesla, sparks Dragon spacecraft threat and Epstein files claim

    WTF?! When the president of the United States and the world's richest person have a falling out, the ramifications can be widespread. Since Musk and Trump went from friends to enemies, billion has been wiped off Tesla's share price, and Musk has threatened to decommission the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft that NASA relies on to deliver crew to and from the International Space Station. Musk has also said that Trump appears in files relating to Jeffrey Epstein.
    When he left the White House last week, Musk blasted those who said he'd had a falling out with Trump. The CEO insisted his departure was due to his scheduled 130 days as a government employee coming to an end. But Musk had been publicly criticizing Trump's Big Beautiful Bill Act, warning it would increase the budget deficit.
    After learning that an electric-vehicle tax credit that would help incentivize Tesla purchases was not included in the bill, Musk called it "a disgusting abomination" on X and urged Americans to call Congress to have the bill killed.
    On Thursday, the two men used their respective social media platforms to throw insults at each other. At one point, Trump threatened to "terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts" as a way to slash billions of dollars from the budget.
    The warning sent Tesla's shares down just over 14%, wiping around billion off its valuation – and almost billion off Musk's total net worth.
    In response to Trump's threat to cancel Musk's government contracts, Musk said SpaceX will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately. The craft, which NASA relies on for transport missions including ferrying astronauts to the ISS, is under contract worth roughly billion. The capsule is the only US spacecraft capable of flying humans into orbit. The only other crewed spacecraft that sends astronauts to the ISS is Russia's Soyuz system.
    However, after an X user told him to "cool off," Musk wrote, "Ok, we won't decommission Dragon."
    // Related Stories

    As the war of words has grown, Musk said Trump's controversial tariffs will cause a recession in the second half of this year. But his "really big bomb" was an allegation that Trump appears in the files of pedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, who killed himself in his jail cell in August 2019 while awaiting trial.
    Musk has also shared a post calling for Trump's impeachment and posted a poll asking if a new political party should be created in the US that "actually represents the 80% in the middle." 81% of the 4.4 million respondents have voted yes.
    One has to wonder if Musk believes his time in the White House was worth it. Beyond his reputational damage, his companies have suffered by association. Tesla sales were down 50% last month, and there have been protests and attacks on dealerships. The company's share price is down 40% from its all-time high on December 17, 2024, before Musk was part of DOGE.
    #trumpmusk #feud #wipes #billion #off
    Trump-Musk feud wipes $152 billion off Tesla, sparks Dragon spacecraft threat and Epstein files claim
    WTF?! When the president of the United States and the world's richest person have a falling out, the ramifications can be widespread. Since Musk and Trump went from friends to enemies, billion has been wiped off Tesla's share price, and Musk has threatened to decommission the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft that NASA relies on to deliver crew to and from the International Space Station. Musk has also said that Trump appears in files relating to Jeffrey Epstein. When he left the White House last week, Musk blasted those who said he'd had a falling out with Trump. The CEO insisted his departure was due to his scheduled 130 days as a government employee coming to an end. But Musk had been publicly criticizing Trump's Big Beautiful Bill Act, warning it would increase the budget deficit. After learning that an electric-vehicle tax credit that would help incentivize Tesla purchases was not included in the bill, Musk called it "a disgusting abomination" on X and urged Americans to call Congress to have the bill killed. On Thursday, the two men used their respective social media platforms to throw insults at each other. At one point, Trump threatened to "terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts" as a way to slash billions of dollars from the budget. The warning sent Tesla's shares down just over 14%, wiping around billion off its valuation – and almost billion off Musk's total net worth. In response to Trump's threat to cancel Musk's government contracts, Musk said SpaceX will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately. The craft, which NASA relies on for transport missions including ferrying astronauts to the ISS, is under contract worth roughly billion. The capsule is the only US spacecraft capable of flying humans into orbit. The only other crewed spacecraft that sends astronauts to the ISS is Russia's Soyuz system. However, after an X user told him to "cool off," Musk wrote, "Ok, we won't decommission Dragon." // Related Stories As the war of words has grown, Musk said Trump's controversial tariffs will cause a recession in the second half of this year. But his "really big bomb" was an allegation that Trump appears in the files of pedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, who killed himself in his jail cell in August 2019 while awaiting trial. Musk has also shared a post calling for Trump's impeachment and posted a poll asking if a new political party should be created in the US that "actually represents the 80% in the middle." 81% of the 4.4 million respondents have voted yes. One has to wonder if Musk believes his time in the White House was worth it. Beyond his reputational damage, his companies have suffered by association. Tesla sales were down 50% last month, and there have been protests and attacks on dealerships. The company's share price is down 40% from its all-time high on December 17, 2024, before Musk was part of DOGE. #trumpmusk #feud #wipes #billion #off
    WWW.TECHSPOT.COM
    Trump-Musk feud wipes $152 billion off Tesla, sparks Dragon spacecraft threat and Epstein files claim
    WTF?! When the president of the United States and the world's richest person have a falling out, the ramifications can be widespread. Since Musk and Trump went from friends to enemies, $152 billion has been wiped off Tesla's share price, and Musk has threatened to decommission the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft that NASA relies on to deliver crew to and from the International Space Station. Musk has also said that Trump appears in files relating to Jeffrey Epstein. When he left the White House last week, Musk blasted those who said he'd had a falling out with Trump. The CEO insisted his departure was due to his scheduled 130 days as a government employee coming to an end. But Musk had been publicly criticizing Trump's Big Beautiful Bill Act, warning it would increase the budget deficit. After learning that an electric-vehicle tax credit that would help incentivize Tesla purchases was not included in the bill, Musk called it "a disgusting abomination" on X and urged Americans to call Congress to have the bill killed. On Thursday, the two men used their respective social media platforms to throw insults at each other. At one point, Trump threatened to "terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts" as a way to slash billions of dollars from the budget. The warning sent Tesla's shares down just over 14%, wiping around $152 billion off its valuation – and almost $100 billion off Musk's total net worth. In response to Trump's threat to cancel Musk's government contracts, Musk said SpaceX will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately. The craft, which NASA relies on for transport missions including ferrying astronauts to the ISS, is under contract worth roughly $4.9 billion. The capsule is the only US spacecraft capable of flying humans into orbit. The only other crewed spacecraft that sends astronauts to the ISS is Russia's Soyuz system. However, after an X user told him to "cool off," Musk wrote, "Ok, we won't decommission Dragon." // Related Stories As the war of words has grown, Musk said Trump's controversial tariffs will cause a recession in the second half of this year. But his "really big bomb" was an allegation that Trump appears in the files of pedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, who killed himself in his jail cell in August 2019 while awaiting trial. Musk has also shared a post calling for Trump's impeachment and posted a poll asking if a new political party should be created in the US that "actually represents the 80% in the middle." 81% of the 4.4 million respondents have voted yes. One has to wonder if Musk believes his time in the White House was worth it. Beyond his reputational damage, his companies have suffered by association. Tesla sales were down 50% last month, and there have been protests and attacks on dealerships. The company's share price is down 40% from its all-time high on December 17, 2024, before Musk was part of DOGE.
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Angry
    Sad
    423
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
  • Double-Whammy When AGI Embeds With Humanoid Robots And Occupies Both White-Collar And Blue-Collar Jobs

    AGI will be embedded into humanoid robots, which makes white-collar and blue-collar jobs a target ... More for walking/talking automation.getty
    In today’s column, I examine the highly worrisome qualms expressed that the advent of artificial general intelligenceis likely to usurp white-collar jobs. The stated concern is that since AGI will be on par with human intellect, any job that relies principally on intellectual pursuits such as typical white-collar work will be taken over via the use of AGI. Employers will realize that rather than dealing with human white-collar workers, they can more readily get the job done via AGI. This, in turn, has led to a rising call that people should aim toward blue-collar jobs, doing so becausethose forms of employment will not be undercut via AGI.

    Sorry to say, that misses the bigger picture, namely that AGI when combined with humanoid robots is coming not only for white-collar jobs but also blue-collar jobs too. It is a proverbial double-whammy when it comes to the attainment of AGI.

    Let’s talk about it.

    This analysis of an innovative AI breakthrough is part of my ongoing Forbes column coverage on the latest in AI, including identifying and explaining various impactful AI complexities.

    Heading Toward AGI And ASI
    First, some fundamentals are required to set the stage for this weighty discussion.
    There is a great deal of research going on to further advance AI. The general goal is to either reach artificial general intelligenceor maybe even the outstretched possibility of achieving artificial superintelligence.
    AGI is AI that is considered on par with human intellect and can seemingly match our intelligence. ASI is AI that has gone beyond human intellect and would be superior in many if not all feasible ways. The idea is that ASI would be able to run circles around humans by outthinking us at every turn. For more details on the nature of conventional AI versus AGI and ASI, see my analysis at the link here.
    We have not yet attained AGI.
    In fact, it is unknown as to whether we will reach AGI, or that maybe AGI will be achievable in decades or perhaps centuries from now. The AGI attainment dates that are floating around are wildly varying and wildly unsubstantiated by any credible evidence or ironclad logic. ASI is even more beyond the pale when it comes to where we are currently with conventional AI.
    AGI Problem Only Half Seen
    Before launching into the primary matter at hand in this discussion, let’s contemplate a famous quote attributed to Charles Kettering, a legendary inventor, who said, “A problem well-stated is a problem half-solved.”

    I bring this up because those loud clamors right now about the assumption that AGI will replace white-collar workers are only seeing half of the problem. The problem as they see it is that since AGI is intellectually on par with humans, and since white-collar workers mainly use intellect in their work endeavors, AGI is going to be used in place of humans for white-collar work.
    I will in a moment explain why that’s only half of the problem and there is a demonstrative need to more carefully and fully articulate the nature of the problem.
    Will AGI Axiomatically Take White-Collar Jobs
    On a related facet, the belief that AGI will axiomatically replace white-collar labor makes a number of other related key assumptions. I shall briefly explore those and then come back to why the problem itself is only half-baked.
    The cost of using AGI for doing white-collar work will need to be presumably a better ROI choice over human workers. If not, then an employer would be wiser to stick with humans rather than employing AGI. There seems to often be an unstated belief that AGI is necessarily going to be a less costly route than employing humans.
    We don’t know yet what the cost of using AGI will be.
    It could be highly expensive. Indeed, some are worried that the world will divide into the AGI haves and AGI have-nots, partially due to the exorbitant cost that AGI might involve. If AGI is free to use, well, that would seem to be the nail in the coffin related to using human workers for the same capacity. Another angle is that AGI is relatively inexpensive in comparison to human labor. In that case, the use of AGI is likely to win over human labor usage.
    But if the cost of AGI is nearer to the cost of human labor, or more so, then employers would rationally need to weigh the use of one versus the other.
    Note that when referring to the cost of human labor, there is more to that calculation than simply the dollar-hour labor rate per se. There are lots of other less apparent costs, such as the cost to manage human labor, the cost of dealing with HR-related issues, and many other factors that come into the weighty matter. Thus, an AGI versus human labor ROI will be more complex than it might seem at an initial glance. In addition, keep in mind that AGI would seemingly be readily switched on and off, and have other capacities that human labor would not equally tend to allow.
    The Other Half Is Coming Too
    Assume that by and large the advent of AGI will decimate the need for white-collar human labor. The refrain right now is that people should begin tilting toward blue-collar jobs as an alternative to white-collar jobs. This is a logical form of thinking in the sense that AGI as an intellectual mechanism would be unable to compete in jobs that involve hands-on work.
    A plumber needs to come to your house and do hands-on work to fix your plumbing. This is a physicality that entails arriving at your physical home, physically bringing and using tools, and physically repairing your faulty home plumbing. A truck driver likewise needs to sit in the cab of a truck and drive the vehicle. These are physically based tasks.
    There is no getting around the fact that these are hands-on activities.
    Aha, yes, those are physical tasks, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that only human hands can perform them. The gradual emergence of humanoid robots will provide an alternative to human hands. A humanoid robot is a type of robot that is built to resemble a human in form and function. You’ve undoubtedly seen those types of robots in the many online video recordings showing them walking, jumping, grasping at objects, and so on.
    A tremendous amount of active research and development is taking place to devise humanoid robots. They look comical right now. You watch those videos and laugh when the robot trips over a mere stick lying on the ground, something that a human would seldom trip over. You scoff when a robot tries to grasp a coffee cup and inadvertently spills most of the coffee. It all seems humorous and a silly pursuit.
    Keep in mind that we are all observing the development process while it is still taking place. At some point, those guffaws of the humanoid robots will lessen. Humanoid robots will be as smooth and graceful as humans. This will continue to be honed. Eventually, humanoid robots will be less prone to physical errors that humans make. In a sense, the physicality of a humanoid robot will be on par with humans, if not better, due to its mechanical properties.
    Do not discount the coming era of quite physically capable humanoid robots.
    AGI And Humanoid Robots Pair Up
    You might remember that in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, the fictional character known as The Strawman lacked a brain.
    Without seeming to anthropomorphize humanoid robots, the current situation is that those robots typically use a form of AI that is below the sophistication level of modern generative AI. That’s fine for now due to the need to first ensure that the physical movements of the robots get refined.
    I have discussed that a said-to-be realm of Physical AI is going to be a huge breakthrough with incredible ramifications, see my analysis at the link here. The idea underlying Physical AI is that the AI of today is being uplifted by doing data training on the physical world. This also tends to include the use of World Models, consisting of broad constructions about how the physical world works, such as that we are bound to operate under conditions of gravity, and other physical laws of nature, see the link here.
    The bottom line here is that there will be a close pairing of robust AI with humanoid robots.
    Imagine what a humanoid robot can accomplish if it is paired with AGI.
    I’ll break the suspense and point out that AGI paired with humanoid robots means that those robots readily enter the blue-collar worker realm. Suppose your plumbing needs fixing. No worries, a humanoid robot that encompasses AGI will be sent to your home. The AGI is astute enough to carry on conversations with you, and the AGI also fully operates the robot to undertake the plumbing tasks.
    How did the AGI-paired humanoid robot get to your home?
    Easy-peasy, it drove a car or truck to get there.
    I’ve previously predicted that all the work on devising autonomous vehicles and self-driving cars will get shaken up once we have suitable humanoid robots devised. There won’t be a need for a vehicle to contain self-driving capabilities. A humanoid robot will simply sit in the driver’s seat and drive the vehicle. This is a much more open-ended solution than having to craft components that go into and onto a vehicle to enable self-driving. See my coverage at the link here.
    Timing Is Notable
    One of the reasons that many do not give much thought to the pairing of AGI with humanoid robots is that today’s humanoid robots seem extraordinarily rudimentary and incapable of performing physical dexterity tasks on par with human capabilities. Meanwhile, there is brazen talk that AGI is just around the corner.
    AGI is said to be within our grasp.
    Let’s give the timing considerations a bit of scrutiny.
    There are three primary timing angles:

    Option 1: AGI first, then humanoid robots. AGI is attained before humanoid robots are sufficiently devised.
    Option 2: Humanoid robots first, then AGI. Humanoid robots are physically fluently adept before AGI is attained.
    Option 3: AGI and humanoid robots arrive about at the same time. AGI is attained and at the same time, it turns out that humanoid robots are fluently adept too, mainly by coincidence and not due to any cross-mixing.

    A skeptic would insist that there is a fourth possibility, consisting of the possibility that we never achieve AGI and/or we fail to achieve sufficiently physically capable humanoid robots. I am going to reject that possibility. Perhaps I am overly optimistic, but it seems to me that we will eventually attain AGI, and we will eventually attain physically capable humanoid robots.
    I shall next respectively consider each of the three genuinely reasonable possibilities.
    Option 1: AGI First, Then Humanoid Robots
    What if we manage to attain AGI before we manage to achieve physically fluent humanoid robots?
    That’s just fine.
    We would indubitably put AGI to work as a partner with humans in figuring out how we can push along the budding humanoid robot development process. It seems nearly obvious that with AGI’s capable assistance, we would overcome any bottlenecks and soon enough arrive at top-notch physically adept humanoid robots.
    At that juncture, we would then toss AGI into the humanoid robots and have ourselves quite an amazing combination.
    Option 2: Humanoid Robots First, Then AGI
    Suppose that we devise very physically adept humanoid robots but have not yet arrived at AGI.
    Are we in a pickle?
    Nope.
    We could use conventional advanced AI inside those humanoid robots. The combination would certainly be good enough for a wide variety of tasks. The odds are that we would need to be cautious about where such robots are utilized. Nonetheless, we would have essentially walking, talking, and productive humanoid robots.
    If AGI never happens, oh well, we end up with pretty good humanoid robots. On the other hand, once we arrive at AGI, those humanoid robots will be stellar. It’s just a matter of time.
    Option 3: AGI And Humanoid Robots At The Same Time
    Let’s consider the potential of AGI and humanoid robots perchance being attained around the same time. Assume that this timing isn’t due to an outright cross-mixing with each other. They just so happen to advance on a similar timeline.
    I tend to believe that’s the most likely of the three scenarios.
    Here’s why.
    First, despite all the hubris about AGI being within earshot, perhaps in the next year or two, which is a popular pronouncement by many AI luminaries, I tend to side with recent surveys of AI developers that put the date around the year 2040. Some AI luminaires sneakily play with the definition of AGI in hopes of making their predictions come true sooner, akin to moving the goalposts to easily score points. For my coverage on Sam Altman’s efforts of moving the cheese regarding AGI attainment, see the link here.
    Second, if you are willing to entertain the year 2040 as a potential date for achieving AGI, that’s about 15 years from now. In my estimation, the advancements being made in humanoid robots will readily progress such that by 2040 they will be very physically adept. Probably be sooner, but let’s go with the year 2040 for ease of contemplation.
    In my view, we will likely have humanoid robots doing well enough that they will be put into use prior to arriving at AGI. The pinnacle of robust humanoid robots and the attainment of AGI will roughly coincide with each other.

    Two peas in a pod.Impact Of Enormous Consequences
    In an upcoming column posting, I will examine the enormous consequences of having AGI paired with fully physically capable humanoid robots. As noted above, this will have a humongous impact on white-collar work and blue-collar work. There will be gargantuan economic impacts, societal impacts, cultural impacts, and so on.
    Some final thoughts for now.
    A single whammy is already being hotly debated. The debates currently tend to be preoccupied with the loss of white-collar jobs due to the attainment of AGI. A saving grace seems to be that at least blue-collar jobs are going to be around and thriving, even once AGI is attained. The world doesn’t seem overly gloomy if you can cling to the upbeat posture that blue-collar tasks remain intact.
    The double whammy is a lot more to take in.
    But the double whammy is the truth. The truth needs to be faced. If you are having doubts as a human about the future, just remember the famous words of Vince Lombardi: “Winners never quit, and quitters never win.”
    Humankind can handle the double whammy.
    Stay tuned for my upcoming coverage of what this entails.
    #doublewhammy #when #agi #embeds #with
    Double-Whammy When AGI Embeds With Humanoid Robots And Occupies Both White-Collar And Blue-Collar Jobs
    AGI will be embedded into humanoid robots, which makes white-collar and blue-collar jobs a target ... More for walking/talking automation.getty In today’s column, I examine the highly worrisome qualms expressed that the advent of artificial general intelligenceis likely to usurp white-collar jobs. The stated concern is that since AGI will be on par with human intellect, any job that relies principally on intellectual pursuits such as typical white-collar work will be taken over via the use of AGI. Employers will realize that rather than dealing with human white-collar workers, they can more readily get the job done via AGI. This, in turn, has led to a rising call that people should aim toward blue-collar jobs, doing so becausethose forms of employment will not be undercut via AGI. Sorry to say, that misses the bigger picture, namely that AGI when combined with humanoid robots is coming not only for white-collar jobs but also blue-collar jobs too. It is a proverbial double-whammy when it comes to the attainment of AGI. Let’s talk about it. This analysis of an innovative AI breakthrough is part of my ongoing Forbes column coverage on the latest in AI, including identifying and explaining various impactful AI complexities. Heading Toward AGI And ASI First, some fundamentals are required to set the stage for this weighty discussion. There is a great deal of research going on to further advance AI. The general goal is to either reach artificial general intelligenceor maybe even the outstretched possibility of achieving artificial superintelligence. AGI is AI that is considered on par with human intellect and can seemingly match our intelligence. ASI is AI that has gone beyond human intellect and would be superior in many if not all feasible ways. The idea is that ASI would be able to run circles around humans by outthinking us at every turn. For more details on the nature of conventional AI versus AGI and ASI, see my analysis at the link here. We have not yet attained AGI. In fact, it is unknown as to whether we will reach AGI, or that maybe AGI will be achievable in decades or perhaps centuries from now. The AGI attainment dates that are floating around are wildly varying and wildly unsubstantiated by any credible evidence or ironclad logic. ASI is even more beyond the pale when it comes to where we are currently with conventional AI. AGI Problem Only Half Seen Before launching into the primary matter at hand in this discussion, let’s contemplate a famous quote attributed to Charles Kettering, a legendary inventor, who said, “A problem well-stated is a problem half-solved.” I bring this up because those loud clamors right now about the assumption that AGI will replace white-collar workers are only seeing half of the problem. The problem as they see it is that since AGI is intellectually on par with humans, and since white-collar workers mainly use intellect in their work endeavors, AGI is going to be used in place of humans for white-collar work. I will in a moment explain why that’s only half of the problem and there is a demonstrative need to more carefully and fully articulate the nature of the problem. Will AGI Axiomatically Take White-Collar Jobs On a related facet, the belief that AGI will axiomatically replace white-collar labor makes a number of other related key assumptions. I shall briefly explore those and then come back to why the problem itself is only half-baked. The cost of using AGI for doing white-collar work will need to be presumably a better ROI choice over human workers. If not, then an employer would be wiser to stick with humans rather than employing AGI. There seems to often be an unstated belief that AGI is necessarily going to be a less costly route than employing humans. We don’t know yet what the cost of using AGI will be. It could be highly expensive. Indeed, some are worried that the world will divide into the AGI haves and AGI have-nots, partially due to the exorbitant cost that AGI might involve. If AGI is free to use, well, that would seem to be the nail in the coffin related to using human workers for the same capacity. Another angle is that AGI is relatively inexpensive in comparison to human labor. In that case, the use of AGI is likely to win over human labor usage. But if the cost of AGI is nearer to the cost of human labor, or more so, then employers would rationally need to weigh the use of one versus the other. Note that when referring to the cost of human labor, there is more to that calculation than simply the dollar-hour labor rate per se. There are lots of other less apparent costs, such as the cost to manage human labor, the cost of dealing with HR-related issues, and many other factors that come into the weighty matter. Thus, an AGI versus human labor ROI will be more complex than it might seem at an initial glance. In addition, keep in mind that AGI would seemingly be readily switched on and off, and have other capacities that human labor would not equally tend to allow. The Other Half Is Coming Too Assume that by and large the advent of AGI will decimate the need for white-collar human labor. The refrain right now is that people should begin tilting toward blue-collar jobs as an alternative to white-collar jobs. This is a logical form of thinking in the sense that AGI as an intellectual mechanism would be unable to compete in jobs that involve hands-on work. A plumber needs to come to your house and do hands-on work to fix your plumbing. This is a physicality that entails arriving at your physical home, physically bringing and using tools, and physically repairing your faulty home plumbing. A truck driver likewise needs to sit in the cab of a truck and drive the vehicle. These are physically based tasks. There is no getting around the fact that these are hands-on activities. Aha, yes, those are physical tasks, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that only human hands can perform them. The gradual emergence of humanoid robots will provide an alternative to human hands. A humanoid robot is a type of robot that is built to resemble a human in form and function. You’ve undoubtedly seen those types of robots in the many online video recordings showing them walking, jumping, grasping at objects, and so on. A tremendous amount of active research and development is taking place to devise humanoid robots. They look comical right now. You watch those videos and laugh when the robot trips over a mere stick lying on the ground, something that a human would seldom trip over. You scoff when a robot tries to grasp a coffee cup and inadvertently spills most of the coffee. It all seems humorous and a silly pursuit. Keep in mind that we are all observing the development process while it is still taking place. At some point, those guffaws of the humanoid robots will lessen. Humanoid robots will be as smooth and graceful as humans. This will continue to be honed. Eventually, humanoid robots will be less prone to physical errors that humans make. In a sense, the physicality of a humanoid robot will be on par with humans, if not better, due to its mechanical properties. Do not discount the coming era of quite physically capable humanoid robots. AGI And Humanoid Robots Pair Up You might remember that in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, the fictional character known as The Strawman lacked a brain. Without seeming to anthropomorphize humanoid robots, the current situation is that those robots typically use a form of AI that is below the sophistication level of modern generative AI. That’s fine for now due to the need to first ensure that the physical movements of the robots get refined. I have discussed that a said-to-be realm of Physical AI is going to be a huge breakthrough with incredible ramifications, see my analysis at the link here. The idea underlying Physical AI is that the AI of today is being uplifted by doing data training on the physical world. This also tends to include the use of World Models, consisting of broad constructions about how the physical world works, such as that we are bound to operate under conditions of gravity, and other physical laws of nature, see the link here. The bottom line here is that there will be a close pairing of robust AI with humanoid robots. Imagine what a humanoid robot can accomplish if it is paired with AGI. I’ll break the suspense and point out that AGI paired with humanoid robots means that those robots readily enter the blue-collar worker realm. Suppose your plumbing needs fixing. No worries, a humanoid robot that encompasses AGI will be sent to your home. The AGI is astute enough to carry on conversations with you, and the AGI also fully operates the robot to undertake the plumbing tasks. How did the AGI-paired humanoid robot get to your home? Easy-peasy, it drove a car or truck to get there. I’ve previously predicted that all the work on devising autonomous vehicles and self-driving cars will get shaken up once we have suitable humanoid robots devised. There won’t be a need for a vehicle to contain self-driving capabilities. A humanoid robot will simply sit in the driver’s seat and drive the vehicle. This is a much more open-ended solution than having to craft components that go into and onto a vehicle to enable self-driving. See my coverage at the link here. Timing Is Notable One of the reasons that many do not give much thought to the pairing of AGI with humanoid robots is that today’s humanoid robots seem extraordinarily rudimentary and incapable of performing physical dexterity tasks on par with human capabilities. Meanwhile, there is brazen talk that AGI is just around the corner. AGI is said to be within our grasp. Let’s give the timing considerations a bit of scrutiny. There are three primary timing angles: Option 1: AGI first, then humanoid robots. AGI is attained before humanoid robots are sufficiently devised. Option 2: Humanoid robots first, then AGI. Humanoid robots are physically fluently adept before AGI is attained. Option 3: AGI and humanoid robots arrive about at the same time. AGI is attained and at the same time, it turns out that humanoid robots are fluently adept too, mainly by coincidence and not due to any cross-mixing. A skeptic would insist that there is a fourth possibility, consisting of the possibility that we never achieve AGI and/or we fail to achieve sufficiently physically capable humanoid robots. I am going to reject that possibility. Perhaps I am overly optimistic, but it seems to me that we will eventually attain AGI, and we will eventually attain physically capable humanoid robots. I shall next respectively consider each of the three genuinely reasonable possibilities. Option 1: AGI First, Then Humanoid Robots What if we manage to attain AGI before we manage to achieve physically fluent humanoid robots? That’s just fine. We would indubitably put AGI to work as a partner with humans in figuring out how we can push along the budding humanoid robot development process. It seems nearly obvious that with AGI’s capable assistance, we would overcome any bottlenecks and soon enough arrive at top-notch physically adept humanoid robots. At that juncture, we would then toss AGI into the humanoid robots and have ourselves quite an amazing combination. Option 2: Humanoid Robots First, Then AGI Suppose that we devise very physically adept humanoid robots but have not yet arrived at AGI. Are we in a pickle? Nope. We could use conventional advanced AI inside those humanoid robots. The combination would certainly be good enough for a wide variety of tasks. The odds are that we would need to be cautious about where such robots are utilized. Nonetheless, we would have essentially walking, talking, and productive humanoid robots. If AGI never happens, oh well, we end up with pretty good humanoid robots. On the other hand, once we arrive at AGI, those humanoid robots will be stellar. It’s just a matter of time. Option 3: AGI And Humanoid Robots At The Same Time Let’s consider the potential of AGI and humanoid robots perchance being attained around the same time. Assume that this timing isn’t due to an outright cross-mixing with each other. They just so happen to advance on a similar timeline. I tend to believe that’s the most likely of the three scenarios. Here’s why. First, despite all the hubris about AGI being within earshot, perhaps in the next year or two, which is a popular pronouncement by many AI luminaries, I tend to side with recent surveys of AI developers that put the date around the year 2040. Some AI luminaires sneakily play with the definition of AGI in hopes of making their predictions come true sooner, akin to moving the goalposts to easily score points. For my coverage on Sam Altman’s efforts of moving the cheese regarding AGI attainment, see the link here. Second, if you are willing to entertain the year 2040 as a potential date for achieving AGI, that’s about 15 years from now. In my estimation, the advancements being made in humanoid robots will readily progress such that by 2040 they will be very physically adept. Probably be sooner, but let’s go with the year 2040 for ease of contemplation. In my view, we will likely have humanoid robots doing well enough that they will be put into use prior to arriving at AGI. The pinnacle of robust humanoid robots and the attainment of AGI will roughly coincide with each other. Two peas in a pod.Impact Of Enormous Consequences In an upcoming column posting, I will examine the enormous consequences of having AGI paired with fully physically capable humanoid robots. As noted above, this will have a humongous impact on white-collar work and blue-collar work. There will be gargantuan economic impacts, societal impacts, cultural impacts, and so on. Some final thoughts for now. A single whammy is already being hotly debated. The debates currently tend to be preoccupied with the loss of white-collar jobs due to the attainment of AGI. A saving grace seems to be that at least blue-collar jobs are going to be around and thriving, even once AGI is attained. The world doesn’t seem overly gloomy if you can cling to the upbeat posture that blue-collar tasks remain intact. The double whammy is a lot more to take in. But the double whammy is the truth. The truth needs to be faced. If you are having doubts as a human about the future, just remember the famous words of Vince Lombardi: “Winners never quit, and quitters never win.” Humankind can handle the double whammy. Stay tuned for my upcoming coverage of what this entails. #doublewhammy #when #agi #embeds #with
    WWW.FORBES.COM
    Double-Whammy When AGI Embeds With Humanoid Robots And Occupies Both White-Collar And Blue-Collar Jobs
    AGI will be embedded into humanoid robots, which makes white-collar and blue-collar jobs a target ... More for walking/talking automation.getty In today’s column, I examine the highly worrisome qualms expressed that the advent of artificial general intelligence (AGI) is likely to usurp white-collar jobs. The stated concern is that since AGI will be on par with human intellect, any job that relies principally on intellectual pursuits such as typical white-collar work will be taken over via the use of AGI. Employers will realize that rather than dealing with human white-collar workers, they can more readily get the job done via AGI. This, in turn, has led to a rising call that people should aim toward blue-collar jobs, doing so because (presumably) those forms of employment will not be undercut via AGI. Sorry to say, that misses the bigger picture, namely that AGI when combined with humanoid robots is coming not only for white-collar jobs but also blue-collar jobs too. It is a proverbial double-whammy when it comes to the attainment of AGI. Let’s talk about it. This analysis of an innovative AI breakthrough is part of my ongoing Forbes column coverage on the latest in AI, including identifying and explaining various impactful AI complexities (see the link here). Heading Toward AGI And ASI First, some fundamentals are required to set the stage for this weighty discussion. There is a great deal of research going on to further advance AI. The general goal is to either reach artificial general intelligence (AGI) or maybe even the outstretched possibility of achieving artificial superintelligence (ASI). AGI is AI that is considered on par with human intellect and can seemingly match our intelligence. ASI is AI that has gone beyond human intellect and would be superior in many if not all feasible ways. The idea is that ASI would be able to run circles around humans by outthinking us at every turn. For more details on the nature of conventional AI versus AGI and ASI, see my analysis at the link here. We have not yet attained AGI. In fact, it is unknown as to whether we will reach AGI, or that maybe AGI will be achievable in decades or perhaps centuries from now. The AGI attainment dates that are floating around are wildly varying and wildly unsubstantiated by any credible evidence or ironclad logic. ASI is even more beyond the pale when it comes to where we are currently with conventional AI. AGI Problem Only Half Seen Before launching into the primary matter at hand in this discussion, let’s contemplate a famous quote attributed to Charles Kettering, a legendary inventor, who said, “A problem well-stated is a problem half-solved.” I bring this up because those loud clamors right now about the assumption that AGI will replace white-collar workers are only seeing half of the problem. The problem as they see it is that since AGI is intellectually on par with humans, and since white-collar workers mainly use intellect in their work endeavors, AGI is going to be used in place of humans for white-collar work. I will in a moment explain why that’s only half of the problem and there is a demonstrative need to more carefully and fully articulate the nature of the problem. Will AGI Axiomatically Take White-Collar Jobs On a related facet, the belief that AGI will axiomatically replace white-collar labor makes a number of other related key assumptions. I shall briefly explore those and then come back to why the problem itself is only half-baked. The cost of using AGI for doing white-collar work will need to be presumably a better ROI choice over human workers. If not, then an employer would be wiser to stick with humans rather than employing AGI. There seems to often be an unstated belief that AGI is necessarily going to be a less costly route than employing humans. We don’t know yet what the cost of using AGI will be. It could be highly expensive. Indeed, some are worried that the world will divide into the AGI haves and AGI have-nots, partially due to the exorbitant cost that AGI might involve. If AGI is free to use, well, that would seem to be the nail in the coffin related to using human workers for the same capacity. Another angle is that AGI is relatively inexpensive in comparison to human labor. In that case, the use of AGI is likely to win over human labor usage. But if the cost of AGI is nearer to the cost of human labor (all in), or more so, then employers would rationally need to weigh the use of one versus the other. Note that when referring to the cost of human labor, there is more to that calculation than simply the dollar-hour labor rate per se. There are lots of other less apparent costs, such as the cost to manage human labor, the cost of dealing with HR-related issues, and many other factors that come into the weighty matter. Thus, an AGI versus human labor ROI will be more complex than it might seem at an initial glance. In addition, keep in mind that AGI would seemingly be readily switched on and off, and have other capacities that human labor would not equally tend to allow. The Other Half Is Coming Too Assume that by and large the advent of AGI will decimate the need for white-collar human labor. The refrain right now is that people should begin tilting toward blue-collar jobs as an alternative to white-collar jobs. This is a logical form of thinking in the sense that AGI as an intellectual mechanism would be unable to compete in jobs that involve hands-on work. A plumber needs to come to your house and do hands-on work to fix your plumbing. This is a physicality that entails arriving at your physical home, physically bringing and using tools, and physically repairing your faulty home plumbing. A truck driver likewise needs to sit in the cab of a truck and drive the vehicle. These are physically based tasks. There is no getting around the fact that these are hands-on activities. Aha, yes, those are physical tasks, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that only human hands can perform them. The gradual emergence of humanoid robots will provide an alternative to human hands. A humanoid robot is a type of robot that is built to resemble a human in form and function. You’ve undoubtedly seen those types of robots in the many online video recordings showing them walking, jumping, grasping at objects, and so on. A tremendous amount of active research and development is taking place to devise humanoid robots. They look comical right now. You watch those videos and laugh when the robot trips over a mere stick lying on the ground, something that a human would seldom trip over. You scoff when a robot tries to grasp a coffee cup and inadvertently spills most of the coffee. It all seems humorous and a silly pursuit. Keep in mind that we are all observing the development process while it is still taking place. At some point, those guffaws of the humanoid robots will lessen. Humanoid robots will be as smooth and graceful as humans. This will continue to be honed. Eventually, humanoid robots will be less prone to physical errors that humans make. In a sense, the physicality of a humanoid robot will be on par with humans, if not better, due to its mechanical properties. Do not discount the coming era of quite physically capable humanoid robots. AGI And Humanoid Robots Pair Up You might remember that in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, the fictional character known as The Strawman lacked a brain. Without seeming to anthropomorphize humanoid robots, the current situation is that those robots typically use a form of AI that is below the sophistication level of modern generative AI. That’s fine for now due to the need to first ensure that the physical movements of the robots get refined. I have discussed that a said-to-be realm of Physical AI is going to be a huge breakthrough with incredible ramifications, see my analysis at the link here. The idea underlying Physical AI is that the AI of today is being uplifted by doing data training on the physical world. This also tends to include the use of World Models, consisting of broad constructions about how the physical world works, such as that we are bound to operate under conditions of gravity, and other physical laws of nature, see the link here. The bottom line here is that there will be a close pairing of robust AI with humanoid robots. Imagine what a humanoid robot can accomplish if it is paired with AGI. I’ll break the suspense and point out that AGI paired with humanoid robots means that those robots readily enter the blue-collar worker realm. Suppose your plumbing needs fixing. No worries, a humanoid robot that encompasses AGI will be sent to your home. The AGI is astute enough to carry on conversations with you, and the AGI also fully operates the robot to undertake the plumbing tasks. How did the AGI-paired humanoid robot get to your home? Easy-peasy, it drove a car or truck to get there. I’ve previously predicted that all the work on devising autonomous vehicles and self-driving cars will get shaken up once we have suitable humanoid robots devised. There won’t be a need for a vehicle to contain self-driving capabilities. A humanoid robot will simply sit in the driver’s seat and drive the vehicle. This is a much more open-ended solution than having to craft components that go into and onto a vehicle to enable self-driving. See my coverage at the link here. Timing Is Notable One of the reasons that many do not give much thought to the pairing of AGI with humanoid robots is that today’s humanoid robots seem extraordinarily rudimentary and incapable of performing physical dexterity tasks on par with human capabilities. Meanwhile, there is brazen talk that AGI is just around the corner. AGI is said to be within our grasp. Let’s give the timing considerations a bit of scrutiny. There are three primary timing angles: Option 1: AGI first, then humanoid robots. AGI is attained before humanoid robots are sufficiently devised. Option 2: Humanoid robots first, then AGI. Humanoid robots are physically fluently adept before AGI is attained. Option 3: AGI and humanoid robots arrive about at the same time. AGI is attained and at the same time, it turns out that humanoid robots are fluently adept too, mainly by coincidence and not due to any cross-mixing. A skeptic would insist that there is a fourth possibility, consisting of the possibility that we never achieve AGI and/or we fail to achieve sufficiently physically capable humanoid robots. I am going to reject that possibility. Perhaps I am overly optimistic, but it seems to me that we will eventually attain AGI, and we will eventually attain physically capable humanoid robots. I shall next respectively consider each of the three genuinely reasonable possibilities. Option 1: AGI First, Then Humanoid Robots What if we manage to attain AGI before we manage to achieve physically fluent humanoid robots? That’s just fine. We would indubitably put AGI to work as a partner with humans in figuring out how we can push along the budding humanoid robot development process. It seems nearly obvious that with AGI’s capable assistance, we would overcome any bottlenecks and soon enough arrive at top-notch physically adept humanoid robots. At that juncture, we would then toss AGI into the humanoid robots and have ourselves quite an amazing combination. Option 2: Humanoid Robots First, Then AGI Suppose that we devise very physically adept humanoid robots but have not yet arrived at AGI. Are we in a pickle? Nope. We could use conventional advanced AI inside those humanoid robots. The combination would certainly be good enough for a wide variety of tasks. The odds are that we would need to be cautious about where such robots are utilized. Nonetheless, we would have essentially walking, talking, and productive humanoid robots. If AGI never happens, oh well, we end up with pretty good humanoid robots. On the other hand, once we arrive at AGI, those humanoid robots will be stellar. It’s just a matter of time. Option 3: AGI And Humanoid Robots At The Same Time Let’s consider the potential of AGI and humanoid robots perchance being attained around the same time. Assume that this timing isn’t due to an outright cross-mixing with each other. They just so happen to advance on a similar timeline. I tend to believe that’s the most likely of the three scenarios. Here’s why. First, despite all the hubris about AGI being within earshot, perhaps in the next year or two, which is a popular pronouncement by many AI luminaries, I tend to side with recent surveys of AI developers that put the date around the year 2040 (see my coverage at the link here). Some AI luminaires sneakily play with the definition of AGI in hopes of making their predictions come true sooner, akin to moving the goalposts to easily score points. For my coverage on Sam Altman’s efforts of moving the cheese regarding AGI attainment, see the link here. Second, if you are willing to entertain the year 2040 as a potential date for achieving AGI, that’s about 15 years from now. In my estimation, the advancements being made in humanoid robots will readily progress such that by 2040 they will be very physically adept. Probably be sooner, but let’s go with the year 2040 for ease of contemplation. In my view, we will likely have humanoid robots doing well enough that they will be put into use prior to arriving at AGI. The pinnacle of robust humanoid robots and the attainment of AGI will roughly coincide with each other. Two peas in a pod.Impact Of Enormous Consequences In an upcoming column posting, I will examine the enormous consequences of having AGI paired with fully physically capable humanoid robots. As noted above, this will have a humongous impact on white-collar work and blue-collar work. There will be gargantuan economic impacts, societal impacts, cultural impacts, and so on. Some final thoughts for now. A single whammy is already being hotly debated. The debates currently tend to be preoccupied with the loss of white-collar jobs due to the attainment of AGI. A saving grace seems to be that at least blue-collar jobs are going to be around and thriving, even once AGI is attained. The world doesn’t seem overly gloomy if you can cling to the upbeat posture that blue-collar tasks remain intact. The double whammy is a lot more to take in. But the double whammy is the truth. The truth needs to be faced. If you are having doubts as a human about the future, just remember the famous words of Vince Lombardi: “Winners never quit, and quitters never win.” Humankind can handle the double whammy. Stay tuned for my upcoming coverage of what this entails.
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Angry
    Sad
    366
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
  • COVID Vaccines Face Potential New Limits from Trump Administration

    May 23, 20257 min readWhat FDA’s Planned Limits on COVID Vaccinations Mean for HealthDespite the fact that vaccines against COVID have already undergone strict safety reviews and that people continue to die from the disease, Trump’s FDA is moving to reduce access to annual COVID boosters for healthy AmericansBy Stephanie Armour & KFF Health News aire images/Getty ImagesLarry Saltzman has blood cancer. He’s also a retired doctor, so he knows getting covid-19 could be dangerous for him — his underlying illness puts him at high risk of serious complications and death. To avoid getting sick, he stays away from large gatherings, and he’s comforted knowing healthy people who get boosters protect him by reducing his exposure to the virus.Until now, that is.Vaccine opponents and skeptics in charge of federal health agencies — starting at the top with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — are restricting access to covid shots that were a signature accomplishment of President Donald Trump’s first term and cost taxpayers about billion to develop, produce, and distribute. The agencies are narrowing vaccination recommendations, pushing drugmakers to perform costly clinical studies, and taking other steps that will result in fewer people getting protection from a virus that still kills hundreds each week in the U.S.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.“There are hundreds of thousands of people who rely on these vaccines,” said Saltzman, 71, of Sacramento, California. “For people who are immunocompromised, if there aren’t enough people vaccinated, we lose the ring that’s protecting us. We’re totally vulnerable.”The Trump administration on May 20 rolled out tougher approval requirements for covid shots, described as a covid-19 “vaccination regulatory framework,” that could leave millions of Americans who want boosters unable to get them.The FDA will encourage new clinical trials on the widely used vaccines before approving them for children and healthy adults. The requirements could cost drugmakers tens of millions of dollars and are likely to leave boosters largely out of reach for hundreds of millions of Americans this fall.Under the new guidance, vaccines will be available for high-risk individuals and seniors. But the FDA will encourage drugmakers to commit to conducting post-marketing clinical trials in healthy adults when the agency approves covid vaccines for those populations.For the past five years, the shots have been recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for everyone 6 months and older. They have been available each fall after being updated to reflect circulating strains of the virus, and the vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective in clinical trials.Vinay Prasad, who leads the FDA’s division overseeing vaccines, cited “distrust of the American public” as he announced the new guidelines at a May 20 briefing.“We have launched down this multiyear campaign of booster after booster after booster,” he said, adding that “we do not have gold-standard science to support this for average-risk, low-risk Americans.”The details were outlined in a May 20 article in The New England Journal of Medicine, written by FDA Commissioner Marty Makary. He and Prasad later followed up with the briefing, which appeared the same day on YouTube.The added limits on access aren’t the result of any recent data showing there are new health risks from the covid vaccines. Instead, they reflect a different regulatory stance from Kennedy, who has a history of anti-vaccine activism, and Makary, who has questioned the safety data on covid mRNA shots.Announcing a major regulatory change in a medical journal and YouTube video is a highly unusual approach that still leaves many questions about implementation unanswered. It remains unclear when the changes will go into effect or whether there will be any public comment period. The changes were announced by the administration before an FDA advisory committee meeting on May 22 to consider the 2026 covid vaccine formula.It’s a sharp reversal from the first Trump administration, which launched Operation Warp Speed — the effort that led to the development of the covid shots. Trump called the vaccines the “gold standard” and a “monumental national achievement.”Concerns About Higher TransmissionThe announcement is rattling some patient advocacy groups, doctors, nursing home leaders, and researchers who worry about the ramifications. They say higher-risk individuals will be more likely to get covid if people who aren’t at risk don’t get boosters that can help reduce transmission. And they say the FDA’s restrictions go too far, because they don’t provide exceptions for healthy individuals who work in high-risk settings, such as hospitals, who may want a covid booster for protection.The limits will also make it harder to get insurance coverage for the vaccines. And the FDA’s new stance could also increase vaccine hesitancy by undermining confidence in covid vaccines that have already been subject to rigorous safety review, said Kate Broderick, chief innovation officer at Maravai Life Sciences, which makes mRNA products for use in vaccine development.“For the public, it raises questions,” she said. “If someone has concerns, I’d like them to know that of all the vaccines, the ones with the most understood safety profile are probably covid-19 vaccines. There is an incredible body of data and over 10 billion doses given.”Some doctors and epidemiologists say it could leave healthy people especially vulnerable if more virulent strains of covid emerge and they can’t access covid shots.“It’s not based on science,” said Rob Davidson, an emergency room doctor in Michigan and executive director of the Committee to Protect Health Care, which works to expand health care access. “It’s what we were all worried would happen. It risks peoples’ lives.”Current federal regulators say there is no high-quality evidence showing that vaccinating healthy people, including health workers who are near or around immunocompromised people, provides an additional benefit.“It is possible, actually, that such approvals and strategies provide false reassurance and lead to increased harms,” Prasad said.The covid vaccines underwent clinical trials to assess safety, and they have been subject to ongoing surveillance and monitoring since they obtained emergency use authorization from the FDA amid the pandemic. Heart issues and allergic reactions can occur but are rare, according to the CDC.On a separate track, the FDA on May 21 posted letters sent in April to makers of the mRNA covid vaccines to add information about possible heart injury on warning labels, a move that one former agency official described as overkill. The action came after the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, a panel of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, held a hearing on alleged adverse events associated with covid vaccines.Limiting boosters to healthy people goes against guidance from some medical groups.“The COVID-19 vaccine is safe, effective, and the best way to protect children,” Sean O’Leary, chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases at the American Academy of Pediatrics, said in an email. “Young children under 5 continue to be at the highest risk, with that risk decreasing as they get older.”Unsupported Claims About mRNA VaccinesThe covid booster clampdown is supported by many adherents of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement, which casts suspicion on traditional medicine. Some opponents of covid mRNA vaccines say without evidence that the shots cause “turbo” cancer, are genetic bioweapons, and cause more heart damage than the covid virus.There is no evidence the shots lead to rapid and aggressive cancers. Cancer rates decreased an average of 1.7% per year for men and 1.3% for women from 2018 to 2022, according to the National Institutes of Health. The covid vaccines debuted in 2021.Federal regulators say narrowing who can get the boosters will align the U.S. with policies of European nations. But other countries have vastly different economic structures for health care and approaches to preventive care. Many European countries, for example, don’t recommend flu shots for the entire population. The U.S. does in part because of the financial drain attributed to lost productivity when people are sick.They also want more information. “I think there’s a void of data,” Makary told CBS News on April 29. “And I think rather than allow that void to be filled with opinions, I’d like to see some good data.”A massive five-year study on covid vaccine safety by the Global Vaccine Data Network, involving millions of people, was underway, with about a year left before completion. The Trump administration terminated funding for the project as part of cuts directed by the president’s Department of Government Efficiency, and work on the study has stopped for now.There are a multitude of studies, however, on the vaccines’ effectiveness in preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death.Limiting boosters for healthy people can be risky, some doctors say, because people don’t always know when they fall into higher-risk categories, such as individuals who are prediabetic or have high blood pressure. The covid vaccine restrictions could deter them from getting boosted, and they might experience worse complications from the virus as a result. For example, about 40% of people with hepatitis C are unaware of their condition, according to a study published in 2023.The number of people getting covid vaccines has already dropped significantly since the height of the crisis. More than half of the more than 258 million adults in the U.S. had gotten a covid vaccination as of May 2021, according to the CDC. In each of the past two seasons, less than 25% of Americans received boosters, CDC data shows.While deaths from the virus have dropped, covid remains a risk, especially when cases peak in December and January. Weekly covid deaths topped 2,580 as recently as January 2024, according to CDC data.Some high-risk individuals are worried that the new restrictions are just the first salvo in halting all access to mRNA shots. “The HHS motivation really is hidden, and it’s to dismiss all mRNA technology,” said Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota.Officials at the NIH have told scientists to remove references to mRNA in grant applications. HHS also announced plans in May to develop new vaccines without mRNA technology, which uses messenger RNA to instruct cells to make proteins that trigger an immune response.Rose Keller, 23, is concerned about future access to covid shots. She would be eligible under the current announcement — she has cystic fibrosis, a progressive genetic condition that makes the mucus in her lungs thick and sticky, so covid could land her in the hospital. But she is concerned the Trump administration may go further and restrict access to the vaccines as part of a broader opposition to mRNA technology.“I’ve had every booster that’s available to me,” said Keller, a government employee in Augusta, Maine. “It’s a real worry if I don’t have the protection of a covid booster.”KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
    #covid #vaccines #face #potential #new
    COVID Vaccines Face Potential New Limits from Trump Administration
    May 23, 20257 min readWhat FDA’s Planned Limits on COVID Vaccinations Mean for HealthDespite the fact that vaccines against COVID have already undergone strict safety reviews and that people continue to die from the disease, Trump’s FDA is moving to reduce access to annual COVID boosters for healthy AmericansBy Stephanie Armour & KFF Health News aire images/Getty ImagesLarry Saltzman has blood cancer. He’s also a retired doctor, so he knows getting covid-19 could be dangerous for him — his underlying illness puts him at high risk of serious complications and death. To avoid getting sick, he stays away from large gatherings, and he’s comforted knowing healthy people who get boosters protect him by reducing his exposure to the virus.Until now, that is.Vaccine opponents and skeptics in charge of federal health agencies — starting at the top with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — are restricting access to covid shots that were a signature accomplishment of President Donald Trump’s first term and cost taxpayers about billion to develop, produce, and distribute. The agencies are narrowing vaccination recommendations, pushing drugmakers to perform costly clinical studies, and taking other steps that will result in fewer people getting protection from a virus that still kills hundreds each week in the U.S.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.“There are hundreds of thousands of people who rely on these vaccines,” said Saltzman, 71, of Sacramento, California. “For people who are immunocompromised, if there aren’t enough people vaccinated, we lose the ring that’s protecting us. We’re totally vulnerable.”The Trump administration on May 20 rolled out tougher approval requirements for covid shots, described as a covid-19 “vaccination regulatory framework,” that could leave millions of Americans who want boosters unable to get them.The FDA will encourage new clinical trials on the widely used vaccines before approving them for children and healthy adults. The requirements could cost drugmakers tens of millions of dollars and are likely to leave boosters largely out of reach for hundreds of millions of Americans this fall.Under the new guidance, vaccines will be available for high-risk individuals and seniors. But the FDA will encourage drugmakers to commit to conducting post-marketing clinical trials in healthy adults when the agency approves covid vaccines for those populations.For the past five years, the shots have been recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for everyone 6 months and older. They have been available each fall after being updated to reflect circulating strains of the virus, and the vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective in clinical trials.Vinay Prasad, who leads the FDA’s division overseeing vaccines, cited “distrust of the American public” as he announced the new guidelines at a May 20 briefing.“We have launched down this multiyear campaign of booster after booster after booster,” he said, adding that “we do not have gold-standard science to support this for average-risk, low-risk Americans.”The details were outlined in a May 20 article in The New England Journal of Medicine, written by FDA Commissioner Marty Makary. He and Prasad later followed up with the briefing, which appeared the same day on YouTube.The added limits on access aren’t the result of any recent data showing there are new health risks from the covid vaccines. Instead, they reflect a different regulatory stance from Kennedy, who has a history of anti-vaccine activism, and Makary, who has questioned the safety data on covid mRNA shots.Announcing a major regulatory change in a medical journal and YouTube video is a highly unusual approach that still leaves many questions about implementation unanswered. It remains unclear when the changes will go into effect or whether there will be any public comment period. The changes were announced by the administration before an FDA advisory committee meeting on May 22 to consider the 2026 covid vaccine formula.It’s a sharp reversal from the first Trump administration, which launched Operation Warp Speed — the effort that led to the development of the covid shots. Trump called the vaccines the “gold standard” and a “monumental national achievement.”Concerns About Higher TransmissionThe announcement is rattling some patient advocacy groups, doctors, nursing home leaders, and researchers who worry about the ramifications. They say higher-risk individuals will be more likely to get covid if people who aren’t at risk don’t get boosters that can help reduce transmission. And they say the FDA’s restrictions go too far, because they don’t provide exceptions for healthy individuals who work in high-risk settings, such as hospitals, who may want a covid booster for protection.The limits will also make it harder to get insurance coverage for the vaccines. And the FDA’s new stance could also increase vaccine hesitancy by undermining confidence in covid vaccines that have already been subject to rigorous safety review, said Kate Broderick, chief innovation officer at Maravai Life Sciences, which makes mRNA products for use in vaccine development.“For the public, it raises questions,” she said. “If someone has concerns, I’d like them to know that of all the vaccines, the ones with the most understood safety profile are probably covid-19 vaccines. There is an incredible body of data and over 10 billion doses given.”Some doctors and epidemiologists say it could leave healthy people especially vulnerable if more virulent strains of covid emerge and they can’t access covid shots.“It’s not based on science,” said Rob Davidson, an emergency room doctor in Michigan and executive director of the Committee to Protect Health Care, which works to expand health care access. “It’s what we were all worried would happen. It risks peoples’ lives.”Current federal regulators say there is no high-quality evidence showing that vaccinating healthy people, including health workers who are near or around immunocompromised people, provides an additional benefit.“It is possible, actually, that such approvals and strategies provide false reassurance and lead to increased harms,” Prasad said.The covid vaccines underwent clinical trials to assess safety, and they have been subject to ongoing surveillance and monitoring since they obtained emergency use authorization from the FDA amid the pandemic. Heart issues and allergic reactions can occur but are rare, according to the CDC.On a separate track, the FDA on May 21 posted letters sent in April to makers of the mRNA covid vaccines to add information about possible heart injury on warning labels, a move that one former agency official described as overkill. The action came after the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, a panel of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, held a hearing on alleged adverse events associated with covid vaccines.Limiting boosters to healthy people goes against guidance from some medical groups.“The COVID-19 vaccine is safe, effective, and the best way to protect children,” Sean O’Leary, chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases at the American Academy of Pediatrics, said in an email. “Young children under 5 continue to be at the highest risk, with that risk decreasing as they get older.”Unsupported Claims About mRNA VaccinesThe covid booster clampdown is supported by many adherents of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement, which casts suspicion on traditional medicine. Some opponents of covid mRNA vaccines say without evidence that the shots cause “turbo” cancer, are genetic bioweapons, and cause more heart damage than the covid virus.There is no evidence the shots lead to rapid and aggressive cancers. Cancer rates decreased an average of 1.7% per year for men and 1.3% for women from 2018 to 2022, according to the National Institutes of Health. The covid vaccines debuted in 2021.Federal regulators say narrowing who can get the boosters will align the U.S. with policies of European nations. But other countries have vastly different economic structures for health care and approaches to preventive care. Many European countries, for example, don’t recommend flu shots for the entire population. The U.S. does in part because of the financial drain attributed to lost productivity when people are sick.They also want more information. “I think there’s a void of data,” Makary told CBS News on April 29. “And I think rather than allow that void to be filled with opinions, I’d like to see some good data.”A massive five-year study on covid vaccine safety by the Global Vaccine Data Network, involving millions of people, was underway, with about a year left before completion. The Trump administration terminated funding for the project as part of cuts directed by the president’s Department of Government Efficiency, and work on the study has stopped for now.There are a multitude of studies, however, on the vaccines’ effectiveness in preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death.Limiting boosters for healthy people can be risky, some doctors say, because people don’t always know when they fall into higher-risk categories, such as individuals who are prediabetic or have high blood pressure. The covid vaccine restrictions could deter them from getting boosted, and they might experience worse complications from the virus as a result. For example, about 40% of people with hepatitis C are unaware of their condition, according to a study published in 2023.The number of people getting covid vaccines has already dropped significantly since the height of the crisis. More than half of the more than 258 million adults in the U.S. had gotten a covid vaccination as of May 2021, according to the CDC. In each of the past two seasons, less than 25% of Americans received boosters, CDC data shows.While deaths from the virus have dropped, covid remains a risk, especially when cases peak in December and January. Weekly covid deaths topped 2,580 as recently as January 2024, according to CDC data.Some high-risk individuals are worried that the new restrictions are just the first salvo in halting all access to mRNA shots. “The HHS motivation really is hidden, and it’s to dismiss all mRNA technology,” said Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota.Officials at the NIH have told scientists to remove references to mRNA in grant applications. HHS also announced plans in May to develop new vaccines without mRNA technology, which uses messenger RNA to instruct cells to make proteins that trigger an immune response.Rose Keller, 23, is concerned about future access to covid shots. She would be eligible under the current announcement — she has cystic fibrosis, a progressive genetic condition that makes the mucus in her lungs thick and sticky, so covid could land her in the hospital. But she is concerned the Trump administration may go further and restrict access to the vaccines as part of a broader opposition to mRNA technology.“I’ve had every booster that’s available to me,” said Keller, a government employee in Augusta, Maine. “It’s a real worry if I don’t have the protection of a covid booster.”KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism. #covid #vaccines #face #potential #new
    WWW.SCIENTIFICAMERICAN.COM
    COVID Vaccines Face Potential New Limits from Trump Administration
    May 23, 20257 min readWhat FDA’s Planned Limits on COVID Vaccinations Mean for HealthDespite the fact that vaccines against COVID have already undergone strict safety reviews and that people continue to die from the disease, Trump’s FDA is moving to reduce access to annual COVID boosters for healthy AmericansBy Stephanie Armour & KFF Health News aire images/Getty ImagesLarry Saltzman has blood cancer. He’s also a retired doctor, so he knows getting covid-19 could be dangerous for him — his underlying illness puts him at high risk of serious complications and death. To avoid getting sick, he stays away from large gatherings, and he’s comforted knowing healthy people who get boosters protect him by reducing his exposure to the virus.Until now, that is.Vaccine opponents and skeptics in charge of federal health agencies — starting at the top with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — are restricting access to covid shots that were a signature accomplishment of President Donald Trump’s first term and cost taxpayers about $13 billion to develop, produce, and distribute. The agencies are narrowing vaccination recommendations, pushing drugmakers to perform costly clinical studies, and taking other steps that will result in fewer people getting protection from a virus that still kills hundreds each week in the U.S.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.“There are hundreds of thousands of people who rely on these vaccines,” said Saltzman, 71, of Sacramento, California. “For people who are immunocompromised, if there aren’t enough people vaccinated, we lose the ring that’s protecting us. We’re totally vulnerable.”The Trump administration on May 20 rolled out tougher approval requirements for covid shots, described as a covid-19 “vaccination regulatory framework,” that could leave millions of Americans who want boosters unable to get them.The FDA will encourage new clinical trials on the widely used vaccines before approving them for children and healthy adults. The requirements could cost drugmakers tens of millions of dollars and are likely to leave boosters largely out of reach for hundreds of millions of Americans this fall.Under the new guidance, vaccines will be available for high-risk individuals and seniors. But the FDA will encourage drugmakers to commit to conducting post-marketing clinical trials in healthy adults when the agency approves covid vaccines for those populations.For the past five years, the shots have been recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for everyone 6 months and older. They have been available each fall after being updated to reflect circulating strains of the virus, and the vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective in clinical trials.Vinay Prasad, who leads the FDA’s division overseeing vaccines, cited “distrust of the American public” as he announced the new guidelines at a May 20 briefing.“We have launched down this multiyear campaign of booster after booster after booster,” he said, adding that “we do not have gold-standard science to support this for average-risk, low-risk Americans.”The details were outlined in a May 20 article in The New England Journal of Medicine, written by FDA Commissioner Marty Makary. He and Prasad later followed up with the briefing, which appeared the same day on YouTube.The added limits on access aren’t the result of any recent data showing there are new health risks from the covid vaccines. Instead, they reflect a different regulatory stance from Kennedy, who has a history of anti-vaccine activism, and Makary, who has questioned the safety data on covid mRNA shots.Announcing a major regulatory change in a medical journal and YouTube video is a highly unusual approach that still leaves many questions about implementation unanswered. It remains unclear when the changes will go into effect or whether there will be any public comment period. The changes were announced by the administration before an FDA advisory committee meeting on May 22 to consider the 2026 covid vaccine formula.It’s a sharp reversal from the first Trump administration, which launched Operation Warp Speed — the effort that led to the development of the covid shots. Trump called the vaccines the “gold standard” and a “monumental national achievement.”Concerns About Higher TransmissionThe announcement is rattling some patient advocacy groups, doctors, nursing home leaders, and researchers who worry about the ramifications. They say higher-risk individuals will be more likely to get covid if people who aren’t at risk don’t get boosters that can help reduce transmission. And they say the FDA’s restrictions go too far, because they don’t provide exceptions for healthy individuals who work in high-risk settings, such as hospitals, who may want a covid booster for protection.The limits will also make it harder to get insurance coverage for the vaccines. And the FDA’s new stance could also increase vaccine hesitancy by undermining confidence in covid vaccines that have already been subject to rigorous safety review, said Kate Broderick, chief innovation officer at Maravai Life Sciences, which makes mRNA products for use in vaccine development.“For the public, it raises questions,” she said. “If someone has concerns, I’d like them to know that of all the vaccines, the ones with the most understood safety profile are probably covid-19 vaccines. There is an incredible body of data and over 10 billion doses given.”Some doctors and epidemiologists say it could leave healthy people especially vulnerable if more virulent strains of covid emerge and they can’t access covid shots.“It’s not based on science,” said Rob Davidson, an emergency room doctor in Michigan and executive director of the Committee to Protect Health Care, which works to expand health care access. “It’s what we were all worried would happen. It risks peoples’ lives.”Current federal regulators say there is no high-quality evidence showing that vaccinating healthy people, including health workers who are near or around immunocompromised people, provides an additional benefit.“It is possible, actually, that such approvals and strategies provide false reassurance and lead to increased harms,” Prasad said.The covid vaccines underwent clinical trials to assess safety, and they have been subject to ongoing surveillance and monitoring since they obtained emergency use authorization from the FDA amid the pandemic. Heart issues and allergic reactions can occur but are rare, according to the CDC.On a separate track, the FDA on May 21 posted letters sent in April to makers of the mRNA covid vaccines to add information about possible heart injury on warning labels, a move that one former agency official described as overkill. The action came after the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, a panel of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, held a hearing on alleged adverse events associated with covid vaccines.Limiting boosters to healthy people goes against guidance from some medical groups.“The COVID-19 vaccine is safe, effective, and the best way to protect children,” Sean O’Leary, chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases at the American Academy of Pediatrics, said in an email. “Young children under 5 continue to be at the highest risk, with that risk decreasing as they get older.”Unsupported Claims About mRNA VaccinesThe covid booster clampdown is supported by many adherents of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement, which casts suspicion on traditional medicine. Some opponents of covid mRNA vaccines say without evidence that the shots cause “turbo” cancer, are genetic bioweapons, and cause more heart damage than the covid virus.There is no evidence the shots lead to rapid and aggressive cancers. Cancer rates decreased an average of 1.7% per year for men and 1.3% for women from 2018 to 2022, according to the National Institutes of Health. The covid vaccines debuted in 2021.Federal regulators say narrowing who can get the boosters will align the U.S. with policies of European nations. But other countries have vastly different economic structures for health care and approaches to preventive care. Many European countries, for example, don’t recommend flu shots for the entire population. The U.S. does in part because of the financial drain attributed to lost productivity when people are sick.They also want more information. “I think there’s a void of data,” Makary told CBS News on April 29. “And I think rather than allow that void to be filled with opinions, I’d like to see some good data.”A massive five-year study on covid vaccine safety by the Global Vaccine Data Network, involving millions of people, was underway, with about a year left before completion. The Trump administration terminated funding for the project as part of cuts directed by the president’s Department of Government Efficiency, and work on the study has stopped for now.There are a multitude of studies, however, on the vaccines’ effectiveness in preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death.Limiting boosters for healthy people can be risky, some doctors say, because people don’t always know when they fall into higher-risk categories, such as individuals who are prediabetic or have high blood pressure. The covid vaccine restrictions could deter them from getting boosted, and they might experience worse complications from the virus as a result. For example, about 40% of people with hepatitis C are unaware of their condition, according to a study published in 2023.The number of people getting covid vaccines has already dropped significantly since the height of the crisis. More than half of the more than 258 million adults in the U.S. had gotten a covid vaccination as of May 2021, according to the CDC. In each of the past two seasons, less than 25% of Americans received boosters, CDC data shows.While deaths from the virus have dropped, covid remains a risk, especially when cases peak in December and January. Weekly covid deaths topped 2,580 as recently as January 2024, according to CDC data.Some high-risk individuals are worried that the new restrictions are just the first salvo in halting all access to mRNA shots. “The HHS motivation really is hidden, and it’s to dismiss all mRNA technology,” said Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota.Officials at the NIH have told scientists to remove references to mRNA in grant applications. HHS also announced plans in May to develop new vaccines without mRNA technology, which uses messenger RNA to instruct cells to make proteins that trigger an immune response.Rose Keller, 23, is concerned about future access to covid shots. She would be eligible under the current announcement — she has cystic fibrosis, a progressive genetic condition that makes the mucus in her lungs thick and sticky, so covid could land her in the hospital. But she is concerned the Trump administration may go further and restrict access to the vaccines as part of a broader opposition to mRNA technology.“I’ve had every booster that’s available to me,” said Keller, a government employee in Augusta, Maine. “It’s a real worry if I don’t have the protection of a covid booster.”KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
  • ASUS ROG Strix SCAR 18 (2025) Review: Subtly Sophisticated Performance Powerhouse

    PROS:
    Easy, tool-less RAM and SSD access and replacement
    Excellent performance and impressive cooling
    More refined, premium-looking design
    AniMe Vision matrix display for some gamer flair
    Stunning matte Mini LED display
    CONS:
    Slightly larger and heavier than previous gen
    Quite pricey

    RATINGS:
    AESTHETICSERGONOMICSPERFORMANCESUSTAINABILITY / REPAIRABILITYVALUE FOR MONEYEDITOR'S QUOTE:The ASUS Strix SCAR 18delivers a powerhouse of a gaming laptop wrapped in a design that's modern, mature, and premium.
    Typical gaming laptops come in thick, bulky chassis with flashy lighting. The former is a result of cramming as many high-performance components as possible in such a cramped space, while the latter is a product of boxing gamer aesthetics into a particular stereotype. As more people embrace video gaming, however, the variety of design tastes also grows, with some preferring their gaming gear to be a bit more discreet and subtle.
    Announced earlier this year, the ASUS ROG Strix SCAR 18is bringing more than just the latest and greatest in PC gaming technologies. It also arrived with a redesigned appearance, breaking away from its peers to some degree. But does the gaming laptop’s embrace of subdued aesthetics also mean it cuts down on its performance? We give this racing car-inspired powerhouse a spin to see if it manages to strike a balance between power and beauty that will appeal to a wider audience.
    Designer: ASUS Republic of Gamers
    Aesthetics
    You might be surprised by the sight that greets you when you remove the ROG Strix SCAR 18from its packaging. You immediately behold a frame that looks premium, eschewing the shiny plastic surfaces and geometric details that deck most gaming laptops. Instead, the soft-touch matte black material on its back gives it a sleeker, more premium personality, a design language that ASUS seems to be adopting across its laptop line.

    That design continues inside, where the semi-transparent keyboard deck of last year’s model is replaced with an opaque, all-black case that is less distracting and, to be honest, looks more professional. If you turn all the RGB lights off, the ROG Strix SCAR 18could easily pass off for a business laptop, though a rather bulky one at that. The one complaint we have with this smoother texture is how it easily smudges, so you’ll find yourself wiping surfaces more often to keep them looking pristine and presentable.
    Of course, a Republic of Gamers laptop is still designed for gamers, and those who do want some flair will find plenty of sliders and switches to play with. In addition to the lightbar that runs around the bottom of the chassis and the standard keyboard backlighting, the Strix SCAR 18brings the AniMe Vision matrix display from the ROG Zephyrus line, providing 810 LEDs shining through 9,152 precision-milled holes that you can control to show off some lo-fi text or images, both static and animated. The ROG logo sitting in the corner also has its own RGB lights, though it might be a little too big for our tastes.

    The ASUS ROG Strix SCAR 18delivers a design that successfully pulls off a tough balancing act, providing a sophisticated and premium look that can still flaunt all those bright RGB colors if wanted. It is distinctly gaming-oriented without having to shout it, preferring to let its performance do the talking.
    Ergonomics
    There’s no escaping the laws of physics, and until the day we can truly shrink hardware and develop some magical cooling technology, there will always be concessions when it comes to balancing power and portability. Gaming laptops are unsurprisingly the worst offenders in this matter, and this year’s ROG Strix SCAR 18 sadly takes a step back.

    Although the Strix SCAR 18is an upgrade in almost every other aspect, it is also slightly larger and noticeably heavier than its predecessor. The good news is that it isn’t for naught, because the newer model does pack an improved cooling system as well as a more modular design, but it’s still something potential buyers will have to consider to manage their expectations, not to mention prepare their backs or shoulders when lugging it around.
    The SCAR 18’s more streamlined design also has ramifications for its usability, particularly with the ports. Gone are the side exhausts, allowing the connectivity ports to be pushed backward a bit. ASUS also took the opportunity to add a third full-sized USB-A port, probably to the delight of many gamers and computer users whose favorite accessories haven’t yet moved to the age of USB-C. The power connector has also been redesigned with a new rectangular plug instead of a round barrel. Unfortunately, the power cable has also been changed to stick out from the side rather than at a 90-degree angle like last year’s charger.

    The ergonomics of the keyboard and the large touchpad are quite good, providing comfort and precision despite not having your ideal mechanical switches. One thing that might throw off new users, however, is the non-standard position of the cursor keys and the layout of the numeric keypad. It’s not a complete deal-breaker, but one that will require developing some muscle memory that you can’t carry over to other keyboards or laptops.
    Performance
    The ASUS ROG Strix SCAR 18is an upgrade in every sense of the word, bearing the latest and greatest Intel chip, the Core Ultra 9 275HX. This is paired with a Series 5000 NVIDIA graphics card, which will naturally depend on what model you’ll have. Our review unit, the G835LW, comes with a GeForce RTX 5080, while there are also options for a 5070and the highest 5090. Out of the box, you get 32GB of RAM and 2TB of SSD storage, but you can easily double that, as we’ll see later.

    Long story short, this machine is a beast, making short work of modern AAA titles. Of course, don’t expect to get desktop-grade performance that will let you crank up all the settings to 11, but you won’t be far off either. What’s more impressive than the benchmark numbers is how stable that performance is, particularly thanks to an improved cooling system this year.
    In addition to your typical high-capacity fans, which now number three, the Strix SCAR 18features heatsinks that stretch across the whole width of the laptop. Also running from end to end is the vapor chamber sandwiched between these heatsinks. Completely new to this generation, however, is the Conductonaut Extreme liquid metal that replaces your typical thermal paste on the CPU and the GPU. All these work together to keep thermals down to a manageable level and keep the laptop running in peak condition for far longer.

    While performance is something you’ll only be able to feel when actually pushing the laptop to its limits, the stunning 18-inch Mini LED is a beauty that you’ll be able to immediately see and appreciate. It definitely has a laundry list of features that not only gamers but also designers will love, starting with the 2.5K resolution and 1200 nits of peak brightness. 100% DCI-P3 coverage ensures color accuracy, while 240Hz refresh rates mean your content will be able to keep up with the action. Vibrant, colorful, and fluid, this screen is pretty much the mouth-watering icing on top of the cake that is the laptop’s performance.
    Battery life, on the other hand, isn’t as impressive. It’s still the same 90Wh capacity from last year’s model, so its average expectancy isn’t that much. You’d be lucky to get even an hour of gaming with medium settings, which is quite average among gaming laptops. ASUS did upgrade the charger to 380W from 330W, so you have a shorter charging time.

    The bonus is that the ROG Strix SCAR 18now supports 100W PDcharging via USB-C, which expands charging options just a bit. Of course, it’s still slower and won’t be able to support heavy gaming compared to the official power brick, but it’s better than completely draining your battery dry in less than an hour.
    The ASUS ROG Strix SCAR 18definitely doesn’t hold back when it comes to performance, making it an excellent portable workstation for designers and creators as well. There’s no denying that it offers one of, if not, the best options in the gaming laptop market, but the real question is whether that justifies the price that ASUS is asking for in turn. We’ll get to that in a bit, but first, we make a segue into what is probably the third-best thing about the laptop after its sophisticated beauty and unmatched performance.
    Sustainability
    At first glance, the Strix SCAR 18is your typical mix of metal and plastic that you’d find in many gaming laptops. In fact, you might even be disappointed to find out that there’s still quite a lot of plastic, especially on the interior deck, rather than the aluminum that premium laptops have begun to flaunt. That said, the plastic does help with keeping things a bit cooler and even a little bit lighter, despite the laptop being quite a heavyweight.

    ROG added one feature that trumps all that, though. With a simple slide of a latch, you can easily remove the back panel to have instant access to SSD and RAM slots. Even better, ASUS has brought its Q-Latch system to easily remove and replace the SSDs with just a plastic hinge. The fans and battery are also quickly exposed, though those will require a bit more work to take out. The motherboard is also well protected with a special frame but is still just a few screws away. This tool-less access to the most commonly upgraded components ensures that the Strix SCAR 18will last you a long, long time.
    Value
    Subtly sophisticated, impressively powerful, and easily upgradable, the ASUS ROG Strix SCAR 18almost has it all. The combination of refined aesthetics and flexibility to show off your gamer DNA positions this laptop as a powerhouse not just for gaming but for any endeavor that requires extensive processing, which usually includes AI these days. It’s almost perfect except for one particularly thorny subject: the price.
    The G835LW with an RTX 5080 fetches a jaw-dropping and the highest configuration easily goes for That puts it close to luxury laptop territory, which isn’t something you might call such a gaming laptop, especially one that still has plenty of plastic to go around. Between these two, this G835LW model we’re reviewing seems to have the best balance, compromising just a little bit on performance for a huge cut in cost. Are there other options in this price range? Definitely. But are there other options in this price range that offer this trifecta of style, power, and longevity? Probably not.

    Verdict
    We’re entering an age where gaming laptops are no longer just hulking portable counterparts of their desktop cousins. As user tastes evolve, so too, do laptop designs. Those neon-lit futuristic slabs won’t disappear, but we’ll be getting an infusion of gaming laptops that cast their nets wider to appeal to a more diverse audience, some of which might not want to broadcast their gaming passion 24/7.
    The ASUS ROG Strix SCAR 18manages to strike a balance that will probably satisfy a good number of gamers of different aesthetic preferences. It cuts a rather captivating image of a powerful portable machine that can handle any task without breaking a sweat. Yes when you turn the RGB lights on and bring the AniMe Vision display to life, it immediately transforms into a dynamic battle station that will carry you to victory. The price tag is definitely a bitter pill to swallow, but you can rest assured that you’re getting you’re money’s worth, especially in the long term.
    The post ASUS ROG Strix SCAR 18Review: Subtly Sophisticated Performance Powerhouse first appeared on Yanko Design.
    #asus #rog #strix #scar #review
    ASUS ROG Strix SCAR 18 (2025) Review: Subtly Sophisticated Performance Powerhouse
    PROS: Easy, tool-less RAM and SSD access and replacement Excellent performance and impressive cooling More refined, premium-looking design AniMe Vision matrix display for some gamer flair Stunning matte Mini LED display CONS: Slightly larger and heavier than previous gen Quite pricey RATINGS: AESTHETICSERGONOMICSPERFORMANCESUSTAINABILITY / REPAIRABILITYVALUE FOR MONEYEDITOR'S QUOTE:The ASUS Strix SCAR 18delivers a powerhouse of a gaming laptop wrapped in a design that's modern, mature, and premium. Typical gaming laptops come in thick, bulky chassis with flashy lighting. The former is a result of cramming as many high-performance components as possible in such a cramped space, while the latter is a product of boxing gamer aesthetics into a particular stereotype. As more people embrace video gaming, however, the variety of design tastes also grows, with some preferring their gaming gear to be a bit more discreet and subtle. Announced earlier this year, the ASUS ROG Strix SCAR 18is bringing more than just the latest and greatest in PC gaming technologies. It also arrived with a redesigned appearance, breaking away from its peers to some degree. But does the gaming laptop’s embrace of subdued aesthetics also mean it cuts down on its performance? We give this racing car-inspired powerhouse a spin to see if it manages to strike a balance between power and beauty that will appeal to a wider audience. Designer: ASUS Republic of Gamers Aesthetics You might be surprised by the sight that greets you when you remove the ROG Strix SCAR 18from its packaging. You immediately behold a frame that looks premium, eschewing the shiny plastic surfaces and geometric details that deck most gaming laptops. Instead, the soft-touch matte black material on its back gives it a sleeker, more premium personality, a design language that ASUS seems to be adopting across its laptop line. That design continues inside, where the semi-transparent keyboard deck of last year’s model is replaced with an opaque, all-black case that is less distracting and, to be honest, looks more professional. If you turn all the RGB lights off, the ROG Strix SCAR 18could easily pass off for a business laptop, though a rather bulky one at that. The one complaint we have with this smoother texture is how it easily smudges, so you’ll find yourself wiping surfaces more often to keep them looking pristine and presentable. Of course, a Republic of Gamers laptop is still designed for gamers, and those who do want some flair will find plenty of sliders and switches to play with. In addition to the lightbar that runs around the bottom of the chassis and the standard keyboard backlighting, the Strix SCAR 18brings the AniMe Vision matrix display from the ROG Zephyrus line, providing 810 LEDs shining through 9,152 precision-milled holes that you can control to show off some lo-fi text or images, both static and animated. The ROG logo sitting in the corner also has its own RGB lights, though it might be a little too big for our tastes. The ASUS ROG Strix SCAR 18delivers a design that successfully pulls off a tough balancing act, providing a sophisticated and premium look that can still flaunt all those bright RGB colors if wanted. It is distinctly gaming-oriented without having to shout it, preferring to let its performance do the talking. Ergonomics There’s no escaping the laws of physics, and until the day we can truly shrink hardware and develop some magical cooling technology, there will always be concessions when it comes to balancing power and portability. Gaming laptops are unsurprisingly the worst offenders in this matter, and this year’s ROG Strix SCAR 18 sadly takes a step back. Although the Strix SCAR 18is an upgrade in almost every other aspect, it is also slightly larger and noticeably heavier than its predecessor. The good news is that it isn’t for naught, because the newer model does pack an improved cooling system as well as a more modular design, but it’s still something potential buyers will have to consider to manage their expectations, not to mention prepare their backs or shoulders when lugging it around. The SCAR 18’s more streamlined design also has ramifications for its usability, particularly with the ports. Gone are the side exhausts, allowing the connectivity ports to be pushed backward a bit. ASUS also took the opportunity to add a third full-sized USB-A port, probably to the delight of many gamers and computer users whose favorite accessories haven’t yet moved to the age of USB-C. The power connector has also been redesigned with a new rectangular plug instead of a round barrel. Unfortunately, the power cable has also been changed to stick out from the side rather than at a 90-degree angle like last year’s charger. The ergonomics of the keyboard and the large touchpad are quite good, providing comfort and precision despite not having your ideal mechanical switches. One thing that might throw off new users, however, is the non-standard position of the cursor keys and the layout of the numeric keypad. It’s not a complete deal-breaker, but one that will require developing some muscle memory that you can’t carry over to other keyboards or laptops. Performance The ASUS ROG Strix SCAR 18is an upgrade in every sense of the word, bearing the latest and greatest Intel chip, the Core Ultra 9 275HX. This is paired with a Series 5000 NVIDIA graphics card, which will naturally depend on what model you’ll have. Our review unit, the G835LW, comes with a GeForce RTX 5080, while there are also options for a 5070and the highest 5090. Out of the box, you get 32GB of RAM and 2TB of SSD storage, but you can easily double that, as we’ll see later. Long story short, this machine is a beast, making short work of modern AAA titles. Of course, don’t expect to get desktop-grade performance that will let you crank up all the settings to 11, but you won’t be far off either. What’s more impressive than the benchmark numbers is how stable that performance is, particularly thanks to an improved cooling system this year. In addition to your typical high-capacity fans, which now number three, the Strix SCAR 18features heatsinks that stretch across the whole width of the laptop. Also running from end to end is the vapor chamber sandwiched between these heatsinks. Completely new to this generation, however, is the Conductonaut Extreme liquid metal that replaces your typical thermal paste on the CPU and the GPU. All these work together to keep thermals down to a manageable level and keep the laptop running in peak condition for far longer. While performance is something you’ll only be able to feel when actually pushing the laptop to its limits, the stunning 18-inch Mini LED is a beauty that you’ll be able to immediately see and appreciate. It definitely has a laundry list of features that not only gamers but also designers will love, starting with the 2.5K resolution and 1200 nits of peak brightness. 100% DCI-P3 coverage ensures color accuracy, while 240Hz refresh rates mean your content will be able to keep up with the action. Vibrant, colorful, and fluid, this screen is pretty much the mouth-watering icing on top of the cake that is the laptop’s performance. Battery life, on the other hand, isn’t as impressive. It’s still the same 90Wh capacity from last year’s model, so its average expectancy isn’t that much. You’d be lucky to get even an hour of gaming with medium settings, which is quite average among gaming laptops. ASUS did upgrade the charger to 380W from 330W, so you have a shorter charging time. The bonus is that the ROG Strix SCAR 18now supports 100W PDcharging via USB-C, which expands charging options just a bit. Of course, it’s still slower and won’t be able to support heavy gaming compared to the official power brick, but it’s better than completely draining your battery dry in less than an hour. The ASUS ROG Strix SCAR 18definitely doesn’t hold back when it comes to performance, making it an excellent portable workstation for designers and creators as well. There’s no denying that it offers one of, if not, the best options in the gaming laptop market, but the real question is whether that justifies the price that ASUS is asking for in turn. We’ll get to that in a bit, but first, we make a segue into what is probably the third-best thing about the laptop after its sophisticated beauty and unmatched performance. Sustainability At first glance, the Strix SCAR 18is your typical mix of metal and plastic that you’d find in many gaming laptops. In fact, you might even be disappointed to find out that there’s still quite a lot of plastic, especially on the interior deck, rather than the aluminum that premium laptops have begun to flaunt. That said, the plastic does help with keeping things a bit cooler and even a little bit lighter, despite the laptop being quite a heavyweight. ROG added one feature that trumps all that, though. With a simple slide of a latch, you can easily remove the back panel to have instant access to SSD and RAM slots. Even better, ASUS has brought its Q-Latch system to easily remove and replace the SSDs with just a plastic hinge. The fans and battery are also quickly exposed, though those will require a bit more work to take out. The motherboard is also well protected with a special frame but is still just a few screws away. This tool-less access to the most commonly upgraded components ensures that the Strix SCAR 18will last you a long, long time. Value Subtly sophisticated, impressively powerful, and easily upgradable, the ASUS ROG Strix SCAR 18almost has it all. The combination of refined aesthetics and flexibility to show off your gamer DNA positions this laptop as a powerhouse not just for gaming but for any endeavor that requires extensive processing, which usually includes AI these days. It’s almost perfect except for one particularly thorny subject: the price. The G835LW with an RTX 5080 fetches a jaw-dropping and the highest configuration easily goes for That puts it close to luxury laptop territory, which isn’t something you might call such a gaming laptop, especially one that still has plenty of plastic to go around. Between these two, this G835LW model we’re reviewing seems to have the best balance, compromising just a little bit on performance for a huge cut in cost. Are there other options in this price range? Definitely. But are there other options in this price range that offer this trifecta of style, power, and longevity? Probably not. Verdict We’re entering an age where gaming laptops are no longer just hulking portable counterparts of their desktop cousins. As user tastes evolve, so too, do laptop designs. Those neon-lit futuristic slabs won’t disappear, but we’ll be getting an infusion of gaming laptops that cast their nets wider to appeal to a more diverse audience, some of which might not want to broadcast their gaming passion 24/7. The ASUS ROG Strix SCAR 18manages to strike a balance that will probably satisfy a good number of gamers of different aesthetic preferences. It cuts a rather captivating image of a powerful portable machine that can handle any task without breaking a sweat. Yes when you turn the RGB lights on and bring the AniMe Vision display to life, it immediately transforms into a dynamic battle station that will carry you to victory. The price tag is definitely a bitter pill to swallow, but you can rest assured that you’re getting you’re money’s worth, especially in the long term. The post ASUS ROG Strix SCAR 18Review: Subtly Sophisticated Performance Powerhouse first appeared on Yanko Design. #asus #rog #strix #scar #review
    WWW.YANKODESIGN.COM
    ASUS ROG Strix SCAR 18 (2025) Review: Subtly Sophisticated Performance Powerhouse
    PROS: Easy, tool-less RAM and SSD access and replacement Excellent performance and impressive cooling More refined, premium-looking design AniMe Vision matrix display for some gamer flair Stunning matte Mini LED display CONS: Slightly larger and heavier than previous gen Quite pricey RATINGS: AESTHETICSERGONOMICSPERFORMANCESUSTAINABILITY / REPAIRABILITYVALUE FOR MONEYEDITOR'S QUOTE:The ASUS Strix SCAR 18 (2025) delivers a powerhouse of a gaming laptop wrapped in a design that's modern, mature, and premium. Typical gaming laptops come in thick, bulky chassis with flashy lighting. The former is a result of cramming as many high-performance components as possible in such a cramped space, while the latter is a product of boxing gamer aesthetics into a particular stereotype. As more people embrace video gaming, however, the variety of design tastes also grows, with some preferring their gaming gear to be a bit more discreet and subtle. Announced earlier this year, the ASUS ROG Strix SCAR 18 (2025) is bringing more than just the latest and greatest in PC gaming technologies. It also arrived with a redesigned appearance, breaking away from its peers to some degree. But does the gaming laptop’s embrace of subdued aesthetics also mean it cuts down on its performance? We give this racing car-inspired powerhouse a spin to see if it manages to strike a balance between power and beauty that will appeal to a wider audience. Designer: ASUS Republic of Gamers Aesthetics You might be surprised by the sight that greets you when you remove the ROG Strix SCAR 18 (2025) from its packaging. You immediately behold a frame that looks premium, eschewing the shiny plastic surfaces and geometric details that deck most gaming laptops. Instead, the soft-touch matte black material on its back gives it a sleeker, more premium personality, a design language that ASUS seems to be adopting across its laptop line. That design continues inside, where the semi-transparent keyboard deck of last year’s model is replaced with an opaque, all-black case that is less distracting and, to be honest, looks more professional. If you turn all the RGB lights off, the ROG Strix SCAR 18 (2025) could easily pass off for a business laptop, though a rather bulky one at that. The one complaint we have with this smoother texture is how it easily smudges, so you’ll find yourself wiping surfaces more often to keep them looking pristine and presentable. Of course, a Republic of Gamers laptop is still designed for gamers, and those who do want some flair will find plenty of sliders and switches to play with. In addition to the lightbar that runs around the bottom of the chassis and the standard keyboard backlighting, the Strix SCAR 18 (2025) brings the AniMe Vision matrix display from the ROG Zephyrus line, providing 810 LEDs shining through 9,152 precision-milled holes that you can control to show off some lo-fi text or images, both static and animated. The ROG logo sitting in the corner also has its own RGB lights, though it might be a little too big for our tastes. The ASUS ROG Strix SCAR 18 (2025) delivers a design that successfully pulls off a tough balancing act, providing a sophisticated and premium look that can still flaunt all those bright RGB colors if wanted. It is distinctly gaming-oriented without having to shout it, preferring to let its performance do the talking. Ergonomics There’s no escaping the laws of physics, and until the day we can truly shrink hardware and develop some magical cooling technology, there will always be concessions when it comes to balancing power and portability. Gaming laptops are unsurprisingly the worst offenders in this matter, and this year’s ROG Strix SCAR 18 sadly takes a step back. Although the Strix SCAR 18 (2025) is an upgrade in almost every other aspect, it is also slightly larger and noticeably heavier than its predecessor. The good news is that it isn’t for naught, because the newer model does pack an improved cooling system as well as a more modular design, but it’s still something potential buyers will have to consider to manage their expectations, not to mention prepare their backs or shoulders when lugging it around. The SCAR 18 (2025)’s more streamlined design also has ramifications for its usability, particularly with the ports. Gone are the side exhausts, allowing the connectivity ports to be pushed backward a bit. ASUS also took the opportunity to add a third full-sized USB-A port, probably to the delight of many gamers and computer users whose favorite accessories haven’t yet moved to the age of USB-C. The power connector has also been redesigned with a new rectangular plug instead of a round barrel. Unfortunately, the power cable has also been changed to stick out from the side rather than at a 90-degree angle like last year’s charger. The ergonomics of the keyboard and the large touchpad are quite good, providing comfort and precision despite not having your ideal mechanical switches. One thing that might throw off new users, however, is the non-standard position of the cursor keys and the layout of the numeric keypad. It’s not a complete deal-breaker, but one that will require developing some muscle memory that you can’t carry over to other keyboards or laptops. Performance The ASUS ROG Strix SCAR 18 (2025) is an upgrade in every sense of the word, bearing the latest and greatest Intel chip, the Core Ultra 9 275HX. This is paired with a Series 5000 NVIDIA graphics card, which will naturally depend on what model you’ll have. Our review unit, the G835LW, comes with a GeForce RTX 5080, while there are also options for a 5070 (G835LR) and the highest 5090 (G835LX). Out of the box, you get 32GB of RAM and 2TB of SSD storage, but you can easily double that, as we’ll see later. Long story short, this machine is a beast, making short work of modern AAA titles. Of course, don’t expect to get desktop-grade performance that will let you crank up all the settings to 11, but you won’t be far off either. What’s more impressive than the benchmark numbers is how stable that performance is, particularly thanks to an improved cooling system this year. In addition to your typical high-capacity fans, which now number three, the Strix SCAR 18 (2025) features heatsinks that stretch across the whole width of the laptop. Also running from end to end is the vapor chamber sandwiched between these heatsinks. Completely new to this generation, however, is the Conductonaut Extreme liquid metal that replaces your typical thermal paste on the CPU and the GPU. All these work together to keep thermals down to a manageable level and keep the laptop running in peak condition for far longer. While performance is something you’ll only be able to feel when actually pushing the laptop to its limits, the stunning 18-inch Mini LED is a beauty that you’ll be able to immediately see and appreciate. It definitely has a laundry list of features that not only gamers but also designers will love, starting with the 2.5K resolution and 1200 nits of peak brightness. 100% DCI-P3 coverage ensures color accuracy, while 240Hz refresh rates mean your content will be able to keep up with the action. Vibrant, colorful, and fluid, this screen is pretty much the mouth-watering icing on top of the cake that is the laptop’s performance. Battery life, on the other hand, isn’t as impressive. It’s still the same 90Wh capacity from last year’s model, so its average expectancy isn’t that much. You’d be lucky to get even an hour of gaming with medium settings, which is quite average among gaming laptops. ASUS did upgrade the charger to 380W from 330W, so you have a shorter charging time. The bonus is that the ROG Strix SCAR 18 (2025) now supports 100W PD (Power Delivery) charging via USB-C, which expands charging options just a bit. Of course, it’s still slower and won’t be able to support heavy gaming compared to the official power brick, but it’s better than completely draining your battery dry in less than an hour. The ASUS ROG Strix SCAR 18 (2025) definitely doesn’t hold back when it comes to performance, making it an excellent portable workstation for designers and creators as well. There’s no denying that it offers one of, if not, the best options in the gaming laptop market, but the real question is whether that justifies the price that ASUS is asking for in turn. We’ll get to that in a bit, but first, we make a segue into what is probably the third-best thing about the laptop after its sophisticated beauty and unmatched performance. Sustainability At first glance, the Strix SCAR 18 (2025) is your typical mix of metal and plastic that you’d find in many gaming laptops. In fact, you might even be disappointed to find out that there’s still quite a lot of plastic, especially on the interior deck, rather than the aluminum that premium laptops have begun to flaunt. That said, the plastic does help with keeping things a bit cooler and even a little bit lighter, despite the laptop being quite a heavyweight. ROG added one feature that trumps all that, though. With a simple slide of a latch, you can easily remove the back panel to have instant access to SSD and RAM slots. Even better, ASUS has brought its Q-Latch system to easily remove and replace the SSDs with just a plastic hinge. The fans and battery are also quickly exposed, though those will require a bit more work to take out. The motherboard is also well protected with a special frame but is still just a few screws away. This tool-less access to the most commonly upgraded components ensures that the Strix SCAR 18 (2025) will last you a long, long time. Value Subtly sophisticated, impressively powerful, and easily upgradable, the ASUS ROG Strix SCAR 18 (2025) almost has it all. The combination of refined aesthetics and flexibility to show off your gamer DNA positions this laptop as a powerhouse not just for gaming but for any endeavor that requires extensive processing, which usually includes AI these days. It’s almost perfect except for one particularly thorny subject: the price. The G835LW with an RTX 5080 fetches a jaw-dropping $3,399.99, and the highest configuration easily goes for $4,449.99. That puts it close to luxury laptop territory, which isn’t something you might call such a gaming laptop, especially one that still has plenty of plastic to go around. Between these two, this G835LW model we’re reviewing seems to have the best balance, compromising just a little bit on performance for a huge cut in cost. Are there other options in this price range? Definitely. But are there other options in this price range that offer this trifecta of style, power, and longevity? Probably not. Verdict We’re entering an age where gaming laptops are no longer just hulking portable counterparts of their desktop cousins. As user tastes evolve, so too, do laptop designs. Those neon-lit futuristic slabs won’t disappear, but we’ll be getting an infusion of gaming laptops that cast their nets wider to appeal to a more diverse audience, some of which might not want to broadcast their gaming passion 24/7. The ASUS ROG Strix SCAR 18 (2025) manages to strike a balance that will probably satisfy a good number of gamers of different aesthetic preferences. It cuts a rather captivating image of a powerful portable machine that can handle any task without breaking a sweat. Yes when you turn the RGB lights on and bring the AniMe Vision display to life, it immediately transforms into a dynamic battle station that will carry you to victory. The price tag is definitely a bitter pill to swallow, but you can rest assured that you’re getting you’re money’s worth, especially in the long term. The post ASUS ROG Strix SCAR 18 (2025) Review: Subtly Sophisticated Performance Powerhouse first appeared on Yanko Design.
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
  • Earth’s core is leaking gold

    Trace amounts of precious metals found in volcanic rock appear to come from the Earth's inner core. Credit: Deposit Photos

    Get the Popular Science daily newsletter
    Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday.

    Contrary to conspiracy theories, the Earth’s core isn’t hollow. The dense, hot ball instead contains a stew of precious metals including platinum, ruthenium, and pretty much all of the planet’s gold. As lucrative as that sounds, there’s essentially no way humanity will ever access this natural treasure chest buried beneath more than 1,850  feet of solid rock. But according to recent discoveries made at volcanoes in Hawai’i, trace amounts of some of those coveted metals are seeping up from the planet’s deepest reaches.
    “When the first results came in, we realized that we had literally struck gold,” Nils Messling, a geochemist at Göttingen University, said in a statement. “Our data confirmed that material from the core, including gold and other precious metals, is leaking into Earth’s mantle above.”
    Messling and collaborators explained their findings in a study published on May 21 in the journal Nature. The team recently detected trace amounts of the precious metal ruthenium while analyzing volcanic rock samples collected across the islands of Hawai’i. More specifically, they noted the unexpected presence of the ruthenium isotope, ¹⁰⁰Ru.
    “Unexpected” is the key word there. While ¹⁰⁰Ru does exist in Earth’s mantle, it’s slightly more abundant inside of the core—alongside 99.999 percent of the planet’s gold and other precious metals. That’s because during the planet’s formation about 4.5 billion years ago, some of the ruthenium that is locked inside Earth’s core originated from a different source than the small amount found in the mantle today. The discrepancies between these two forms of ruthenium is so slight that the equipment used by geologists to study these isotopes hasn’t been able to tell the two apart.
    However, researchers at Göttingen University in The Netherlands recently developed new isotopic analysis methods that allowed them to do just that. In differentiating between these two types of the same isotope, the team discovered that some of Hawai’i’s volcanic basalts contain an unusually high ¹⁰⁰Ru signal meaning it must have originated from near the core-mantle-boundary.  
    The ramifications are significant: Earth’s core, once thought inaccessible, is ejected at least small amounts up towards the surface during volcanic eruptions.
    “We can now also prove that huge volumes of super-heated mantle material—several hundreds of quadrillion metric tons of rock—originate at the core-mantle boundary and rise to Earth’s surface to form ocean islands like Hawaii,” added study co-author Matthias Wilbold.
    The question now isn’t if this unexpected process happens—it’s a question of if and when it’s happened in the past.
    “Our findings open up an entirely new perspective on the evolution of the inner dynamics of our home planet,” added Messling.
    #earths #core #leaking #gold
    Earth’s core is leaking gold
    Trace amounts of precious metals found in volcanic rock appear to come from the Earth's inner core. Credit: Deposit Photos Get the Popular Science daily newsletter💡 Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday. Contrary to conspiracy theories, the Earth’s core isn’t hollow. The dense, hot ball instead contains a stew of precious metals including platinum, ruthenium, and pretty much all of the planet’s gold. As lucrative as that sounds, there’s essentially no way humanity will ever access this natural treasure chest buried beneath more than 1,850  feet of solid rock. But according to recent discoveries made at volcanoes in Hawai’i, trace amounts of some of those coveted metals are seeping up from the planet’s deepest reaches. “When the first results came in, we realized that we had literally struck gold,” Nils Messling, a geochemist at Göttingen University, said in a statement. “Our data confirmed that material from the core, including gold and other precious metals, is leaking into Earth’s mantle above.” Messling and collaborators explained their findings in a study published on May 21 in the journal Nature. The team recently detected trace amounts of the precious metal ruthenium while analyzing volcanic rock samples collected across the islands of Hawai’i. More specifically, they noted the unexpected presence of the ruthenium isotope, ¹⁰⁰Ru. “Unexpected” is the key word there. While ¹⁰⁰Ru does exist in Earth’s mantle, it’s slightly more abundant inside of the core—alongside 99.999 percent of the planet’s gold and other precious metals. That’s because during the planet’s formation about 4.5 billion years ago, some of the ruthenium that is locked inside Earth’s core originated from a different source than the small amount found in the mantle today. The discrepancies between these two forms of ruthenium is so slight that the equipment used by geologists to study these isotopes hasn’t been able to tell the two apart. However, researchers at Göttingen University in The Netherlands recently developed new isotopic analysis methods that allowed them to do just that. In differentiating between these two types of the same isotope, the team discovered that some of Hawai’i’s volcanic basalts contain an unusually high ¹⁰⁰Ru signal meaning it must have originated from near the core-mantle-boundary.   The ramifications are significant: Earth’s core, once thought inaccessible, is ejected at least small amounts up towards the surface during volcanic eruptions. “We can now also prove that huge volumes of super-heated mantle material—several hundreds of quadrillion metric tons of rock—originate at the core-mantle boundary and rise to Earth’s surface to form ocean islands like Hawaii,” added study co-author Matthias Wilbold. The question now isn’t if this unexpected process happens—it’s a question of if and when it’s happened in the past. “Our findings open up an entirely new perspective on the evolution of the inner dynamics of our home planet,” added Messling. #earths #core #leaking #gold
    WWW.POPSCI.COM
    Earth’s core is leaking gold
    Trace amounts of precious metals found in volcanic rock appear to come from the Earth's inner core. Credit: Deposit Photos Get the Popular Science daily newsletter💡 Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday. Contrary to conspiracy theories, the Earth’s core isn’t hollow. The dense, hot ball instead contains a stew of precious metals including platinum, ruthenium, and pretty much all of the planet’s gold. As lucrative as that sounds, there’s essentially no way humanity will ever access this natural treasure chest buried beneath more than 1,850  feet of solid rock. But according to recent discoveries made at volcanoes in Hawai’i, trace amounts of some of those coveted metals are seeping up from the planet’s deepest reaches. “When the first results came in, we realized that we had literally struck gold,” Nils Messling, a geochemist at Göttingen University, said in a statement. “Our data confirmed that material from the core, including gold and other precious metals, is leaking into Earth’s mantle above.” Messling and collaborators explained their findings in a study published on May 21 in the journal Nature. The team recently detected trace amounts of the precious metal ruthenium while analyzing volcanic rock samples collected across the islands of Hawai’i. More specifically, they noted the unexpected presence of the ruthenium isotope, ¹⁰⁰Ru. “Unexpected” is the key word there. While ¹⁰⁰Ru does exist in Earth’s mantle, it’s slightly more abundant inside of the core—alongside 99.999 percent of the planet’s gold and other precious metals. That’s because during the planet’s formation about 4.5 billion years ago, some of the ruthenium that is locked inside Earth’s core originated from a different source than the small amount found in the mantle today. The discrepancies between these two forms of ruthenium is so slight that the equipment used by geologists to study these isotopes hasn’t been able to tell the two apart. However, researchers at Göttingen University in The Netherlands recently developed new isotopic analysis methods that allowed them to do just that. In differentiating between these two types of the same isotope, the team discovered that some of Hawai’i’s volcanic basalts contain an unusually high ¹⁰⁰Ru signal meaning it must have originated from near the core-mantle-boundary.   The ramifications are significant: Earth’s core, once thought inaccessible, is ejected at least small amounts up towards the surface during volcanic eruptions. “We can now also prove that huge volumes of super-heated mantle material—several hundreds of quadrillion metric tons of rock—originate at the core-mantle boundary and rise to Earth’s surface to form ocean islands like Hawaii,” added study co-author Matthias Wilbold. The question now isn’t if this unexpected process happens—it’s a question of if and when it’s happened in the past. “Our findings open up an entirely new perspective on the evolution of the inner dynamics of our home planet,” added Messling.
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
  • The Value of Video Game IP in Post-‘Minecraft’ Hollywood

    With “A Minecraft Movie” in striking distance of the billion-dollar mark at the global box office, there’s no better time to check in on the state of the video game industry, with an emphasis on its intersection with Hollywood.

    Kaare Eriksen, author of a recent Variety Intelligence Platform special report on these subjects, tackles everything on the latest episode of Variety’s “Strictly Business” podcast — from the shadow that Trump-era tariffs could cast over Nintendo’s Switch 2 console launch next month to the shift of “Grand Theft Auto 6” to 2026.

    Related Stories

    Rockstar Games, publisher of the hugely popular franchise, announced earlier this month that “GTA 6” is now set to release on May 26, 2026. Many publishers behind big games expected this year were reportedly reluctant to commit to release dates until they knew for sure “GTA 6” is locked down to one.

    Popular on Variety

    Listen to the podcast here:  

    “The immediate upside is the sheer reality that now some publishers can breathe a bit easy and schedule games for the fall,” said Eriksen.

    Meanwhile, Warner Bros.’s “A Minecraft Movie,” starring Jack Black and Jason Momoa, has done well enough to become the second-best gaming adaptation ever at the box office, which will certainly whet appetites among film execs to capitalize on other gaming properties.

    “If there’s going to be any kind of ramifications of a ‘Minecraft’ movie doing so well, it is going to be studios obviously salivating for the chance to take some IP, whether it’s ‘Grand Theft Auto,’ ‘Call of Duty,’ or even Fortnite and Roblox, and try to figure out a way to do movies around those if it means they could potentially bring out that big of an audience,” said Eriksen.

    “Strictly Business” is Variety’s weekly podcast featuring conversations with industry leaders about the business of media and entertainment. New episodes debut every Wednesday and can be downloaded at Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Spotify, Google Play, SoundCloud and more.
    #value #video #game #postminecraft #hollywood
    The Value of Video Game IP in Post-‘Minecraft’ Hollywood
    With “A Minecraft Movie” in striking distance of the billion-dollar mark at the global box office, there’s no better time to check in on the state of the video game industry, with an emphasis on its intersection with Hollywood. Kaare Eriksen, author of a recent Variety Intelligence Platform special report on these subjects, tackles everything on the latest episode of Variety’s “Strictly Business” podcast — from the shadow that Trump-era tariffs could cast over Nintendo’s Switch 2 console launch next month to the shift of “Grand Theft Auto 6” to 2026. Related Stories Rockstar Games, publisher of the hugely popular franchise, announced earlier this month that “GTA 6” is now set to release on May 26, 2026. Many publishers behind big games expected this year were reportedly reluctant to commit to release dates until they knew for sure “GTA 6” is locked down to one. Popular on Variety Listen to the podcast here:   “The immediate upside is the sheer reality that now some publishers can breathe a bit easy and schedule games for the fall,” said Eriksen. Meanwhile, Warner Bros.’s “A Minecraft Movie,” starring Jack Black and Jason Momoa, has done well enough to become the second-best gaming adaptation ever at the box office, which will certainly whet appetites among film execs to capitalize on other gaming properties. “If there’s going to be any kind of ramifications of a ‘Minecraft’ movie doing so well, it is going to be studios obviously salivating for the chance to take some IP, whether it’s ‘Grand Theft Auto,’ ‘Call of Duty,’ or even Fortnite and Roblox, and try to figure out a way to do movies around those if it means they could potentially bring out that big of an audience,” said Eriksen. “Strictly Business” is Variety’s weekly podcast featuring conversations with industry leaders about the business of media and entertainment. New episodes debut every Wednesday and can be downloaded at Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Spotify, Google Play, SoundCloud and more. #value #video #game #postminecraft #hollywood
    VARIETY.COM
    The Value of Video Game IP in Post-‘Minecraft’ Hollywood
    With “A Minecraft Movie” in striking distance of the billion-dollar mark at the global box office, there’s no better time to check in on the state of the video game industry, with an emphasis on its intersection with Hollywood. Kaare Eriksen, author of a recent Variety Intelligence Platform special report on these subjects, tackles everything on the latest episode of Variety’s “Strictly Business” podcast — from the shadow that Trump-era tariffs could cast over Nintendo’s Switch 2 console launch next month to the shift of “Grand Theft Auto 6” to 2026. Related Stories Rockstar Games, publisher of the hugely popular franchise, announced earlier this month that “GTA 6” is now set to release on May 26, 2026. Many publishers behind big games expected this year were reportedly reluctant to commit to release dates until they knew for sure “GTA 6” is locked down to one. Popular on Variety Listen to the podcast here:   “The immediate upside is the sheer reality that now some publishers can breathe a bit easy and schedule games for the fall,” said Eriksen. Meanwhile, Warner Bros.’s “A Minecraft Movie,” starring Jack Black and Jason Momoa, has done well enough to become the second-best gaming adaptation ever at the box office, which will certainly whet appetites among film execs to capitalize on other gaming properties. “If there’s going to be any kind of ramifications of a ‘Minecraft’ movie doing so well, it is going to be studios obviously salivating for the chance to take some IP, whether it’s ‘Grand Theft Auto,’ ‘Call of Duty,’ or even Fortnite and Roblox, and try to figure out a way to do movies around those if it means they could potentially bring out that big of an audience,” said Eriksen. “Strictly Business” is Variety’s weekly podcast featuring conversations with industry leaders about the business of media and entertainment. (Please click here to subscribe to our free newsletter.) New episodes debut every Wednesday and can be downloaded at Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Spotify, Google Play, SoundCloud and more.
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos