It’s easy to look at President Donald Trump’s second term and conclude that the less power and reach the federal government has, the better. After all, a smaller government might provide Trump or someone like him with fewer opportunities to disrupt people’s lives, leaving America less vulnerable to the whims of an aspiring autocrat. Weaker law-enforcement agencies could lack the capacity to enforce draconian policies. The president would have less say in how universities like Columbia conduct their business if they weren’t so dependent on federal funding. And he would have fewer resources to fundamentally change the American way of life.Trump’s presidency has the potential to reshape an age-old debate between the left and the right: Is it better to have a big government or a small one? The left, which has long advocated for bigger government as a solution to society’s problems, might be inclined to think that in the age of Trump, a strong government may be too risky. Say the United States had a single-payer universal health care system, for example. As my colleague Kelsey Piper pointed out, the government would have a lot of power to decide what sorts of medical treatments should and shouldn’t be covered, and certain forms of care that the right doesn’t support — like abortion or transgender health — would likely get cut when they’re in power. That’s certainly a valid concern. But the dangers Trump poses do not ultimately make the case for a small or weak government because the principal problem with the Trump presidency is not that he or the federal government has too much power. It’s that there’s not enough oversight.Reducing the power of the government wouldn’t necessarily protect us. In fact, “making government smaller” is one of the ways that Trump might be consolidating power.First things first: What is “big government”?When Americans are polled about how they feel about “big government” programs — policies like universal health care, Social Security, welfare for the poor — the majority of people tend to support them. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the government should be responsible for ensuring everyone has health coverage. But when you ask Americans whether they support “big government” in the abstract, a solid majority say they view it as a threat.That might sound like a story of contradictions. But it also makes sense because “big government” can have many different meanings. It can be a police state that surveils its citizens, an expansive regulatory state that establishes and enforces rules for the private sector, a social welfare state that directly provides a decent standard of living for everyone, or some combination of the three. In the United States, the debate over “big government” can also include arguments about federalism, or how much power the federal government should have over states. All these distinctions complicate the debate over the size of government: Because while someone might support a robust welfare system, they might simultaneously be opposed to being governed by a surveillance state or having the federal government involved in state and local affairs.As much as Americans like to fantasize about small government, the reality is that the wealthiest economies in the world have all been a product of big government, and the United States is no exception. That form of government includes providing a baseline social safety net, funding basic services, and regulating commerce. It also includes a government that has the capacity to enforce its rules and regulations.A robust state that caters to the needs of its people, that is able to respond quickly in times of crisis, is essential. Take the Covid-19 pandemic. The US government, under both the Trump and Biden administrations, was able to inject trillions of dollars into the economy to avert a sustained economic downturn. As a result, people were able to withstand the economic shocks, and poverty actually declined. Stripping the state of the basic powers it needs to improve the lives of its citizens will only make it less effective and erode people’s faith in it as a central institution, making people less likely to participate in the democratic process, comply with government policies, or even accept election outcomes.A constrained government does not mean a small governmentBut what happens when the people in power have no respect for democracy? The argument for a weaker and smaller government often suggests that a smaller government would be more constrained in the harm it can cause, while big government is more unrestrained. In this case, the argument is that if the US had a smaller government, then Trump could not effectively use the power of the state — by, say, deploying federal law enforcement agencies or withholding federal funds — to deport thousands of immigrants, bully universities, and assault fundamental rights like the freedom of speech. But advocating for bigger government does not mean you believe in handing the state unlimited power to do as it pleases. Ultimately, the most important way to constrain government has less to do with its size and scope and more to do with its checks and balances. In fact, one of the biggest checks on Trump’s power so far has been the structure of the US government, not its size. Trump’s most dangerous examples of overreach — his attempts to conduct mass deportations, eliminate birthright citizenship, and revoke student visas and green cards based on political views — have been an example of how proper oversight has the potential to limit government overreach. To be sure, Trump’s policies have already upended people’s lives, chilled speech, and undermined the principle of due process. But while Trump has pushed through some of his agenda, he hasn’t been able to deliver at the scale he promised. But that’s not because the federal government lacks the capacity to do those things. It’s because we have three equal branches of government, and the judicial branch, for all of its shortcomings in the Trump era, is still doing its most basic job to keep the executive branch in check. Reforms should include more oversight, not shrinking governmentThe biggest lesson from Trump’s first term was that America’s system of checks and balances — rules and regulations, norms, and the separate branches of government — wasn’t strong enough. As it turned out, a lot of potential oversight mechanisms did not have enough teeth to meaningfully restrain the president from abusing his power. Trump incited an assault on the US Capitol in an effort to overturn the 2020 election, and Congress ultimately failed in its duty to convict him for his actions. Twice, impeachment was shown to be a useless tool to keep a president in check.But again that’s a problem of oversight, not of the size and power of government. Still, oversight mechanisms need to be baked into big government programs to insulate them from petty politics or volatile changes from one administration to the next. Take the example of the hypothetical single-payer universal health care system. Laws dictating which treatments should be covered should be designed to ensure that changes to them aren’t dictated by the president alone, but through some degree of consensus that involves regulatory boards, Congress, and the courts. Ultimately, social programs should have mechanisms that allow for change so that laws don’t become outdated, as they do now. And while it’s impossible to guarantee that those changes will always be good, the current system of employer-sponsored health insurance is hardly a stable alternative.By contrast, shrinking government in the way that Republicans often talk about only makes people more vulnerable. Bigger governments — and more bureaucracy — can also insulate public institutions from the whims of an erratic president. For instance, Trump has tried to shutter the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a regulatory agency that gets in the way of his and his allies’ business. This assault allows Trump to serve his own interests by pleasing his donors.In other words, Trump is currently trying to make government smaller — by shrinking or eliminating agencies that get in his way — to consolidate power. “Despite Donald Trump’s rhetoric about the size or inefficiency of government, what he has done is eradicate agencies that directly served people,” said Julie Margetta Morgan, president of the Century Foundation who served as an associate director at the CFPB. “He may use the language of ‘government inefficiency’ to accomplish his goals, but I think what we’re seeing is that the goals are in fact to open up more lanes for big businesses to run roughshod over the American people.” The problem for small-government advocates is that the alternative to big government is not just small government. It’s also big business because fewer services, rules, and regulations open up the door to privatization and monopolization. And while the government, however big, has to answer to the public, businesses are far less accountable. One example of how business can replace government programs is the Republicans’ effort to overhaul student loan programs in the latest reconciliation bill the House passed, which includes eliminating subsidized loans and limiting the amount of aid students receive. The idea is that if students can’t get enough federal loans to cover the cost of school, they’ll turn to private lenders instead. “It’s not only cutting Pell Grants and the affordability of student loan programs in order to fund tax cuts to the wealthy, but it’s also creating a gap where [private lenders] are all too happy to come in,” Margetta Morgan said. “This is the small government alternative: It’s cutting back on programs that provided direct services for people — that made their lives better and more affordable — and replacing it with companies that will use that gap as an opportunity for extraction and, in some cases, for predatory services.”Even with flawed oversight, a bigger and more powerful government is still preferable because it can address people’s most basic needs, whereas small government and the privatization of public services often lead to worse outcomes.So while small government might sound like a nice alternative when would-be tyrants rise to power, the alternative to big government would only be more corrosive to democracy, consolidating power in the hands of even fewer people (and businesses). And ultimately, there’s one big way for Trump to succeed at destroying democracy, and that’s not by expanding government but by eliminating the parts of government that get in his way.See More:

The Wicked movie was only half of the story from the hit Broadway musical. The conclusion — literally the entire second act of the show — is the basis for Wicked: For Good, featuring the same cast (including Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande) and directed once again by Jon M. Chu.The first trailer for the movie features the song that gives the film its subtitle, and teases a larger role for Dorothy and the rest of her friends from The Wizard of Oz than existed in the first Wicked movie (and maybe even the Wicked stage play). It’s also got even more beautiful costumes for Glinda and Elphaba — Elphaba’s new cloak with those big lapels is really sharp.You can watch the trailer below:READ MORE: Why Are Trailers For Musicals Afraid of Their Music?There’s a new trailer for the film as well.UniversalUniversalloading...Here is the film’s official synopsis:Elphaba (Cynthia Erivo), now demonized as The Wicked Witch of the West, lives in exile, hidden within the Ozian forest while continuing her fight for the freedom of Oz’s silenced Animals and desperately trying to expose the truth she knows about The Wizard (Jeff Goldblum). Glinda, meanwhile, has become the glamorous symbol of Goodness for all of Oz, living at the palace in Emerald City and reveling in the perks of fame and popularity. Under the instruction of Madame Morrible (Oscar® winner Michelle Yeoh), Glinda is deployed to serve as an effervescent comfort to Oz, reassuring the masses that all is well under the rule of The Wizard. As Glinda’s stardom expands and she prepares to marry Prince Fiyero (Olivier award winner and Emmy and SAG nominee Jonathan Bailey) in a spectacular Ozian wedding, she is haunted by her separation from Elphaba. She attempts to broker a conciliation between Elphaba and The Wizard, but those efforts will fail, driving Elphaba and Glinda only further apart. The aftershocks will transform Boq (Tony nominee Ethan Slater) and Fiyero forever, and threaten the safety of Elphaba’s sister, Nessarose (Marissa Bode), when a girl from Kansas comes crashing into all their lives. As an angry mob rises against the Wicked Witch, Glinda and Elphaba will need to come together one final time. With their singular friendship now the fulcrum of their futures, they will need to truly see each other, with honesty and empathy, if they are to change themselves, and all of Oz, for good.Well that was quite extensive. Wicked: For Good is scheduled to open in theaters on November 21.Get our free mobile appThe Best Food and Drink at Epic UniverseIf you visit Universal’s Epic Universe theme park, here are the foods and drink you have to try.

What’s a company to do when it faces a multitude of existential crises and seems unable to regain control of the media message? It throws a few dead cats on the table to distract everybody. This aeons-old approach to public relations has recently been rechristened as “flooding the zone” — and it is what I think Apple is doing as news surfaces that it plans to announce a change to the way it names its operating systems in June at its big developer event, WWDC. That means we won’t ever see iOS 19 but will see iOS 26 instead. It also means: A new Apple OS order iPadOS 26 macOS 26 tvOS 26 visionOS 26 watchOS 26 homeOS 26 You can see the pattern, I hope. The 26 refers to the main year in which an operating system exists, which is a little confusing, as it means we need to look forward to iOS 27 (et al.) in 2026.  I don’t think there’s anything particularly contentious about this change: it’s great for me, as it makes it far less likely I’ll use an incorrect OS version number in my work. But for Apple it’s led to a tidal wave of reports around the decision, and while not all of those are positively spun, the fact that the yarns are being worked at all restores some of Apple’s control over the narrative. Existential threats That’s a degree of media management the company needs, given that almost every other story being written about it at this time involves tariffs, regulation, or its problems with artificial intelligence. Even its bigger stories that should have been good news are delivering unexpected results — for example, what should be seen as huge success in pivoting its manufacturing to India is being seen through the lens of nativist US regulation and tariffs.  Also in politics, Europe’s regulators seem to want to turn Apple regulation into a weapon for use in negotiations over US trade. And in the background, the company’s former Chief Designer Jony Ive’s move to get to work on new devices with OpenAI raises all the ghosts of Expos past. What’s Apple to do? Well, right now it can’t ask Siri for comfort, but maybe that will change next year — and we don’t want people paying too much attention to AI, do we? Apple certainly doesn’t seem to want to discuss any of these challenges too much. The decision by Apple executives not to take part in John Gruber’s traditional WWDC ‘talk show’ represents a company whose leaders feel the need to manage the messaging. Apple has participated in these conversations for a decade, so the change is noteworthy. Waiting for the sun (in the Solarium) That Apple chooses these moments just before WWDC to use its official unofficial news and speculation reporters at Bloomberg to share news about the future of its operating system names represents something similar. First, it gets people talking about something else in the here and now. Second, it begins to set relatively low expectations for Apple’s big developer event. The operating systems will get a facelift (Solarium) designed to make them all work a little more similarly, the iPad will gain tools to make it more Mac-like, and Apple will adopt a new nomenclature culture for its operating system names. What is Solarium? This is a UI update that changes the look of icons, menus, windows, buttons, and more. The idea is to deliver a consistent visual interface across all the devices, intentionally a little translucent like sitting in a glass-walled room dappled by sunlight. Which sounds nice, and probably also means rounder icons, floating controls, spatial depth, and visual cues strongly reminiscent of visionOS 1.0.  Prepare for more shocks Will any of this be enough for Apple to regain control of the narrative? I don’t think so. There’s an outside possibility that Apple will introduce exciting digital health tools and maybe other services that provoke deep interest. But, assuming these do not transpire and Solarium is the hot spot for WWDC, then I strongly suspect Apple will play for time (and control of the media narrative) by throwing a few more dead cats into the ring — at least until Siri is at last capable of telling it when to stop.  You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, and Mastodon.

here comes the boom! Falcon 9 sonic booms can feel more like seismic waves Trajectories, wind shear, temperature gradients, topography, and weather can affect how a sonic boom spreads. Jennifer Ouellette – May 27, 2025 12:36 pm | 1 A Falcon 9 rocket lifted SPHEREx into orbit in March. Credit: NASA/Jim Ross A Falcon 9 rocket lifted SPHEREx into orbit in March. Credit: NASA/Jim Ross Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more The Vandenberg Space Force Base in Santa Barbara, California, serves military space launch missions as well as launches for NASA and commercial entities like SpaceX. But how do all those launches affect residents living along the Central Coast? People might marvel at the spectacular visual display, but as launch activity at the base has ramped up, so have the noise complaints, particularly about the sonic booms produced by Falcon 9 launches, which can reach as far south as Ventura County. The booms rattle windows, frighten pets, and have raised concerns about threats to the structural integrity of private homes. There have been rockets launching from Vandenberg for decades, so why are the Falcon 9 launches of such concern? "Because of the Starlink satellites, the orbital mechanics for where they're trying to place these in orbit is bringing [the trajectories] closer to the coast," said Brigham Young University's Kent Gee, who described his research into sonic boom effects on neighboring communities in a press briefing at a meeting of the Acoustical Society of America in New Orleans. And the launches are occurring much more frequently, from two to three launches per year in the 1980s to between five and seven launches each month today. There were 46 Falcon 9 launches out of the Vandenberg base in 2024 alone, per Gee. Gee joined a project called ECOBOOM (Environmental and Community Observation of Sonic Booms) to study the factors that can impact just how jarring those sonic booms might be, conducted jointly by BYU and California State University, Bakersfield, with cooperation from the Space Force. "Space Force is interested in this because they feel a sense of stewardship," said Gee. "These rockets from SpaceX and other providers are launched from the base for a variety of missions and they want to understand the effects both on and off base, trying to understand how they can complete the mission while minimizing [negative] impacts." Gee and his cohorts monitored 132 separate sonic booms last summer, relying on data gathered via a network of 25 or so acoustic monitoring stations located along 500 square miles, including the beaches of Isla Vista and further inland to the hills of Ojai. "The measurements were made in parks, people's backyards, parking lots, wastewater plants, and all sorts of different locations," said Gee. More bang than boom A view of a Falcon 9 rocket launch from a park in Ventura County. Credit: Kent Gee There has been a great deal of research on supersonic aircraft, but the sonic booms produced by rockets like the Falcon 9 are acoustically distinct, according to Gee. For instance, most sonic booms have two shock waves, but the Falcon 9 booster produces a boom with three shocks as it descends through the atmosphere after launch. Gee co-authored a paper earlier this year analyzing the acoustic signatures of three Falcon 9 flyback sonic booms. While the first and third shocks were what one might typically expect, the second central shock "is formed by a combination of the grid fins and the lower portions of the booster, including the folded landing legs," Gee and BYU colleague Mark C. Anderson wrote. "These lower portions of the booster produce a rarefaction wave that tends to migrate toward the back of the shock system while the grid fins produce a shock wave that tends to migrate toward the front of the shock system." Those shock waves merge, and their relative strengths determine where this second shock appears in the full sonic boom acoustic signature. Sonic booms from rockets are also lower frequency, with peaks of less than 1 Hz—below the range of human hearing. The result is less of a "boom" and more of a "bang," according to Gee, that can last a few seconds, compared to milliseconds for a typical acoustic wave. It's more akin to a seismic wave, particularly if one is indoors when it hits. "Sometimes you get a very low amplitude rumble, but it comes on suddenly, and it's there for a few seconds and disappears," he said. It's also one reason why the sonic booms can travel so far afield of the Vandenberg base. Could the similarities confuse California residents who might mistake a sonic boom for an earthquake? Perhaps, at least until residents learn otherwise. "Since we're often setting up in people's backyard, they text us the results of what they heard," said Gee. "It's fantastic citizen science. They'll tell us the difference is that the walls shake but the floors don't. They're starting to be able to tell the difference between an earthquake or a sonic boom from a launch." Launch trajectories of Falcon 9 rockets along the California coast. Credit: Kent Gee A rocket's trajectory also plays an important role. "Everyone sees the same thing, but what you hear depends on where you're at and the rocket's path or trajectory," said Gee, adding that even the same flight path can nonetheless produce markedly different noise levels. "There's a focal region in Ventura, Oxnard, and Camarillo where the booms are more impactful," he said. "Where that focus occurs changes from launch to launch, even for the same trajectory." That points to meteorology also being a factor: Certain times of year could potentially have more impact than others as weather conditions shift, with wind shears, temperature gradients, and topography, for instance, potentially affecting the propagation of sonic booms. In short, "If you can change your trajectory even a little under the right meteorological conditions, you can have a big impact on the sonic booms in this region of the country," said Gee. And it's only the beginning of the project; the team is still gathering data. "No two launches look the same right now," said Gee. "It's like trying to catch lightning." As our understanding improves, he sees the conversation shifting to more subjective social questions, possibly leading to the development of science-based local regulations, such as noise ordinances, to address any negative launch impacts. The next step is to model sonic booms under different weather conditions, which will be challenging due to coastal California's microclimates. "If you've ever driven along the California coast, the weather changes dramatically," said Gee. "You go from complete fog at Vandenberg to complete sun in Ventura County just 60 miles from the base." Jennifer Ouellette Senior Writer Jennifer Ouellette Senior Writer Jennifer is a senior writer at Ars Technica with a particular focus on where science meets culture, covering everything from physics and related interdisciplinary topics to her favorite films and TV series. Jennifer lives in Baltimore with her spouse, physicist Sean M. Carroll, and their two cats, Ariel and Caliban. 1 Comments

The Last Of Us season 2 was a mixed bag and I’m worried about season 3 Adam Starkey Published May 26, 2025 1:00am The performances are still the show’s biggest asset (HBO) The second season of The Last Of Us has been defined by growing pains, but its shortcomings highlight the narrative benefits of video games over TV. After the first episode, I celebrated The Last Of Us season two’s initial changes from the game. Instead of the largely redundant retread of season one, fans of the source material this time had something to chew on beyond just live action novelty. How will the story work when Abby’s motivation is revealed so early? What is the significance of new characters like Gail? And why is Joel now the person who killed Eugene?  Following the rushed finale, the wish for these changes has become a classic monkey’s paw scenario. For every positive (and there are still many), an odd or unsatisfying choice has been lurking around the corner – to the point where I now think this story, structurally and in its emotional impact, simply works better as a video game. Let’s start with the positives. After having some concern around whether Bella Ramsey could sell an older, more intimidating version of Ellie, these were mostly quashed during Ellie’s torture of Nora – for my money, the most effective, and harrowing, scene of the season. The show could do a better job of making Ramsey look older (it’s easy to forget a five year time jump has happened) but Ellie’s descent is hitting all the right, chilling notes. Elsewhere, Kaitlyn Dever makes a big impression as Abby. despite having little screen time, and Jesse, played by Young Mazino, works far better here as a mirror to Ellie’s warped sense of morality. The difficulty in portraying the latter is something the show is clearly wrestling with, and some of the changes in the HBO adaptation range from positive to perplexing. In the finale, pregnant Mel’s death is an accidental casualty of Ellie’s shoot-out with Owen instead of a venomous stab to the throat – a decision which helps make Ellie less of an irredeemable monster in her thirst for vengeance.  This alteration to keep you on Ellie’s side, however, is undercut by choices elsewhere. In the show, it’s explicitly spelled out that she knows Joel killed Abby’s father – a note which was left somewhat ambiguous in the game. This could have been left as a heartbreaking realisation for Ellie, when she finally confronts Abby – the wake-up call where she discovers they’re both locked in the same cycle of hate at the expense of their loved ones. But now Ellie is still actively chasing Abby, and killing her friends, despite having this context. I don’t like to pick sides between vengeful murderers, but it doesn’t take an arbiter of morality to see the lesser of two evils here.  Kaitlyn Dever’s Abby will be the focus of season three (HBO) This decision might be why the pivotal flashback between Joel and Ellie, which comes at the end of the game and recontextualises her unrelenting desire for revenge, was pushed to an earlier spot. However, this choice has its own issues. Sure, audiences might better understand Ellie’s inconsiderate willingness to put others at risk to avenge Joel, but in terms of narrative twists, this story has no big cards left to play – unless the TV show has something new planned, for future seasons.  Between these reshuffled scenes, along with Joel’s more overtly evil characterisation, as someone who lied to Ellie again (!) and killed Eugene before he got his final wish, there’s a clumsiness in this season which has lessened some of the nuance. We might have a clearer sense of all the characters at play, but it’s made the show feel more flat as a result.  As such, the prospect of season three being focused on Abby’s story isn’t as enticing as it should be. The idea of pivoting the show’s cast and focus over an entire season is intriguing, as an unusual experiment in the realm of TV, but I don’t know what shocks or revelations it can deliver now we know Abby’s motivations at the outset.  If the next season does build up to the theatre confrontation with Ellie, albeit from Abby’s perspective, I’m not convinced TV audiences will have the same patience in waiting to see what happens next. This pivot was sustained in the game because the initial novelty was supported by the same gameplay loop, but when you’re relying on the narrative to keep the momentum going, a prolonged clock rewind is a much harsher buzzkill for the pace. More Trending I’m curious how this season has landed with people who aren’t familiar with the games, but the show’s shortcomings, from my perspective, represent the benefits of video game storytelling over non-interactive entertainment. Joel’s death hits a lot harder after you’ve been fighting for survival in his shoes for hours beforehand, while the themes of cyclical violence strike a stronger chord when you’re the one firing the gun against all the very familar ‘enemies’.  The length of The Last Of Us Part 2 does undermine these qualities, and it’s far from perfect overall, but structurally the perspective shift forces you into positions designed to make players uncomfortable, notably in the fights between Ellie and Abby.  When you learn Abby’s side of the story, you don’t want to slash at her with a knife, or mash a button to strangle her throat. Every stab and punch lands with greater significance, and it’s an unsettling payoff which feels unique to video games – a medium where violence is rarely ever questioned or utilised for any other purpose outside of inconsequential thrills.  This is the magic of The Last Of Us Part 2 and a TV adaptation, no matter how much it alters or reshapes the narrative, cannot replicate these strengths as effectively. It doesn’t necessarily have to, but without these unique interactive qualities the biggest challenge for the TV show is what it can offer instead. Based on this season, the only answer seems to be the novelty of live action itself. Young Mazino’s Jesse is a surprise highlight (HBO) Email gamecentral@metro.co.uk, leave a comment below, follow us on Twitter, and sign-up to our newsletter. To submit Inbox letters and Reader’s Features more easily, without the need to send an email, just use our Submit Stuff page here. For more stories like this, check our Gaming page. GameCentral Sign up for exclusive analysis, latest releases, and bonus community content. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Your information will be used in line with our Privacy Policy

President Donald Trump has disrupted global trade and roiled markets in an effort to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. Some of his top tech allies, however, have backed ventures that replace human workers with robots.Elon Musk, a top donor and adviser to Trump, has touted humanoid robots as a future growth area for electric-carmaker Tesla. "You can produce any product,” Musk said of the robots’ potential capacity during a February interview with Dubai's World Governments Summit.Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who Trump last month called “terrific,” has invested in several advanced robotics firms.Bezos last year poured funds into Figure, a humanoid robot company that says its initial rollout will focus on manufacturers and warehouses, among other business applications. “We believe humanoids will revolutionize a variety of industries,” the company says on its website.Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman – both of whom joined Trump on his recent trip to the Middle East – helmed their respective companies as each invested in Figure. OpenAI ended its partnership with Figure last year.“Trump is talking about bringing back the jobs, and he’s not understanding the tension between that goal and automation, which the tech bros have enthusiasm for,” Harry Holzer, a professor of public policy at Georgetown University and a former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, told ABC News. “There’s a fundamental conflict between those goals.”MORE: Trump wants Apple to make iPhones in the US. Will it ever happen?Musk did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment made through Musk-owned firm SpaceX. Neither Bezos, Huang nor Altman responded to ABC News’ request.Speaking at a conference in April, Huang said the onset of artificial intelligence would fuel "new types of factories," which in turn would create jobs in construction and steelmaking, as well as in trades such as plumbing and electricity.Even more, Huang said, AI is set to trigger a surge in productivity at companies that adopt the new technology, allowing them to add employees as the firms increase output and revenue."New jobs will be created, some jobs will be lost, every job will be changed," Huang said. "Remember, it's not AI that's going to take your job. It's not AI that's going to destroy your company. It's the company and the person who uses AI that's going to take your job. And so that's something to internalize."Even after a rollback of some levies, consumers face the highest overall average effective tariff rate since 1934, the Yale Budget Lab found earlier this month.A key reason for the tariffs, White House officials say: Reshoring factories and rejuvenating employment in the manufacturing industry.Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said this month in an interview with Fox News that Trump's vision for ushering in a "golden age" for America involved enticing manufacturers to open factories and build in the United States."We're going to have huge jobs in manufacturing. You've heard the president talk about trillions and trillions of factories being built in America," he said in the interview on May 11.In response to ABC News' request for comment, White House Spokesperson Kush Desai said "the importance of President Trump’s push to reinvigorate American industry goes beyond creating good-paying jobs for everyday Americans.""Supply chain shocks of critical pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, and semiconductors during the COVID era prove that America cannot rely on foreign imports. The Trump administration remains committed to reshoring manufacturing that’s critical to our national and economic security with a multifaceted approach of tariffs, tax cuts, rapid deregulation, and domestic energy production," Desai added.The share of U.S. workers in manufacturing has plummeted for decades. Roughly 8% of U.S. workers currently hold positions in manufacturing, which marks a steep decline from about a quarter of all employees as recently as 1970.Researchers attribute such decline to overlapping trends, including the offshoring of manufacturing to low-wage markets overseas and the adoption of labor-saving technology throughout the sector.Long before current advances, automation significantly increased productivity in U.S. factories, meaning the same number of workers could produce many more goods, researchers at Ball State University found in 2015. As a result, they said, manufacturing employment stagnated for decades even as output climbed.Popular Reads“Automation is something we’ve seen for a long time,” Philipp Kircher, a professor of industrial and labor relations at Cornell University, told ABC News.CEO of Meta and Facebook Mark Zuckerberg, Lauren Sanchez, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk attend the inauguration ceremony of Donald Trump in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 20, 2025.Julia Demaree Nikhinson, Pool via AFP via Getty Images, FILESome of Trump’s tech allies have backed firms that seek to further automate manufacturing, touting a new wave of artificial-intelligence equipped robots as a replacement for some workers and salve for labor shortages.Robotics outfit Vicarious boasts $250 million in investments from a set of backers that includes Bezos, Musk and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg – all of whom flanked Trump during his inauguration.On a webpage displaying photos of robots for use in warehouse settings, Vicarious tells potential clients that the products can “reduce both your costs and person-hour needs.”In 2022, Vicarious was acquired by Alphabet-backed robotics software firm Intrinsic. Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai also sat alongside tech leaders at Trump’s inauguration.Alphabet did not respond to ABC News' request for comment. Meta declined to comment.Yong Suk Lee, a professor of economics and technology at the University of Notre Dame, described the views on automation among Trump’s tech allies and some of his trade advisers as “opposed.”The tech position, Lee said, would likely win out, even if some firms do open plants in the U.S.“If you want to reshore, are you going to pay the same wages as Vietnam? Probably not,” Lee said. “Companies are faced with higher labor costs. In that case, they’ll probably automate.”Discordant views among some tech leaders and White House officials surfaced in April, when Musk sharply criticized tariff-advocate Peter Navarro, Trump’s senior counselor for trade and manufacturing. Navarro, Musk said, is “truly a moron.”In an interview with CNBC, Navarro responded, saying Musk "isn't a car manufacturer — he's a car assembler.”MORE: Target CEO says tariffs risk 'massive' costs, but price hikes a 'last resort'To be sure, analysts said, automation in manufacturing would likely continue regardless of support from Trump’s tech allies, since producers are locked in a competition to lower costs and increase output. The precise outlook for manufacturing employment is unclear, they added, since additional technology may add jobs for those maintaining and optimizing the machinery.“Whether it’s the companies that currently support the U.S. president or not, somebody would be doing this innovation, maybe slightly slower,” Kircher said.Even at current employment levels, a labor shortage bedevils U.S. manufacturers. Roughly one of every five U.S. factories that failed to produce at full capacity cited a shortage of workers, Jason Miller, a professor of supply chain management at Michigan State University, found in a January study analyzing government data.Agility Robots, an Amazon-backed firm building humanoid robots, identifies the current push for rejuvenated U.S. manufacturing as an opportunity for greater adoption of technology.“Manufacturing companies are seeing a massive reshoring movement spanning various industries,” Agility Robots says on its website. “Adding a humanoid robot to your manufacturing facility is a great way to stay on the leading edge of automation.”In response to ABC News' request for comment, an Amazon spokesperson pointed to previous remarks about robotics made by a company executive."Our goal is to ensure these systems improve safety and productivity. Technology should be used to help us retain and grow our talent through skill development and reimagining how we make our workplace better, both in productivity and safety. If we do this well, we’re certain to always innovate for our customers," Tye Brady, chief technologist at Amazon Robotics, said in a September blog post.Amazon has "created more U.S. jobs in the last decade than any other company," Amazon said this month.

This article contains spoilers for Fear Street: Prom Queen Right before the first kill of Fear Street: Prom Queen, viewers get a montage of sounds and images appropriate to the movie’s 1988 setting. Accompanied by Billy Idol’s “White Wedding,” we see mean girl Tiffany Falconer (Fina Strazza) prepping for prom, cool girl Christy Renault (Ariana Greenblatt) buying drugs, and protagonist Lori Granger (India Fowler) trying on her dress. Included in this sequence is a shot of moviegoers watching Phantasm II, the cult classic from director Don Coscarelli. Onscreen, we see one of that ’80s film’s standout scenes, where flying silver balls launched by the evil Tall Man (Angus Scrimm) soar across a hallway before lodging into the head of a victim. By this point, such homages are an expected part of the Fear Street franchise, based on the YA novels by R.L. Stine. The first three movies, all directed by Leigh Janiak, feature multiple references to previous horror movies. But the Phantasm II nod in Prom Queen does more than provide further watch suggestions for Fear Street‘s intended audience, young teens new to the horror genre. It also points to the important fundamentals of horror filmmaking, which is something sometimes lost in the more frantic original trilogy. As in Coscarelli’s movie, Prom Queen uses a deliberate pace and clear spacial arrangement to make its kills legible, thereby heightening the experience beyond jump scares and references. It makes for a better horror experience. Two Types of Killing Palmer’s approach can be seen in the scene directly following the montage. The scene opens with a mid-range shot of Greenblatt’s cool girl standing next to the sports car driven by her drug dealers. The camera stays pretty tight on her as she finishes her transaction and walks off. When she crosses a bridge to the parking lot where she’ll meet her end though, the visual language changes. A wide shot captures Christy as she crosses a bridge, the soft orange light from the post above her providing a tranquil mood. That continues into the next shot where our victim walks happily through an empty parking lot. The tone shifts suddenly with a hard cut to a close up of Christy as she stops, and the camera moves around her as she looks around. A cut back to a wide shot shows that she is largely alone and trapped on three sides. Brick buildings and trucks surround her on all corners. So when a figure arrives in a foreground of one of the wide shots and an axe drops into frame, we understand Christy’s predicament. She’s utterly alone, save for this person who’s come to kill her. And the killer stands in front of her one means of escape. Christy doesn’t see the killer before the axe blade lands in her neck, but we viewers do. In fact, the camera stays with the killer up until the attack, cutting only briefly back to Christy’s perspective. Even as the killer chops at the pleading girl, the camera returns to a brief wide shot to show how her cries will go unanswered. Contrast this kill to the opening scene of the first entry, Fear Street: 1994, in which a slasher in a mask and hood stalks bookseller Heather (Maya Hawke). Director Janiak uses the aisles of the mall storefronts where the attack takes place to to build tension. We never really know where the killer is in relationship to Heather, even when closeups show the characters in full. Thus the attacks are all shocks, with the killer (and in one case, a counterattacking Heather) coming out of nowhere to surprise the viewer. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this style. Janiak is a good filmmaker, and her excellent debut picture Honeymoon demonstrates that she knows how to build dread and mood. But with Fear Street, Janiak chooses shocks over scares, with the killers constantly jumping out at the victims. Such energetic moviemaking gets a jolt from viewers but ultimately operates as shorthand, giving us the quick payoff of a scary scene without making us wait through the buildup. Prom Queen is all about the fundamentals of building a scary scene. In the bloody art room sequence, perhaps the most memorable moment, the camera lays out the geography of the space before we see the killer use a paper cutter to sever a jock’s arms. A tracking shot follows the jock Bobby (Dakota Taylor) and his girlfriend Linda (Ilan O’Driscoll) as they enter the room, keeping them in the center of the frame while also showing the points of exit and the objects in the room. Linda gets killed off-screen, moving out of frame and into the darkness. When she returns, holding the entrails spilling from a wound in her stomach, we see not only the room, but also start looking for the instruments that can do such damage. So when the killer stymies Bobby’s counterattack by slamming his arm on a table, we’re not seeing the paper cutter for the first time. But we do feel a sense of dread when we realize the proximity between Bobby’s hand and the cutter, a dread that gets consummated when he starts chopping away. Join our mailing list Get the best of Den of Geek delivered right to your inbox! It’s that sense of dread that makes horror so powerful. The actual kill can surprise us or disgust us, and Fear Street does that well (remember the improbable head in a bread slicer kill from 1994?). But the kill can also provide a sense of relief because it’s all so knowable. We no longer fear the potential for a character’s death because it has arrived. We may hate it and it may upset us, but it doesn’t scare us. A Legacy of Death With its more intentional pace and excellent spacial awareness, Prom Queen spends more time building dread. Drawing from masters like Coscarelli (who certainly loved a good jump scare from time to time) and pulling from the Italian giallo tradition that inspired the American slasher, director Matt Palmer grounds Prom Queen in a larger horror tradition. Palmer shows his young audience not just the cool movies they can check out after watching the latest Fear Street. He also shows them how to watch these movies; the fundamentals of horror filmmaking that provide the building blocks of the genre. Thanks to its well-constructed and well-paced kill scenes, Prom Queen goes beyond referencing the 1980s and looks at the history of horror and educates the next generation of horror fans. Fear Street: Prom Queen streams on Netlfix on May 23, 2025.

Designing human-centered AI products can be arduous.Keeping up with the overall pace of change isn’t easy. But here’s a bigger challenge:The wildly different paces of change attached to the key elements of AI product strategy, design, and development can make managing those elements — and even thinking about them — overwhelming.Yesterday’s design processes and frameworks offer priceless guidance that still holds. But in many spots, they just don’t fit today’s environment.For instance, designers used to map out and user-test precise, predictable end-to-end screen flows. But flows are no longer precisely predictable. AI generates dynamic dialogues and custom-tailored flows on the fly, rendering much of the old practice unhelpful and infeasible.It’s easy for product teams to feel adrift nowadays — we can hoist the sails, but we’re missing a map and a rudder. We need frameworks tailored to the traits that fundamentally set AI apart from traditional software, including:its capabilities for autonomy and collaboration,its probabilistic nature,its early need for quality data, andits predictable unpredictability. Humans tend to be perpetually surprised by its abilities — and its inabilities.AI pace layers: design for resilienceHere’s a framework to address these challenges.Building on Stewart Brand’s “Shearing Layers” framework, AI Pace Layers helps teams grow thriving AI products by framing them as layered systems with components that function and evolve at different timescales.It helps anticipate points of friction and create resilient and humane products.Each layer represents a specific domain of activity and responsibility, with a distinct pace of change.* Unlike the other layers, Services cuts across multiple layers rather than sitting between them, and its pace of change fluctuates erratically.Boundaries between layers call for special attention and care — friction at these points can produce destructive shearing and constructive turbulence.I’ll dive deeper into this framework with some practical examples showing how it works. But first, a brief review of the precursors that inspired this framework will help you put it to good use.The foundationsThis model builds on the insights of several influential design frameworks from the professions of building architecture and traditional software design.Shearing layers (Duffy and Brand)In his 1994 book How Buildings Learn, Stewart Brand expanded on architect Frank Duffy’s concept of shearing layers. The core insight: buildings consist of components that change at different rates.Shell, Services, Scenery, and Sets. (Frank Duffy, 1992).“…there isn’t any such thing as a building. A building properly conceived is several layers of longevity of built components.” — Frank DuffyShearing Layers of Change, from How Buildings Learn: What Happens after they’re built (Stewart Brand, 1994).Expanding on Duffy’s work, Brand identified six layers, from the slow-changing “Site” to the rapidly evolving “Stuff.”As the layers move at different speeds, friction forms where they meet. Buildings designed without mindful consideration of these different velocities tear themselves apart at these “shearing” points. Before long, they tend to be demolished and replaced.Buildings designed for resiliency allow for “slippage” between the moving layers — flexibility for the different rates of change to unfold with minimal conflict. Such buildings can thrive and remain useful for hundreds of years.Pace layers (Brand)In 1999, Brand drew insights from ecologists to expand this concept beyond buildings and encompass human society. In The Clock Of The Long Now: Time And Responsibility, he proposed “Pace Layers” — six levels ranging from rapid fashion to glacially-slow nature.Brand’s Pace Layers (1999) as sketched by Jono Hey.Brand again pointed out the boundaries, where the most intriguing and consequential changes emerge. Friction at the tension points can tear a building apart — or spur a civilization’s collapse–when we try to bind the layers too tightly together. But with mindful design and planning for slippage, activity along these boundary zones can also generate “constructive turbulence” that keeps systems balanced and resilient.The most successful systems survive and thrive through times of change through resiliency, by absorbing and incorporating shocks.“…a few scientists (such as R. V. O’Neill and C. S. Holling) have been probing the same issue in ecological systems: how do they manage change, how do they absorb and incorporate shocks? The answer appears to lie in the relationship between components in a system that have different change-rates and different scales of size. Instead of breaking under stress like something brittle, these systems yield as if they were soft. Some parts respond quickly to the shock, allowing slower parts to ignore the shock and maintain their steady duties of system continuity.” — Stewart BrandRoles and tendencies of the fast (upper) and slow (lower) layers. (Brand).Slower layers provide constraints and underpinnings for the faster layers, while faster layers induce adaptations in the slower layers that evolve the system.Elements of UX (Garrett)Jesse James Garrett’s classic The Elements of User Experience (2002) presents a five-layer model for digital design:Surface (visual design)Skeleton (interface design, navigation design, information design)Structure (interaction design, information architecture)Scope (functional specs, content requirements)Strategy (user needs, site objectives)Structure, Scope, and Strategy. Each layer answers a different set of questions, with the questions answered at each level setting constraints for the levels above. Lower layers set boundaries and underpinnings that help define the more concrete layers.Jesse James Garrett’s 5 layers from The Elements of User Experience Design (2002)This framework doesn’t focus on time, or on tension points resulting from conflicting velocities. But it provides a comprehensive structure for shaping different aspects of digital product design, from abstract strategy to concrete surface elements.AI Pace Layers: diving deeperBuilding on these foundations, the AI Pace Layers framework adapts these concepts specifically for AI systems design.Let’s explore each layer and understand how design expertise contributes across the framework.SessionsPace of change: Very fast (milliseconds to minutes)Focus: Performance of real-time interactions.This layer encompasses real-time dialogue, reasoning, and processing. These interplays happen between the user and AI, and between AI agents and other services and people, on behalf of the user. Sessions draw on lower-layer capabilities and components to deliver the “moments of truth” where product experiences succeed or fail. Feedback from the Sessions layer is crucial for improving and evolving the lower layers.Key contributors: Users and AI agents — usually with zero direct human involvement backstage.Example actions/decisions/artifacts: User/AI dialogue. Audio, video, text, images, and widgets are rendered on the fly (using building blocks provided by lower levels). Real-time adaptations to context.SkinPace of change: Moderately fast (days to months)Focus: Design patterns, guidelines, and assetsSkin encompasses visual, interaction, and content design.Key contributors: Designers, content strategists, front-end developers, and user researchers.Design’s role: This is where designers’ traditional expertise shines. They craft the interface elements, establish visual language, define interaction patterns, and create the design systems that represent the product’s capabilities to users.Example actions/decisions/artifacts: UI component libraries, brand guidelines, prompt templates, tone of voice guidelines, navigation systems, visual design systems, patterns (UI, interaction, and conversation), content style guides.ServicesPace of change: Wildly variable (slow to moderately fast)Focus: AI computation capabilities, data systems orchestration, and operational intelligenceThe Services layer provides probabilistic AI capabilities that sometimes feel like superpowers — and like superpowers, they can be difficult to manage. It encompasses foundation models, algorithms, data pipelines, evaluation frameworks, business logic, and computing resources.Services is an outlier that behaves differently from the other layers:• It’s more prone to “shocks” and surprises that can ripple across the rest of the system.• It varies wildly in pace of change. (But its components rarely change faster than Skin, or slower than Skeleton.)• It cuts across multiple layers rather than sitting between two of them. That produces more cross-layer boundaries, more tension points, more risks of destructive friction, and more opportunities for constructive turbulence.Key contributors: Data scientists, engineers, service designers, ethicists, product teamsDesign’s role: Designers partner with technical teams on evaluation frameworks, helping define what “good” looks like from a human experience perspective. They contribute to guardrails, monitoring systems, and multi-agent collaboration patterns, ensuring technical capabilities translate to meaningful human experiences. Service design expertise helps orchestrate complex, multi-touchpoint AI capabilities.Example actions/decisions/artifacts: Foundation model selection, changes, and fine-tuning. Evals, monitoring systems, guardrails, performance metrics. Business rules, workflow orchestration. Multiagent collaboration and use of external tools (APIs, A2A, MCP, etc.) Continual appraisal and adoption of new tools, protocols, and capabilities.SkeletonPace of change: Moderately slow (months) Focus: Fundamental structure and organizationThis layer establishes the foundational architecture — the core interaction models, information architecture and organizing principles.Key contributors: Information architects, information designers, user researchers, system architects, engineersDesign’s role: Designers with information architecture expertise are important in this layer. They design taxonomies, knowledge graphs, and classification systems that make complex AI capabilities comprehensible and usable. UX researchers help ensure these structures fit the audience’s mental models, contexts, and expectations.Example actions/decisions/artifacts: Taxonomies, knowledge graphs, data models, system architecture, classification systems.ScopePace of change: Slow (months to years)Focus: Product requirementsThis layer defines core functional, content, and data requirements, accounting for the probabilistic nature of AI and defining acceptable levels of performance and variance.Key contributors: Product managers, design strategists, design researchers, business stakeholders, data scientists, trust & safety specialistsDesign’s role: Design researchers and strategists contribute to requirements through generative and exploratory research. They help define error taxonomies and acceptable failure modes from a user perspective, informing metrics that capture technical performance and human experience quality. Design strategists balance technical possibilities with human needs and ethical considerations.Example actions/decisions/artifacts: Product requirements documents specifying reliability thresholds, data requirements (volume, diversity, quality standards), error taxonomies and acceptable failure modes, performance metrics frameworks, responsible AI requirements, risk assessment, core user stories and journeys, documentation of expected model variance and handling approaches.StrategyPace of change: Very slow (years)Focus: Long-term vision and business goalsThis foundation layer defines audience needs, core problems to solve, and business goals. In AI products, data strategy is central.Key contributors: Executive leadership, design leaders, product leadership, business strategists, ethics boardsDesign’s role: Design leaders define problem spaces, identify opportunities, and plan roadmaps. They deliver a balance of business needs with human values in strategy development. Designers with expertise in responsible AI help establish ethical frameworks and guiding principles that shape all other layers.Example actions/decisions/artifacts: Problem space and opportunity assessments, market positioning documents, long-term product roadmaps, comprehensive data strategy planning, user research findings on core needs, ethical frameworks and guiding principles, business model documentation, competitive/cooperative AI ecosystem mapping.Practical examples: tension points between layersTension point example 1: Bookmuse’s timeline troubles(Friction between Sessions and Skin)Bookmuse is a promising new AI tool for novelists. Samantha, a writer, tries it out while hashing out the underpinnings of her latest time-travel historical fiction thriller. The Bookmuse team planned for plenty of Samantha’s needs. At first, she considers Bookmuse a handy assistant. It supplements chats with tailored interactive visualizations that efficiently track character personalities, histories, relationships, and dramatic arcs.But Samantha is writing a story about time travelers interfering with World War I events, so she’s constantly juggling dates and timelines. Bookmuse falls short. It’s a tiny startup, and Luke, the harried cofounder who serves as a combination designer/researcher/product manager, hasn’t carved out any date-specific timeline tools or date calculators. He forgot to provide even a basic date picker in the design system.Problem: Bookmuse does its best to help Samantha with her story timeline (Sessions layer). But it lacks effective tools for the job (Skin layer). Its date and time interactions feel confusing, clumsy, and out of step with the rest of its tone, look, and feel. Whenever Samantha consults the timeline, it breaks her out of her creative flow.Constructive turbulence opportunities:a) Present feedback mechanisms that ensure this sort of “missing piece” event results in the product team learning about the type of interaction pothole that appeared — without revealing details or content that compromise Samantha’ privacy and her work. (For instance, a session tagging system can flag all interaction dead-ends during date choice interactions.)b) Improve timeline/date UI and interaction patterns. Table stakes: Standard industry-best-practice date picker components that suit Bookmuse’s style, tone, and voice. Game changers: Widgets, visualizations, and patterns tailored to the special time-tracking/exploration challenges that fiction writers often wrestle with.c) Update the core usability heuristics and universal interaction design patterns baked into the evaluation frameworks (in the Services layer), as part of regular eval reviews and updates. Result: When the team learns about a friction moment like this, they can prevent a host of future similar issues before they emerge.These improvements will make Bookmuse more resilient and useful.Tension point example 2: MedicalMind’s diagnostic dilemma(Friction between Services and Skeleton)Thousands of healthcare providers use MedicalMind, an AI-powered clinical decision support tool. Dr. Rina Patel, an internal medicine physician at a busy community hospital, relies on it to stay current with rapidly evolving medical research while managing her patient load.Thanks to a groundbreaking update, a MedicalMind AI model (Services layer) is familiar with new medical research data and can recognize newly discovered connections between previously unrelated symptoms across different medical specialties. For example, it identified patterns linking certain dermatological symptoms to early indicators of cardiovascular issues — connections not yet widely recognized in standard medical taxonomies.But MedicalMind’s information architecture (Skeleton layer) was tailored to traditional medical classification systems, so it’s organized by body system, conditions by specialty, and treatments by mechanism of action. The MedicalMind team constructed this structure based on how doctors were traditionally trained to approach medical knowledge.Problem: When Dr. Patel enters a patient’s constellation of symptoms (Sessions layer), MedicalMind’s AI can recognize potentially valuable cross-specialty patterns (Services layer). But these insights can’t be optimally organized and presented because the underlying information architecture (Skeleton layer) doesn’t easily accommodate the new findings and relationships. The AI either forces the insights into ill-fitting categories or presents them as disconnected “additional notes” that tend to be overlooked. That reduces their clinical utility and Dr. Patel’s trust in the system.Constructive turbulence opportunities:a) Create an “emerging patterns” framework within the information architecture (Skeleton layer) that can accommodate new AI-identified patterns in ways that augment, rather than disrupt, the familiar classification systems that doctors rely on.b) Design flexible visualization components and interaction patterns and styles (in the Skin layer) specifically for exploring, discussing, and documenting cross-category relationships. Let doctors toggle between traditional taxonomies and newer, AI-generated knowledge maps depending on their needs and comfort level.c) Implement a clinician feedback loop where specialists can validate and discuss new AI-surfaced relationships, gradually promoting validated patterns into the main classification system.These improvements will make MedicalMind more adaptive to emerging medical knowledge while maintaining the structural integrity that healthcare professionals rely on for critical decisions. This provides more efficient assistants for clinicians and better health for patients.Tension point example 3: ScienceSeeker’s hypothesis bottleneck(Friction between Skin and Services)ScienceSeeker is an AI research assistant used by scientists worldwide. Dr. Elena Rodriguez, a molecular biologist, uses it to investigate protein interactions for targeted cancer drug delivery.The AI engine (Services layer) recently gained the ability to generate sophisticated hypothesis trees with multiple competing explanations, track confidence levels for each branch, and identify which experiments would most efficiently disambiguate between theories. It can reason across scientific domains, connecting molecular biology with physics, chemistry, and computational modeling.But the interface (Skin layer) remains locked in a traditional chatbot paradigm — a single-threaded exchange with responses appearing sequentially in a scrolling window.Problem: The AI engine and the problem space are natively multithreaded and multimodal, but the UI is limited to single-threaded conversation. When Dr. Rodriguez inputs her experimental results (Sessions layer), the AI generates a rich, multidimensional analysis (Services layer), but must flatten this complex reasoning into linear text (Skin layer). Critical relationships between hypotheses become buried in paragraphs, probability comparisons are difficult, and the holistic picture of how variables influence multiple hypotheses is lost. Dr. Rodriguez resorts to taking screenshots and manually drawing diagrams to reconstruct the reasoning that the AI possesses but cannot visually express.Constructive turbulence opportunities:a) Develop an expandable, interactive, infinite-canvas “hypothesis tree” visualization (Skin) that helps the AI dynamically represent multiple competing explanations and their relationships. Scientists can interact with this to explore different branches spatially rather than sequentially.b) Create a dual-pane interface that maintains the chat for simple queries but provides the infinite canvas for complex reasoning, transitioning seamlessly based on response complexity.c) Implement collaborative, interactive node-based diagrams for multi-contributor experiment planning, where potential experiments appear as nodes showing how they would affect confidence in different hypothesis branches.This would transform ScienceSeeker’s limited text assistant into a scientific reasoning partner. It would help researchers visualize and interact with complex possibilities in ways that better fit how they tackle multidimensional problems.Navigating the future with AI Pace LayersAI Pace Layers offers product teams a new framework for seeing and shaping the bewildering structures and dynamics that power AI products.By recognizing the evolving layers and heeding and designing for their boundaries, AI design teams can:Transform tension points into constructive innovationAnticipate friction before it damages the product experienceGrow resilient and humane AI systems that absorb and integrate rapid technological change without losing sight of human needs.The framework’s value isn’t in rigid categorization, but in recognizing how components interact across timescales. For AI product teams, this awareness enables more thoughtful design choices that prevent destructive shearing that can tear apart an AI system.This framework is a work in progress, evolving alongside the AI landscape it describes.I’d love to hear from you, especially if you’ve built successful AI products and have insights on how this model could better reflect your experience. Please drop me a line or add a comment. Let’s develop more effective approaches to creating AI systems that enhance human potential while respecting human agency.Part of the Mindful AI Design series. Also see:The effort paradox in AI design: Why making things too easy can backfireBlack Mirror: “Override”. Dystopian storytelling for humane AI designStay updatedSubscribe to be notified when new articles in the series are published. Join our community of designers, product managers, founders and ethicists as we shape the future of mindful AI design.AI Pace Layers: a framework for resilient product design was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

2025’s Biggest AI Shocks: 4 Breakthroughs That Changed Everything 0 like May 18, 2025 Share this post Last Updated on May 19, 2025 by Editorial Team Author(s): Parsa Kohzadi Originally published on Towards AI. The old rules broke. AI moved from assistant to infrastructure, changing how we build, create, and govern. These four shifts explain everything. 🔗Available for non-Medium members here. 🌐 In 2025, artificial intelligence didn’t just evolve — it detonated across every corner of the tech world. AI finally became what futurists promised: not just a tool we occasionally tapped, but the invisible engine behind industries, creative work, and even our decisions. In 2025, AI stopped assisting — it started underpinning everything. Some breakthroughs felt sudden. Others were long-awaited. But each one marked a tectonic shift that forced entire industries to reorient themselves almost overnight. Here are the four AI breakthroughs that permanently redrew the technology map in 2025 — and why they matter more than ever. For years, AI systems were locked into narrow modalities: text-only, image-only, or audio-only. In 2025, the arrival of truly seamless multimodal models changed that. Evolution of Multimodal AI in 2025 OpenAI’s GPT-5 and Anthropic’s Claude 3.5 pushed the frontier, enabling fluid, real-time interaction across text, voice, images, video, and code — within a single conversation thread. Users could upload a chart, ask questions about it, request a written summary, and generate marketing copy — all without leaving the interface. Startups and established companies alike embedded multimodal engines into their products. Apps like Canva, Figma, and Notion launched AI “fusion” modes that combined image editing, writing,… Read the full blog for free on Medium. Join thousands of data leaders on the AI newsletter. Join over 80,000 subscribers and keep up to date with the latest developments in AI. From research to projects and ideas. If you are building an AI startup, an AI-related product, or a service, we invite you to consider becoming a sponsor. Published via Towards AI Towards AI - Medium Share this post