• 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
  • Hey, amazing gamers and anime lovers! Today is a day full of excitement and inspiration, as we dive into the thrilling world of **Code Vein II**! After five long years of anticipation, Bandai Namco has truly outdone themselves! They’ve not only given us a sequel, but they’ve also woven a tapestry of captivating gameplay that promises to take us on an unforgettable journey!

    If you loved the first installment, you’re in for a real treat! Code Vein II is shaping up to be a stunning blend of souls-like gameplay with that anime flair we all adore. Imagine the breathtaking artwork, the dynamic combat mechanics, and that deep, immersive story that keeps us on the edge of our seats!

    The recent gameplay reveals have shown us just how much effort and passion Bandai Namco has poured into this project. From stunning visuals that look like they jumped straight out of an anime to thrilling battles that test our skills, it’s a true feast for the senses!

    Let’s not forget about the characters! Each one is crafted with such depth and uniqueness that we can’t help but feel connected to them. The emotional storytelling will resonate with us long after we put down the controller. Who’s ready to forge powerful bonds and face epic challenges?

    And remember, every great adventure comes with its challenges. Just like in life, we may stumble and fall, but it’s all part of the journey! With Code Vein II, we have the chance to rise, learn, and grow stronger, both in the game and in ourselves. Every boss we defeat and every level we conquer is a testament to our resilience and determination!

    So, let’s rally together, fellow gamers! Let’s support each other as we embark on this new quest! Share your excitement, your strategies, and your victories! Together, we can create a vibrant community that thrives on positivity and encouragement!

    In conclusion, get ready to unleash your inner warrior in **Code Vein II**! This is our time to shine! Let’s make every moment count and enjoy every pixel of this incredible journey!

    #CodeVeinII #GamingCommunity #AnimeLovers #BandaiNamco #SoulsLikeAdventure
    🎮✨ Hey, amazing gamers and anime lovers! 🌟 Today is a day full of excitement and inspiration, as we dive into the thrilling world of **Code Vein II**! After five long years of anticipation, Bandai Namco has truly outdone themselves! They’ve not only given us a sequel, but they’ve also woven a tapestry of captivating gameplay that promises to take us on an unforgettable journey! 🎉🔥 If you loved the first installment, you’re in for a real treat! Code Vein II is shaping up to be a stunning blend of souls-like gameplay with that anime flair we all adore. Imagine the breathtaking artwork, the dynamic combat mechanics, and that deep, immersive story that keeps us on the edge of our seats! 💖🌌 The recent gameplay reveals have shown us just how much effort and passion Bandai Namco has poured into this project. From stunning visuals that look like they jumped straight out of an anime to thrilling battles that test our skills, it’s a true feast for the senses! 🥳💪 Let’s not forget about the characters! Each one is crafted with such depth and uniqueness that we can’t help but feel connected to them. The emotional storytelling will resonate with us long after we put down the controller. Who’s ready to forge powerful bonds and face epic challenges? 🙌💔 And remember, every great adventure comes with its challenges. Just like in life, we may stumble and fall, but it’s all part of the journey! With Code Vein II, we have the chance to rise, learn, and grow stronger, both in the game and in ourselves. Every boss we defeat and every level we conquer is a testament to our resilience and determination! 🌈✨ So, let’s rally together, fellow gamers! Let’s support each other as we embark on this new quest! Share your excitement, your strategies, and your victories! Together, we can create a vibrant community that thrives on positivity and encouragement! ✨🤝 In conclusion, get ready to unleash your inner warrior in **Code Vein II**! This is our time to shine! Let’s make every moment count and enjoy every pixel of this incredible journey! 🌟❤️ #CodeVeinII #GamingCommunity #AnimeLovers #BandaiNamco #SoulsLikeAdventure
    Code Vein II – Nous avons vu du gameplay et obtenu plus d’informations sur le Souls-like anime de Bandai Namco
    ActuGaming.net Code Vein II – Nous avons vu du gameplay et obtenu plus d’informations sur le Souls-like anime de Bandai Namco Cinq ans après un premier opus aussi imparfait qu’attachant, Bandai Namco surprend tout le monde […] L'ar
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    534
    1 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
  • Games Inbox: Would Xbox ever shut down Game Pass?

    Game Pass – will it continue forever?The Monday letters page struggles to predict what’s going to happen with the PlayStation 6, as one reader sees their opinion of the Switch 2 change over time.
    To join in with the discussions yourself email gamecentral@metro.co.uk
    Final Pass
    I agree with a lot of what was said about the current state of Xbox in the Reader’s Feature this weekend and how the more Microsoft spends, and the more companies they own, the less the seem to be in control. Which is very strange really.The biggest recent failure has got to be Game Pass, which has not had the impact they expected and yet they don’t seem ready to acknowledge that. If they’re thinking of increasing the price again, like those rumours say, then I think that will be the point at which you can draw a line under the whole idea and admit it’s never going to catch on.
    But would Microsoft ever shut down Game Pass completely? I feel that would almost be more humiliating than stopping making consoles, so I can’t really imagine it. Instead, they’ll make it more and more expensive and put more and more restrictions on day one games until it’s no longer recognisable.Grackle
    Panic button
    Strange to see Sony talking relatively openly about Nintendo and Microsoft as competition. I can’t remember the last time they mentioned either of them, even if they obviously would prefer not to have, if they hadn’t been asked by investors.At no point did they acknowledge that the Switch has completely outsold both their last two consoles, so I’m not sure where their confidence comes from. I guess it’s from the fact that they know they’ve done nothing this gen and still come out on top, so from their perspective they’ve got plenty in reserve.

    Expert, exclusive gaming analysis

    Sign up to the GameCentral newsletter for a unique take on the week in gaming, alongside the latest reviews and more. Delivered to your inbox every Saturday morning.

    Having your panic button being ‘do anything at all’ must be pretty reassuring really. Nintendo has had to work to get where they are with the Switch but Sony is just coasting it.Lupus
    James’ LadderJacob’s Ladder is a film I’ve been meaning to watch for a while, and I guessed the ending quite early on, but it feels like a Silent Hill film. I don’t know if you guys have seen it but it’s an excellent film and the hospital scene near the end, and the cages blocking off the underground early on, just remind me of the game.
    A depressing film overall but worth a watch.Simon
    GC: Jacob’s Ladder was as a major influence on Silent Hill 2 in particular, even the jacket James is wearing is the same.
    Email your comments to: gamecentral@metro.co.uk
    Seeing the future
    I know everyone likes to think of themselves as Nostradamus, but I have to admit I have absolutely no clue what Sony is planning for the PlayStation 6. A new console that is just the usual update, that sits under your TV, is easy enough to imagine but surely they’re not going to do that again?But the idea of having new home and portable machines that come out at the same time seems so unlikely to me. Surely the portable wouldn’t be a separate format, but I can’t see it being any kind of portable that runs its own games because it’d never be as powerful as the home machine. So, it’s really just a PlayStation Portal 2?
    Like I said, I don’t know, but for some reason I have a bad feeling about that the next gen and whatever Sony does end up unveiling. I suspect that whatever they and Microsoft does it’s going to end up making the Switch 2seem even more appealing by comparison.Gonch
    Hidden insight
    I’m not going to say that Welcome Tour is a good game but what I will say is that I found it very interesting at times and I’m actually kind of surprised that Nintendo revealed some of the information that they did. Most of it could probably be found out by reverse engineering it and just taking it apart but I’m still surprised it went into as much detail as it did.You’re right that it’s all presented in a very dull way but personally I found the ‘Insights’ to be the best part of the game. The minigames really are not very good and I was always glad when they were over. So, while I would not necessarily recommend the gameI would say that it can be of interest to people who have an interest in how consoles work and how Nintendo think.Mogwai
    Purchase privilege
    I’ve recently had the privilege of buying Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 from the website CDKeys, using a 10% discount code. I was lucky enough to only spend a total of £25.99; much cheaper than purchasing the title for console. If only Ubisoft had the foresight to see what they allowed to slip through their fingers. I’d also like to mention that from what I’ve read quite recently ,and a couple of mixed views, I don’t see myself cancelling my Switch 2. On the contrary, it just is coming across as a disappointment.From the battery life to the lack of launch titles, an empty open world is never a smart choice to make not even Mario is safe from that. That leaves the upcoming ROG Xbox Ally that’s recently been showcased and is set for an October launch.
    I won’t lie it does look in the same vein as the Switch 2, far too similar to the ROG Ally X model. Just with grips and a dedicated Xbox button. The Z2 Extreme chip has me intrigued, however. How much of a transcendental shift it makes is another question however. I’ll have to wait to receive official confirmation for a price and release date. But there’s also a Lenovo Legion Go 2 waiting in the wings. I hope we hear more information soon. Preferably before my 28th in August.Shahzaib Sadiq
    Tip of the iceberg
    Interesting to hear about Cyberpunk 2077 running well on the Switch 2. I think if they’re getting that kind of performance at launch, from a third party not use to working with Nintendo hardware, that bodes very well for the future.I think we’re probably underestimating the Switch 2 a lot at the moment and stuff we’ll be seeing in two or three years is going to be amazing, I predict. What I can’t predict is when we’ll hear about any of this. I really hope there’s a Nintendo Direct this week.Dano
    Changing opinions
    So just a little over a week with the Switch 2 and after initially feeling incredibly meh about the new console and Mario Kart a little more playtime has been more optimistic about the console and much more positive about Mario Kart World.It did feel odd having a new console from Nintendo that didn’t inspire that childlike excitement. An iterative upgrade isn’t very exciting and as I own a Steam Deck the advancements in processing weren’t all that exciting either. I can imagine someone who only bough an OG Switch back in 2017 really noticing the improvements but if you bought an OLED it’s basically a Switch Pro.
    The criminally low level of software support doesn’t help. I double dipped Street Fighter 6 only to discover I can’t transfer progress or DLC across from my Xbox, which sort of means if I want both profiles to have parity I have to buy everything twice! I also treated myself to a new Pro Controller and find using it for Street Fighter almost unplayable as the L and ZL buttons are far too easy to accidently press when playing.
    Mario Kart initially felt like more of the same and it was only after I made an effort to explore the world map, unlock characters and karts, and try the new grinding/ollie mechanic that it clicked. I am now really enjoying it, especially the remixed soundtracks.
    I do however want more Switch 2 exclusive experiences – going back through my back catalogue for improved frame rates doesn’t cut it Nintendo! As someone with a large digital library the system transfer was very frustrating and the new virtual cartridges are just awful – does a Switch 2 need to be online all the time now? Not the best idea for a portable system.
    So, the start of a new console lifecycle and hopefully lots of new IP – I suspect Nintendo will try and get us to revisit our back catalogues first though.BristolPete
    Inbox also-rans
    Just thought I would mention that if anyone’s interested in purchasing the Mortal Kombat 1 Definitive Edition, which includes all DLC, that it’s currently an absolute steal on the Xbox store at £21.99.Nick The GreekI’ve just won my first Knockout Tour online race on Mario Kart World! I’ve got to say, the feeling is magnificent.Rable

    More Trending

    Email your comments to: gamecentral@metro.co.uk
    The small printNew Inbox updates appear every weekday morning, with special Hot Topic Inboxes at the weekend. Readers’ letters are used on merit and may be edited for length and content.
    You can also submit your own 500 to 600-word Reader’s Feature at any time via email or our Submit Stuff page, which if used will be shown in the next available weekend slot.
    You can also leave your comments below and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.
    Arrow
    MORE: Games Inbox: Is Mario Kart World too hard?

    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
    #games #inbox #would #xbox #ever
    Games Inbox: Would Xbox ever shut down Game Pass?
    Game Pass – will it continue forever?The Monday letters page struggles to predict what’s going to happen with the PlayStation 6, as one reader sees their opinion of the Switch 2 change over time. To join in with the discussions yourself email gamecentral@metro.co.uk Final Pass I agree with a lot of what was said about the current state of Xbox in the Reader’s Feature this weekend and how the more Microsoft spends, and the more companies they own, the less the seem to be in control. Which is very strange really.The biggest recent failure has got to be Game Pass, which has not had the impact they expected and yet they don’t seem ready to acknowledge that. If they’re thinking of increasing the price again, like those rumours say, then I think that will be the point at which you can draw a line under the whole idea and admit it’s never going to catch on. But would Microsoft ever shut down Game Pass completely? I feel that would almost be more humiliating than stopping making consoles, so I can’t really imagine it. Instead, they’ll make it more and more expensive and put more and more restrictions on day one games until it’s no longer recognisable.Grackle Panic button Strange to see Sony talking relatively openly about Nintendo and Microsoft as competition. I can’t remember the last time they mentioned either of them, even if they obviously would prefer not to have, if they hadn’t been asked by investors.At no point did they acknowledge that the Switch has completely outsold both their last two consoles, so I’m not sure where their confidence comes from. I guess it’s from the fact that they know they’ve done nothing this gen and still come out on top, so from their perspective they’ve got plenty in reserve. Expert, exclusive gaming analysis Sign up to the GameCentral newsletter for a unique take on the week in gaming, alongside the latest reviews and more. Delivered to your inbox every Saturday morning. Having your panic button being ‘do anything at all’ must be pretty reassuring really. Nintendo has had to work to get where they are with the Switch but Sony is just coasting it.Lupus James’ LadderJacob’s Ladder is a film I’ve been meaning to watch for a while, and I guessed the ending quite early on, but it feels like a Silent Hill film. I don’t know if you guys have seen it but it’s an excellent film and the hospital scene near the end, and the cages blocking off the underground early on, just remind me of the game. A depressing film overall but worth a watch.Simon GC: Jacob’s Ladder was as a major influence on Silent Hill 2 in particular, even the jacket James is wearing is the same. Email your comments to: gamecentral@metro.co.uk Seeing the future I know everyone likes to think of themselves as Nostradamus, but I have to admit I have absolutely no clue what Sony is planning for the PlayStation 6. A new console that is just the usual update, that sits under your TV, is easy enough to imagine but surely they’re not going to do that again?But the idea of having new home and portable machines that come out at the same time seems so unlikely to me. Surely the portable wouldn’t be a separate format, but I can’t see it being any kind of portable that runs its own games because it’d never be as powerful as the home machine. So, it’s really just a PlayStation Portal 2? Like I said, I don’t know, but for some reason I have a bad feeling about that the next gen and whatever Sony does end up unveiling. I suspect that whatever they and Microsoft does it’s going to end up making the Switch 2seem even more appealing by comparison.Gonch Hidden insight I’m not going to say that Welcome Tour is a good game but what I will say is that I found it very interesting at times and I’m actually kind of surprised that Nintendo revealed some of the information that they did. Most of it could probably be found out by reverse engineering it and just taking it apart but I’m still surprised it went into as much detail as it did.You’re right that it’s all presented in a very dull way but personally I found the ‘Insights’ to be the best part of the game. The minigames really are not very good and I was always glad when they were over. So, while I would not necessarily recommend the gameI would say that it can be of interest to people who have an interest in how consoles work and how Nintendo think.Mogwai Purchase privilege I’ve recently had the privilege of buying Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 from the website CDKeys, using a 10% discount code. I was lucky enough to only spend a total of £25.99; much cheaper than purchasing the title for console. If only Ubisoft had the foresight to see what they allowed to slip through their fingers. I’d also like to mention that from what I’ve read quite recently ,and a couple of mixed views, I don’t see myself cancelling my Switch 2. On the contrary, it just is coming across as a disappointment.From the battery life to the lack of launch titles, an empty open world is never a smart choice to make not even Mario is safe from that. That leaves the upcoming ROG Xbox Ally that’s recently been showcased and is set for an October launch. I won’t lie it does look in the same vein as the Switch 2, far too similar to the ROG Ally X model. Just with grips and a dedicated Xbox button. The Z2 Extreme chip has me intrigued, however. How much of a transcendental shift it makes is another question however. I’ll have to wait to receive official confirmation for a price and release date. But there’s also a Lenovo Legion Go 2 waiting in the wings. I hope we hear more information soon. Preferably before my 28th in August.Shahzaib Sadiq Tip of the iceberg Interesting to hear about Cyberpunk 2077 running well on the Switch 2. I think if they’re getting that kind of performance at launch, from a third party not use to working with Nintendo hardware, that bodes very well for the future.I think we’re probably underestimating the Switch 2 a lot at the moment and stuff we’ll be seeing in two or three years is going to be amazing, I predict. What I can’t predict is when we’ll hear about any of this. I really hope there’s a Nintendo Direct this week.Dano Changing opinions So just a little over a week with the Switch 2 and after initially feeling incredibly meh about the new console and Mario Kart a little more playtime has been more optimistic about the console and much more positive about Mario Kart World.It did feel odd having a new console from Nintendo that didn’t inspire that childlike excitement. An iterative upgrade isn’t very exciting and as I own a Steam Deck the advancements in processing weren’t all that exciting either. I can imagine someone who only bough an OG Switch back in 2017 really noticing the improvements but if you bought an OLED it’s basically a Switch Pro. The criminally low level of software support doesn’t help. I double dipped Street Fighter 6 only to discover I can’t transfer progress or DLC across from my Xbox, which sort of means if I want both profiles to have parity I have to buy everything twice! I also treated myself to a new Pro Controller and find using it for Street Fighter almost unplayable as the L and ZL buttons are far too easy to accidently press when playing. Mario Kart initially felt like more of the same and it was only after I made an effort to explore the world map, unlock characters and karts, and try the new grinding/ollie mechanic that it clicked. I am now really enjoying it, especially the remixed soundtracks. I do however want more Switch 2 exclusive experiences – going back through my back catalogue for improved frame rates doesn’t cut it Nintendo! As someone with a large digital library the system transfer was very frustrating and the new virtual cartridges are just awful – does a Switch 2 need to be online all the time now? Not the best idea for a portable system. So, the start of a new console lifecycle and hopefully lots of new IP – I suspect Nintendo will try and get us to revisit our back catalogues first though.BristolPete Inbox also-rans Just thought I would mention that if anyone’s interested in purchasing the Mortal Kombat 1 Definitive Edition, which includes all DLC, that it’s currently an absolute steal on the Xbox store at £21.99.Nick The GreekI’ve just won my first Knockout Tour online race on Mario Kart World! I’ve got to say, the feeling is magnificent.Rable More Trending Email your comments to: gamecentral@metro.co.uk The small printNew Inbox updates appear every weekday morning, with special Hot Topic Inboxes at the weekend. Readers’ letters are used on merit and may be edited for length and content. You can also submit your own 500 to 600-word Reader’s Feature at any time via email or our Submit Stuff page, which if used will be shown in the next available weekend slot. You can also leave your comments below and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter. Arrow MORE: Games Inbox: Is Mario Kart World too hard? 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 #games #inbox #would #xbox #ever
    METRO.CO.UK
    Games Inbox: Would Xbox ever shut down Game Pass?
    Game Pass – will it continue forever? (Microsoft) The Monday letters page struggles to predict what’s going to happen with the PlayStation 6, as one reader sees their opinion of the Switch 2 change over time. To join in with the discussions yourself email gamecentral@metro.co.uk Final Pass I agree with a lot of what was said about the current state of Xbox in the Reader’s Feature this weekend and how the more Microsoft spends, and the more companies they own, the less the seem to be in control. Which is very strange really.The biggest recent failure has got to be Game Pass, which has not had the impact they expected and yet they don’t seem ready to acknowledge that. If they’re thinking of increasing the price again, like those rumours say, then I think that will be the point at which you can draw a line under the whole idea and admit it’s never going to catch on. But would Microsoft ever shut down Game Pass completely? I feel that would almost be more humiliating than stopping making consoles, so I can’t really imagine it. Instead, they’ll make it more and more expensive and put more and more restrictions on day one games until it’s no longer recognisable.Grackle Panic button Strange to see Sony talking relatively openly about Nintendo and Microsoft as competition. I can’t remember the last time they mentioned either of them, even if they obviously would prefer not to have, if they hadn’t been asked by investors.At no point did they acknowledge that the Switch has completely outsold both their last two consoles, so I’m not sure where their confidence comes from. I guess it’s from the fact that they know they’ve done nothing this gen and still come out on top, so from their perspective they’ve got plenty in reserve. Expert, exclusive gaming analysis Sign up to the GameCentral newsletter for a unique take on the week in gaming, alongside the latest reviews and more. Delivered to your inbox every Saturday morning. Having your panic button being ‘do anything at all’ must be pretty reassuring really. Nintendo has had to work to get where they are with the Switch but Sony is just coasting it.Lupus James’ LadderJacob’s Ladder is a film I’ve been meaning to watch for a while, and I guessed the ending quite early on, but it feels like a Silent Hill film. I don’t know if you guys have seen it but it’s an excellent film and the hospital scene near the end, and the cages blocking off the underground early on, just remind me of the game. A depressing film overall but worth a watch.Simon GC: Jacob’s Ladder was as a major influence on Silent Hill 2 in particular, even the jacket James is wearing is the same. Email your comments to: gamecentral@metro.co.uk Seeing the future I know everyone likes to think of themselves as Nostradamus, but I have to admit I have absolutely no clue what Sony is planning for the PlayStation 6. A new console that is just the usual update, that sits under your TV, is easy enough to imagine but surely they’re not going to do that again?But the idea of having new home and portable machines that come out at the same time seems so unlikely to me. Surely the portable wouldn’t be a separate format, but I can’t see it being any kind of portable that runs its own games because it’d never be as powerful as the home machine. So, it’s really just a PlayStation Portal 2? Like I said, I don’t know, but for some reason I have a bad feeling about that the next gen and whatever Sony does end up unveiling. I suspect that whatever they and Microsoft does it’s going to end up making the Switch 2 (and PC) seem even more appealing by comparison.Gonch Hidden insight I’m not going to say that Welcome Tour is a good game but what I will say is that I found it very interesting at times and I’m actually kind of surprised that Nintendo revealed some of the information that they did. Most of it could probably be found out by reverse engineering it and just taking it apart but I’m still surprised it went into as much detail as it did.You’re right that it’s all presented in a very dull way but personally I found the ‘Insights’ to be the best part of the game. The minigames really are not very good and I was always glad when they were over. So, while I would not necessarily recommend the game (it’s not really a game) I would say that it can be of interest to people who have an interest in how consoles work and how Nintendo think.Mogwai Purchase privilege I’ve recently had the privilege of buying Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 from the website CDKeys, using a 10% discount code. I was lucky enough to only spend a total of £25.99; much cheaper than purchasing the title for console. If only Ubisoft had the foresight to see what they allowed to slip through their fingers. I’d also like to mention that from what I’ve read quite recently ,and a couple of mixed views, I don’t see myself cancelling my Switch 2. On the contrary, it just is coming across as a disappointment.From the battery life to the lack of launch titles, an empty open world is never a smart choice to make not even Mario is safe from that. That leaves the upcoming ROG Xbox Ally that’s recently been showcased and is set for an October launch. I won’t lie it does look in the same vein as the Switch 2, far too similar to the ROG Ally X model. Just with grips and a dedicated Xbox button. The Z2 Extreme chip has me intrigued, however. How much of a transcendental shift it makes is another question however. I’ll have to wait to receive official confirmation for a price and release date. But there’s also a Lenovo Legion Go 2 waiting in the wings. I hope we hear more information soon. Preferably before my 28th in August.Shahzaib Sadiq Tip of the iceberg Interesting to hear about Cyberpunk 2077 running well on the Switch 2. I think if they’re getting that kind of performance at launch, from a third party not use to working with Nintendo hardware, that bodes very well for the future.I think we’re probably underestimating the Switch 2 a lot at the moment and stuff we’ll be seeing in two or three years is going to be amazing, I predict. What I can’t predict is when we’ll hear about any of this. I really hope there’s a Nintendo Direct this week.Dano Changing opinions So just a little over a week with the Switch 2 and after initially feeling incredibly meh about the new console and Mario Kart a little more playtime has been more optimistic about the console and much more positive about Mario Kart World.It did feel odd having a new console from Nintendo that didn’t inspire that childlike excitement. An iterative upgrade isn’t very exciting and as I own a Steam Deck the advancements in processing weren’t all that exciting either. I can imagine someone who only bough an OG Switch back in 2017 really noticing the improvements but if you bought an OLED it’s basically a Switch Pro (minus the OLED). The criminally low level of software support doesn’t help. I double dipped Street Fighter 6 only to discover I can’t transfer progress or DLC across from my Xbox, which sort of means if I want both profiles to have parity I have to buy everything twice! I also treated myself to a new Pro Controller and find using it for Street Fighter almost unplayable as the L and ZL buttons are far too easy to accidently press when playing. Mario Kart initially felt like more of the same and it was only after I made an effort to explore the world map, unlock characters and karts, and try the new grinding/ollie mechanic that it clicked. I am now really enjoying it, especially the remixed soundtracks. I do however want more Switch 2 exclusive experiences – going back through my back catalogue for improved frame rates doesn’t cut it Nintendo! As someone with a large digital library the system transfer was very frustrating and the new virtual cartridges are just awful – does a Switch 2 need to be online all the time now? Not the best idea for a portable system. So, the start of a new console lifecycle and hopefully lots of new IP – I suspect Nintendo will try and get us to revisit our back catalogues first though.BristolPete Inbox also-rans Just thought I would mention that if anyone’s interested in purchasing the Mortal Kombat 1 Definitive Edition, which includes all DLC, that it’s currently an absolute steal on the Xbox store at £21.99.Nick The GreekI’ve just won my first Knockout Tour online race on Mario Kart World! I’ve got to say, the feeling is magnificent.Rable More Trending Email your comments to: gamecentral@metro.co.uk The small printNew Inbox updates appear every weekday morning, with special Hot Topic Inboxes at the weekend. Readers’ letters are used on merit and may be edited for length and content. You can also submit your own 500 to 600-word Reader’s Feature at any time via email or our Submit Stuff page, which if used will be shown in the next available weekend slot. You can also leave your comments below and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter. Arrow MORE: Games Inbox: Is Mario Kart World too hard? 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
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Angry
    Sad
    506
    2 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
  • Four science-based rules that will make your conversations flow

    One of the four pillars of good conversation is levity. You needn’t be a comedian, you can but have some funTetra Images, LLC/Alamy
    Conversation lies at the heart of our relationships – yet many of us find it surprisingly hard to talk to others. We may feel anxious at the thought of making small talk with strangers and struggle to connect with the people who are closest to us. If that sounds familiar, Alison Wood Brooks hopes to help. She is a professor at Harvard Business School, where she teaches an oversubscribed course called “TALK: How to talk gooder in business and life”, and the author of a new book, Talk: The science of conversation and the art of being ourselves. Both offer four key principles for more meaningful exchanges. Conversations are inherently unpredictable, says Wood Brooks, but they follow certain rules – and knowing their architecture makes us more comfortable with what is outside of our control. New Scientist asked her about the best ways to apply this research to our own chats.
    David Robson: Talking about talking feels quite meta. Do you ever find yourself critiquing your own performance?
    Alison Wood Brooks: There are so many levels of “meta-ness”. I have often felt like I’m floating over the room, watching conversations unfold, even as I’m involved in them myself. I teach a course at Harvard, andall get to experience this feeling as well. There can be an uncomfortable period of hypervigilance, but I hope that dissipates over time as they develop better habits. There is a famous quote from Charlie Parker, who was a jazz saxophonist. He said something like, “Practise, practise, practise, and then when you get on stage, let it all go and just wail.” I think that’s my approach to conversation. Even when you’re hyper-aware of conversation dynamics, you have to remember the true delight of being with another human mind, and never lose the magic of being together. Think ahead, but once you’re talking, let it all go and just wail.

    Reading your book, I learned that a good way to enliven a conversation is to ask someone why they are passionate about what they do. So, where does your passion for conversation come from?
    I have two answers to this question. One is professional. Early in my professorship at Harvard, I had been studying emotions by exploring how people talk about their feelings and the balance between what we feel inside and how we express that to others. And I realised I just had this deep, profound interest in figuring out how people talk to each other about everything, not just their feelings. We now have scientific tools that allow us to capture conversations and analyse them at large scale. Natural language processing, machine learning, the advent of AI – all this allows us to take huge swathes of transcript data and process it much more efficiently.

    Receive a weekly dose of discovery in your inbox.

    Sign up to newsletter

    The personal answer is that I’m an identical twin, and I spent my whole life, from the moment I opened my newborn eyes, existing next to a person who’s an exact copy of myself. It was like observing myself at very close range, interacting with the world, interacting with other people. I could see when she said and did things well, and I could try to do that myself. And I saw when her jokes failed, or she stumbled over her words – I tried to avoid those mistakes. It was a very fortunate form of feedback that not a lot of people get. And then, as a twin, you’ve got this person sharing a bedroom, sharing all your clothes, going to all the same parties and playing on the same sports teams, so we were just constantly in conversation with each other. You reached this level of shared reality that is so incredible, and I’ve spent the rest of my life trying to help other people get there in their relationships, too.
    “TALK” cleverly captures your framework for better conversations: topics, asking, levity and kindness. Let’s start at the beginning. How should we decide what to talk about?
    My first piece of advice is to prepare. Some people do this naturally. They already think about the things that they should talk about with somebody before they see them. They should lean into this habit. Some of my students, however, think it’s crazy. They think preparation will make the conversation seem rigid and forced and overly scripted. But just because you’ve thought ahead about what you might talk about doesn’t mean you have to talk about those things once the conversation is underway. It does mean, however, that you always have an idea waiting for you when you’re not sure what to talk about next. Having just one topic in your back pocket can help you in those anxiety-ridden moments. It makes things more fluent, which is important for establishing a connection. Choosing a topic is not only important at the start of a conversation. We’re constantly making decisions about whether we should stay on one subject, drift to something else or totally shift gears and go somewhere wildly different.
    Sometimes the topic of conversation is obvious. Even then, knowing when to switch to a new one can be trickyMartin Parr/Magnum Photos
    What’s your advice when making these decisions?
    There are three very clear signs that suggest that it’s time to switch topics. The first is longer mutual pauses. The second is more uncomfortable laughter, which we use to fill the space that we would usually fill excitedly with good content. And the third sign is redundancy. Once you start repeating things that have already been said on the topic, it’s a sign that you should move to something else.
    After an average conversation, most people feel like they’ve covered the right number of topics. But if you ask people after conversations that didn’t go well, they’ll more often say that they didn’t talk about enough things, rather than that they talked about too many things. This suggests that a common mistake is lingering too long on a topic after you’ve squeezed all the juice out of it.
    The second element of TALK is asking questions. I think a lot of us have heard the advice to ask more questions, yet many people don’t apply it. Why do you think that is?
    Many years of research have shown that the human mind is remarkably egocentric. Often, we are so focused on our own perspective that we forget to even ask someone else to share what’s in their mind. Another reason is fear. You’re interested in the other person, and you know you should ask them questions, but you’re afraid of being too intrusive, or that you will reveal your own incompetence, because you feel you should know the answer already.

    What kinds of questions should we be asking – and avoiding?
    In the book, I talk about the power of follow-up questions that build on anything that your partner has just said. It shows that you heard them, that you care and that you want to know more. Even one follow-up question can springboard us away from shallow talk into something deeper and more meaningful.
    There are, however, some bad patterns of question asking, such as “boomerasking”. Michael Yeomansand I have a recent paper about this, and oh my gosh, it’s been such fun to study. It’s a play on the word boomerang: it comes back to the person who threw it. If I ask you what you had for breakfast, and you tell me you had Special K and banana, and then I say, “Well, let me tell you about my breakfast, because, boy, was it delicious” – that’s boomerasking. Sometimes it’s a thinly veiled way of bragging or complaining, but sometimes I think people are genuinely interested to hear from their partner, but then the partner’s answer reminds them so much of their own life that they can’t help but start sharing their perspective. In our research, we have found that this makes your partner feel like you weren’t interested in their perspective, so it seems very insincere. Sharing your own perspective is important. It’s okay at some point to bring the conversation back to yourself. But don’t do it so soon that it makes your partner feel like you didn’t hear their answer or care about it.
    Research by Alison Wood Brooks includes a recent study on “boomerasking”, a pitfall you should avoid to make conversations flowJanelle Bruno
    What are the benefits of levity?
    When we think of conversations that haven’t gone well, we often think of moments of hostility, anger or disagreement, but a quiet killer of conversation is boredom. Levity is the antidote. These small moments of sparkle or fizz can pull us back in and make us feel engaged with each other again.
    Our research has shown that we give status and respect to people who make us feel good, so much so that in a group of people, a person who can land even one appropriate joke is more likely to be voted as the leader. And the joke doesn’t even need to be very funny! It’s the fact that they were confident enough to try it and competent enough to read the room.
    Do you have any practical steps that people can apply to generate levity, even if they’re not a natural comedian?
    Levity is not just about being funny. In fact, aiming to be a comedian is not the right goal. When we watch stand-up on Netflix, comedians have rehearsed those jokes and honed them and practised them for a long time, and they’re delivering them in a monologue to an audience. It’s a completely different task from a live conversation. In real dialogue, what everybody is looking for is to feel engaged, and that doesn’t require particularly funny jokes or elaborate stories. When you see opportunities to make it fun or lighten the mood, that’s what you need to grab. It can come through a change to a new, fresh topic, or calling back to things that you talked about earlier in the conversation or earlier in your relationship. These callbacks – which sometimes do refer to something funny – are such a nice way of showing that you’ve listened and remembered. A levity move could also involve giving sincere compliments to other people. When you think nice things, when you admire someone, make sure you say it out loud.

    This brings us to the last element of TALK: kindness. Why do we so often fail to be as kind as we would like?
    Wobbles in kindness often come back to our egocentrism. Research shows that we underestimate how much other people’s perspectives differ from our own, and we forget that we have the tools to ask other people directly in conversation for their perspective. Being a kinder conversationalist is about trying to focus on your partner’s perspective and then figuring what they need and helping them to get it.
    Finally, what is your number one tip for readers to have a better conversation the next time they speak to someone?
    Every conversation is surprisingly tricky and complex. When things don’t go perfectly, give yourself and others more grace. There will be trips and stumbles and then a little grace can go very, very far.
    Topics:
    #four #sciencebased #rules #that #will
    Four science-based rules that will make your conversations flow
    One of the four pillars of good conversation is levity. You needn’t be a comedian, you can but have some funTetra Images, LLC/Alamy Conversation lies at the heart of our relationships – yet many of us find it surprisingly hard to talk to others. We may feel anxious at the thought of making small talk with strangers and struggle to connect with the people who are closest to us. If that sounds familiar, Alison Wood Brooks hopes to help. She is a professor at Harvard Business School, where she teaches an oversubscribed course called “TALK: How to talk gooder in business and life”, and the author of a new book, Talk: The science of conversation and the art of being ourselves. Both offer four key principles for more meaningful exchanges. Conversations are inherently unpredictable, says Wood Brooks, but they follow certain rules – and knowing their architecture makes us more comfortable with what is outside of our control. New Scientist asked her about the best ways to apply this research to our own chats. David Robson: Talking about talking feels quite meta. Do you ever find yourself critiquing your own performance? Alison Wood Brooks: There are so many levels of “meta-ness”. I have often felt like I’m floating over the room, watching conversations unfold, even as I’m involved in them myself. I teach a course at Harvard, andall get to experience this feeling as well. There can be an uncomfortable period of hypervigilance, but I hope that dissipates over time as they develop better habits. There is a famous quote from Charlie Parker, who was a jazz saxophonist. He said something like, “Practise, practise, practise, and then when you get on stage, let it all go and just wail.” I think that’s my approach to conversation. Even when you’re hyper-aware of conversation dynamics, you have to remember the true delight of being with another human mind, and never lose the magic of being together. Think ahead, but once you’re talking, let it all go and just wail. Reading your book, I learned that a good way to enliven a conversation is to ask someone why they are passionate about what they do. So, where does your passion for conversation come from? I have two answers to this question. One is professional. Early in my professorship at Harvard, I had been studying emotions by exploring how people talk about their feelings and the balance between what we feel inside and how we express that to others. And I realised I just had this deep, profound interest in figuring out how people talk to each other about everything, not just their feelings. We now have scientific tools that allow us to capture conversations and analyse them at large scale. Natural language processing, machine learning, the advent of AI – all this allows us to take huge swathes of transcript data and process it much more efficiently. Receive a weekly dose of discovery in your inbox. Sign up to newsletter The personal answer is that I’m an identical twin, and I spent my whole life, from the moment I opened my newborn eyes, existing next to a person who’s an exact copy of myself. It was like observing myself at very close range, interacting with the world, interacting with other people. I could see when she said and did things well, and I could try to do that myself. And I saw when her jokes failed, or she stumbled over her words – I tried to avoid those mistakes. It was a very fortunate form of feedback that not a lot of people get. And then, as a twin, you’ve got this person sharing a bedroom, sharing all your clothes, going to all the same parties and playing on the same sports teams, so we were just constantly in conversation with each other. You reached this level of shared reality that is so incredible, and I’ve spent the rest of my life trying to help other people get there in their relationships, too. “TALK” cleverly captures your framework for better conversations: topics, asking, levity and kindness. Let’s start at the beginning. How should we decide what to talk about? My first piece of advice is to prepare. Some people do this naturally. They already think about the things that they should talk about with somebody before they see them. They should lean into this habit. Some of my students, however, think it’s crazy. They think preparation will make the conversation seem rigid and forced and overly scripted. But just because you’ve thought ahead about what you might talk about doesn’t mean you have to talk about those things once the conversation is underway. It does mean, however, that you always have an idea waiting for you when you’re not sure what to talk about next. Having just one topic in your back pocket can help you in those anxiety-ridden moments. It makes things more fluent, which is important for establishing a connection. Choosing a topic is not only important at the start of a conversation. We’re constantly making decisions about whether we should stay on one subject, drift to something else or totally shift gears and go somewhere wildly different. Sometimes the topic of conversation is obvious. Even then, knowing when to switch to a new one can be trickyMartin Parr/Magnum Photos What’s your advice when making these decisions? There are three very clear signs that suggest that it’s time to switch topics. The first is longer mutual pauses. The second is more uncomfortable laughter, which we use to fill the space that we would usually fill excitedly with good content. And the third sign is redundancy. Once you start repeating things that have already been said on the topic, it’s a sign that you should move to something else. After an average conversation, most people feel like they’ve covered the right number of topics. But if you ask people after conversations that didn’t go well, they’ll more often say that they didn’t talk about enough things, rather than that they talked about too many things. This suggests that a common mistake is lingering too long on a topic after you’ve squeezed all the juice out of it. The second element of TALK is asking questions. I think a lot of us have heard the advice to ask more questions, yet many people don’t apply it. Why do you think that is? Many years of research have shown that the human mind is remarkably egocentric. Often, we are so focused on our own perspective that we forget to even ask someone else to share what’s in their mind. Another reason is fear. You’re interested in the other person, and you know you should ask them questions, but you’re afraid of being too intrusive, or that you will reveal your own incompetence, because you feel you should know the answer already. What kinds of questions should we be asking – and avoiding? In the book, I talk about the power of follow-up questions that build on anything that your partner has just said. It shows that you heard them, that you care and that you want to know more. Even one follow-up question can springboard us away from shallow talk into something deeper and more meaningful. There are, however, some bad patterns of question asking, such as “boomerasking”. Michael Yeomansand I have a recent paper about this, and oh my gosh, it’s been such fun to study. It’s a play on the word boomerang: it comes back to the person who threw it. If I ask you what you had for breakfast, and you tell me you had Special K and banana, and then I say, “Well, let me tell you about my breakfast, because, boy, was it delicious” – that’s boomerasking. Sometimes it’s a thinly veiled way of bragging or complaining, but sometimes I think people are genuinely interested to hear from their partner, but then the partner’s answer reminds them so much of their own life that they can’t help but start sharing their perspective. In our research, we have found that this makes your partner feel like you weren’t interested in their perspective, so it seems very insincere. Sharing your own perspective is important. It’s okay at some point to bring the conversation back to yourself. But don’t do it so soon that it makes your partner feel like you didn’t hear their answer or care about it. Research by Alison Wood Brooks includes a recent study on “boomerasking”, a pitfall you should avoid to make conversations flowJanelle Bruno What are the benefits of levity? When we think of conversations that haven’t gone well, we often think of moments of hostility, anger or disagreement, but a quiet killer of conversation is boredom. Levity is the antidote. These small moments of sparkle or fizz can pull us back in and make us feel engaged with each other again. Our research has shown that we give status and respect to people who make us feel good, so much so that in a group of people, a person who can land even one appropriate joke is more likely to be voted as the leader. And the joke doesn’t even need to be very funny! It’s the fact that they were confident enough to try it and competent enough to read the room. Do you have any practical steps that people can apply to generate levity, even if they’re not a natural comedian? Levity is not just about being funny. In fact, aiming to be a comedian is not the right goal. When we watch stand-up on Netflix, comedians have rehearsed those jokes and honed them and practised them for a long time, and they’re delivering them in a monologue to an audience. It’s a completely different task from a live conversation. In real dialogue, what everybody is looking for is to feel engaged, and that doesn’t require particularly funny jokes or elaborate stories. When you see opportunities to make it fun or lighten the mood, that’s what you need to grab. It can come through a change to a new, fresh topic, or calling back to things that you talked about earlier in the conversation or earlier in your relationship. These callbacks – which sometimes do refer to something funny – are such a nice way of showing that you’ve listened and remembered. A levity move could also involve giving sincere compliments to other people. When you think nice things, when you admire someone, make sure you say it out loud. This brings us to the last element of TALK: kindness. Why do we so often fail to be as kind as we would like? Wobbles in kindness often come back to our egocentrism. Research shows that we underestimate how much other people’s perspectives differ from our own, and we forget that we have the tools to ask other people directly in conversation for their perspective. Being a kinder conversationalist is about trying to focus on your partner’s perspective and then figuring what they need and helping them to get it. Finally, what is your number one tip for readers to have a better conversation the next time they speak to someone? Every conversation is surprisingly tricky and complex. When things don’t go perfectly, give yourself and others more grace. There will be trips and stumbles and then a little grace can go very, very far. Topics: #four #sciencebased #rules #that #will
    WWW.NEWSCIENTIST.COM
    Four science-based rules that will make your conversations flow
    One of the four pillars of good conversation is levity. You needn’t be a comedian, you can but have some funTetra Images, LLC/Alamy Conversation lies at the heart of our relationships – yet many of us find it surprisingly hard to talk to others. We may feel anxious at the thought of making small talk with strangers and struggle to connect with the people who are closest to us. If that sounds familiar, Alison Wood Brooks hopes to help. She is a professor at Harvard Business School, where she teaches an oversubscribed course called “TALK: How to talk gooder in business and life”, and the author of a new book, Talk: The science of conversation and the art of being ourselves. Both offer four key principles for more meaningful exchanges. Conversations are inherently unpredictable, says Wood Brooks, but they follow certain rules – and knowing their architecture makes us more comfortable with what is outside of our control. New Scientist asked her about the best ways to apply this research to our own chats. David Robson: Talking about talking feels quite meta. Do you ever find yourself critiquing your own performance? Alison Wood Brooks: There are so many levels of “meta-ness”. I have often felt like I’m floating over the room, watching conversations unfold, even as I’m involved in them myself. I teach a course at Harvard, and [my students] all get to experience this feeling as well. There can be an uncomfortable period of hypervigilance, but I hope that dissipates over time as they develop better habits. There is a famous quote from Charlie Parker, who was a jazz saxophonist. He said something like, “Practise, practise, practise, and then when you get on stage, let it all go and just wail.” I think that’s my approach to conversation. Even when you’re hyper-aware of conversation dynamics, you have to remember the true delight of being with another human mind, and never lose the magic of being together. Think ahead, but once you’re talking, let it all go and just wail. Reading your book, I learned that a good way to enliven a conversation is to ask someone why they are passionate about what they do. So, where does your passion for conversation come from? I have two answers to this question. One is professional. Early in my professorship at Harvard, I had been studying emotions by exploring how people talk about their feelings and the balance between what we feel inside and how we express that to others. And I realised I just had this deep, profound interest in figuring out how people talk to each other about everything, not just their feelings. We now have scientific tools that allow us to capture conversations and analyse them at large scale. Natural language processing, machine learning, the advent of AI – all this allows us to take huge swathes of transcript data and process it much more efficiently. Receive a weekly dose of discovery in your inbox. Sign up to newsletter The personal answer is that I’m an identical twin, and I spent my whole life, from the moment I opened my newborn eyes, existing next to a person who’s an exact copy of myself. It was like observing myself at very close range, interacting with the world, interacting with other people. I could see when she said and did things well, and I could try to do that myself. And I saw when her jokes failed, or she stumbled over her words – I tried to avoid those mistakes. It was a very fortunate form of feedback that not a lot of people get. And then, as a twin, you’ve got this person sharing a bedroom, sharing all your clothes, going to all the same parties and playing on the same sports teams, so we were just constantly in conversation with each other. You reached this level of shared reality that is so incredible, and I’ve spent the rest of my life trying to help other people get there in their relationships, too. “TALK” cleverly captures your framework for better conversations: topics, asking, levity and kindness. Let’s start at the beginning. How should we decide what to talk about? My first piece of advice is to prepare. Some people do this naturally. They already think about the things that they should talk about with somebody before they see them. They should lean into this habit. Some of my students, however, think it’s crazy. They think preparation will make the conversation seem rigid and forced and overly scripted. But just because you’ve thought ahead about what you might talk about doesn’t mean you have to talk about those things once the conversation is underway. It does mean, however, that you always have an idea waiting for you when you’re not sure what to talk about next. Having just one topic in your back pocket can help you in those anxiety-ridden moments. It makes things more fluent, which is important for establishing a connection. Choosing a topic is not only important at the start of a conversation. We’re constantly making decisions about whether we should stay on one subject, drift to something else or totally shift gears and go somewhere wildly different. Sometimes the topic of conversation is obvious. Even then, knowing when to switch to a new one can be trickyMartin Parr/Magnum Photos What’s your advice when making these decisions? There are three very clear signs that suggest that it’s time to switch topics. The first is longer mutual pauses. The second is more uncomfortable laughter, which we use to fill the space that we would usually fill excitedly with good content. And the third sign is redundancy. Once you start repeating things that have already been said on the topic, it’s a sign that you should move to something else. After an average conversation, most people feel like they’ve covered the right number of topics. But if you ask people after conversations that didn’t go well, they’ll more often say that they didn’t talk about enough things, rather than that they talked about too many things. This suggests that a common mistake is lingering too long on a topic after you’ve squeezed all the juice out of it. The second element of TALK is asking questions. I think a lot of us have heard the advice to ask more questions, yet many people don’t apply it. Why do you think that is? Many years of research have shown that the human mind is remarkably egocentric. Often, we are so focused on our own perspective that we forget to even ask someone else to share what’s in their mind. Another reason is fear. You’re interested in the other person, and you know you should ask them questions, but you’re afraid of being too intrusive, or that you will reveal your own incompetence, because you feel you should know the answer already. What kinds of questions should we be asking – and avoiding? In the book, I talk about the power of follow-up questions that build on anything that your partner has just said. It shows that you heard them, that you care and that you want to know more. Even one follow-up question can springboard us away from shallow talk into something deeper and more meaningful. There are, however, some bad patterns of question asking, such as “boomerasking”. Michael Yeomans [at Imperial College London] and I have a recent paper about this, and oh my gosh, it’s been such fun to study. It’s a play on the word boomerang: it comes back to the person who threw it. If I ask you what you had for breakfast, and you tell me you had Special K and banana, and then I say, “Well, let me tell you about my breakfast, because, boy, was it delicious” – that’s boomerasking. Sometimes it’s a thinly veiled way of bragging or complaining, but sometimes I think people are genuinely interested to hear from their partner, but then the partner’s answer reminds them so much of their own life that they can’t help but start sharing their perspective. In our research, we have found that this makes your partner feel like you weren’t interested in their perspective, so it seems very insincere. Sharing your own perspective is important. It’s okay at some point to bring the conversation back to yourself. But don’t do it so soon that it makes your partner feel like you didn’t hear their answer or care about it. Research by Alison Wood Brooks includes a recent study on “boomerasking”, a pitfall you should avoid to make conversations flowJanelle Bruno What are the benefits of levity? When we think of conversations that haven’t gone well, we often think of moments of hostility, anger or disagreement, but a quiet killer of conversation is boredom. Levity is the antidote. These small moments of sparkle or fizz can pull us back in and make us feel engaged with each other again. Our research has shown that we give status and respect to people who make us feel good, so much so that in a group of people, a person who can land even one appropriate joke is more likely to be voted as the leader. And the joke doesn’t even need to be very funny! It’s the fact that they were confident enough to try it and competent enough to read the room. Do you have any practical steps that people can apply to generate levity, even if they’re not a natural comedian? Levity is not just about being funny. In fact, aiming to be a comedian is not the right goal. When we watch stand-up on Netflix, comedians have rehearsed those jokes and honed them and practised them for a long time, and they’re delivering them in a monologue to an audience. It’s a completely different task from a live conversation. In real dialogue, what everybody is looking for is to feel engaged, and that doesn’t require particularly funny jokes or elaborate stories. When you see opportunities to make it fun or lighten the mood, that’s what you need to grab. It can come through a change to a new, fresh topic, or calling back to things that you talked about earlier in the conversation or earlier in your relationship. These callbacks – which sometimes do refer to something funny – are such a nice way of showing that you’ve listened and remembered. A levity move could also involve giving sincere compliments to other people. When you think nice things, when you admire someone, make sure you say it out loud. This brings us to the last element of TALK: kindness. Why do we so often fail to be as kind as we would like? Wobbles in kindness often come back to our egocentrism. Research shows that we underestimate how much other people’s perspectives differ from our own, and we forget that we have the tools to ask other people directly in conversation for their perspective. Being a kinder conversationalist is about trying to focus on your partner’s perspective and then figuring what they need and helping them to get it. Finally, what is your number one tip for readers to have a better conversation the next time they speak to someone? Every conversation is surprisingly tricky and complex. When things don’t go perfectly, give yourself and others more grace. There will be trips and stumbles and then a little grace can go very, very far. Topics:
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    522
    2 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
  • Scientists Detect Unusual Airborne Toxin in the United States for the First Time

    Researchers unexpectedly discovered toxic airborne pollutants in Oklahoma. The image above depicts a field in Oklahoma. Credit: Shutterstock
    University of Colorado Boulder researchers made the first-ever airborne detection of Medium Chain Chlorinated Paraffinsin the Western Hemisphere.
    Sometimes, scientific research feels a lot like solving a mystery. Scientists head into the field with a clear goal and a solid hypothesis, but then the data reveals something surprising. That’s when the real detective work begins.
    This is exactly what happened to a team from the University of Colorado Boulder during a recent field study in rural Oklahoma. They were using a state-of-the-art instrument to track how tiny particles form and grow in the air. But instead of just collecting expected data, they uncovered something completely new: the first-ever airborne detection of Medium Chain Chlorinated Paraffins, a kind of toxic organic pollutant, in the Western Hemisphere. The teams findings were published in ACS Environmental Au.
    “It’s very exciting as a scientist to find something unexpected like this that we weren’t looking for,” said Daniel Katz, CU Boulder chemistry PhD student and lead author of the study. “We’re starting to learn more about this toxic, organic pollutant that we know is out there, and which we need to understand better.”
    MCCPs are currently under consideration for regulation by the Stockholm Convention, a global treaty to protect human health from long-standing and widespread chemicals. While the toxic pollutants have been measured in Antarctica and Asia, researchers haven’t been sure how to document them in the Western Hemisphere’s atmosphere until now.
    From Wastewater to Farmlands
    MCCPs are used in fluids for metal working and in the construction of PVC and textiles. They are often found in wastewater and as a result, can end up in biosolid fertilizer, also called sewage sludge, which is created when liquid is removed from wastewater in a treatment plant. In Oklahoma, researchers suspect the MCCPs they identified came from biosolid fertilizer in the fields near where they set up their instrument.
    “When sewage sludges are spread across the fields, those toxic compounds could be released into the air,” Katz said. “We can’t show directly that that’s happening, but we think it’s a reasonable way that they could be winding up in the air. Sewage sludge fertilizers have been shown to release similar compounds.”
    MCCPs little cousins, Short Chain Chlorinated Paraffins, are currently regulated by the Stockholm Convention, and since 2009, by the EPA here in the United States. Regulation came after studies found the toxic pollutants, which travel far and last a long time in the atmosphere, were harmful to human health. But researchers hypothesize that the regulation of SCCPs may have increased MCCPs in the environment.
    “We always have these unintended consequences of regulation, where you regulate something, and then there’s still a need for the products that those were in,” said Ellie Browne, CU Boulder chemistry professor, CIRES Fellow, and co-author of the study. “So they get replaced by something.”
    Measurement of aerosols led to a new and surprising discovery
    Using a nitrate chemical ionization mass spectrometer, which allows scientists to identify chemical compounds in the air, the team measured air at the agricultural site 24 hours a day for one month. As Katz cataloged the data, he documented the different isotopic patterns in the compounds. The compounds measured by the team had distinct patterns, and he noticed new patterns that he immediately identified as different from the known chemical compounds. With some additional research, he identified them as chlorinated paraffins found in MCCPs.
    Katz says the makeup of MCCPs are similar to PFAS, long-lasting toxic chemicals that break down slowly over time. Known as “forever chemicals,” their presence in soils recently led the Oklahoma Senate to ban biosolid fertilizer.
    Now that researchers know how to measure MCCPs, the next step might be to measure the pollutants at different times throughout the year to understand how levels change each season. Many unknowns surrounding MCCPs remain, and there’s much more to learn about their environmental impacts.
    “We identified them, but we still don’t know exactly what they do when they are in the atmosphere, and they need to be investigated further,” Katz said. “I think it’s important that we continue to have governmental agencies that are capable of evaluating the science and regulating these chemicals as necessary for public health and safety.”
    Reference: “Real-Time Measurements of Gas-Phase Medium-Chain Chlorinated Paraffins Reveal Daily Changes in Gas-Particle Partitioning Controlled by Ambient Temperature” by Daniel John Katz, Bri Dobson, Mitchell Alton, Harald Stark, Douglas R. Worsnop, Manjula R. Canagaratna and Eleanor C. Browne, 5 June 2025, ACS Environmental Au.
    DOI: 10.1021/acsenvironau.5c00038
    Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
    #scientists #detect #unusual #airborne #toxin
    Scientists Detect Unusual Airborne Toxin in the United States for the First Time
    Researchers unexpectedly discovered toxic airborne pollutants in Oklahoma. The image above depicts a field in Oklahoma. Credit: Shutterstock University of Colorado Boulder researchers made the first-ever airborne detection of Medium Chain Chlorinated Paraffinsin the Western Hemisphere. Sometimes, scientific research feels a lot like solving a mystery. Scientists head into the field with a clear goal and a solid hypothesis, but then the data reveals something surprising. That’s when the real detective work begins. This is exactly what happened to a team from the University of Colorado Boulder during a recent field study in rural Oklahoma. They were using a state-of-the-art instrument to track how tiny particles form and grow in the air. But instead of just collecting expected data, they uncovered something completely new: the first-ever airborne detection of Medium Chain Chlorinated Paraffins, a kind of toxic organic pollutant, in the Western Hemisphere. The teams findings were published in ACS Environmental Au. “It’s very exciting as a scientist to find something unexpected like this that we weren’t looking for,” said Daniel Katz, CU Boulder chemistry PhD student and lead author of the study. “We’re starting to learn more about this toxic, organic pollutant that we know is out there, and which we need to understand better.” MCCPs are currently under consideration for regulation by the Stockholm Convention, a global treaty to protect human health from long-standing and widespread chemicals. While the toxic pollutants have been measured in Antarctica and Asia, researchers haven’t been sure how to document them in the Western Hemisphere’s atmosphere until now. From Wastewater to Farmlands MCCPs are used in fluids for metal working and in the construction of PVC and textiles. They are often found in wastewater and as a result, can end up in biosolid fertilizer, also called sewage sludge, which is created when liquid is removed from wastewater in a treatment plant. In Oklahoma, researchers suspect the MCCPs they identified came from biosolid fertilizer in the fields near where they set up their instrument. “When sewage sludges are spread across the fields, those toxic compounds could be released into the air,” Katz said. “We can’t show directly that that’s happening, but we think it’s a reasonable way that they could be winding up in the air. Sewage sludge fertilizers have been shown to release similar compounds.” MCCPs little cousins, Short Chain Chlorinated Paraffins, are currently regulated by the Stockholm Convention, and since 2009, by the EPA here in the United States. Regulation came after studies found the toxic pollutants, which travel far and last a long time in the atmosphere, were harmful to human health. But researchers hypothesize that the regulation of SCCPs may have increased MCCPs in the environment. “We always have these unintended consequences of regulation, where you regulate something, and then there’s still a need for the products that those were in,” said Ellie Browne, CU Boulder chemistry professor, CIRES Fellow, and co-author of the study. “So they get replaced by something.” Measurement of aerosols led to a new and surprising discovery Using a nitrate chemical ionization mass spectrometer, which allows scientists to identify chemical compounds in the air, the team measured air at the agricultural site 24 hours a day for one month. As Katz cataloged the data, he documented the different isotopic patterns in the compounds. The compounds measured by the team had distinct patterns, and he noticed new patterns that he immediately identified as different from the known chemical compounds. With some additional research, he identified them as chlorinated paraffins found in MCCPs. Katz says the makeup of MCCPs are similar to PFAS, long-lasting toxic chemicals that break down slowly over time. Known as “forever chemicals,” their presence in soils recently led the Oklahoma Senate to ban biosolid fertilizer. Now that researchers know how to measure MCCPs, the next step might be to measure the pollutants at different times throughout the year to understand how levels change each season. Many unknowns surrounding MCCPs remain, and there’s much more to learn about their environmental impacts. “We identified them, but we still don’t know exactly what they do when they are in the atmosphere, and they need to be investigated further,” Katz said. “I think it’s important that we continue to have governmental agencies that are capable of evaluating the science and regulating these chemicals as necessary for public health and safety.” Reference: “Real-Time Measurements of Gas-Phase Medium-Chain Chlorinated Paraffins Reveal Daily Changes in Gas-Particle Partitioning Controlled by Ambient Temperature” by Daniel John Katz, Bri Dobson, Mitchell Alton, Harald Stark, Douglas R. Worsnop, Manjula R. Canagaratna and Eleanor C. Browne, 5 June 2025, ACS Environmental Au. DOI: 10.1021/acsenvironau.5c00038 Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter. #scientists #detect #unusual #airborne #toxin
    SCITECHDAILY.COM
    Scientists Detect Unusual Airborne Toxin in the United States for the First Time
    Researchers unexpectedly discovered toxic airborne pollutants in Oklahoma. The image above depicts a field in Oklahoma. Credit: Shutterstock University of Colorado Boulder researchers made the first-ever airborne detection of Medium Chain Chlorinated Paraffins (MCCPs) in the Western Hemisphere. Sometimes, scientific research feels a lot like solving a mystery. Scientists head into the field with a clear goal and a solid hypothesis, but then the data reveals something surprising. That’s when the real detective work begins. This is exactly what happened to a team from the University of Colorado Boulder during a recent field study in rural Oklahoma. They were using a state-of-the-art instrument to track how tiny particles form and grow in the air. But instead of just collecting expected data, they uncovered something completely new: the first-ever airborne detection of Medium Chain Chlorinated Paraffins (MCCPs), a kind of toxic organic pollutant, in the Western Hemisphere. The teams findings were published in ACS Environmental Au. “It’s very exciting as a scientist to find something unexpected like this that we weren’t looking for,” said Daniel Katz, CU Boulder chemistry PhD student and lead author of the study. “We’re starting to learn more about this toxic, organic pollutant that we know is out there, and which we need to understand better.” MCCPs are currently under consideration for regulation by the Stockholm Convention, a global treaty to protect human health from long-standing and widespread chemicals. While the toxic pollutants have been measured in Antarctica and Asia, researchers haven’t been sure how to document them in the Western Hemisphere’s atmosphere until now. From Wastewater to Farmlands MCCPs are used in fluids for metal working and in the construction of PVC and textiles. They are often found in wastewater and as a result, can end up in biosolid fertilizer, also called sewage sludge, which is created when liquid is removed from wastewater in a treatment plant. In Oklahoma, researchers suspect the MCCPs they identified came from biosolid fertilizer in the fields near where they set up their instrument. “When sewage sludges are spread across the fields, those toxic compounds could be released into the air,” Katz said. “We can’t show directly that that’s happening, but we think it’s a reasonable way that they could be winding up in the air. Sewage sludge fertilizers have been shown to release similar compounds.” MCCPs little cousins, Short Chain Chlorinated Paraffins (SCCPs), are currently regulated by the Stockholm Convention, and since 2009, by the EPA here in the United States. Regulation came after studies found the toxic pollutants, which travel far and last a long time in the atmosphere, were harmful to human health. But researchers hypothesize that the regulation of SCCPs may have increased MCCPs in the environment. “We always have these unintended consequences of regulation, where you regulate something, and then there’s still a need for the products that those were in,” said Ellie Browne, CU Boulder chemistry professor, CIRES Fellow, and co-author of the study. “So they get replaced by something.” Measurement of aerosols led to a new and surprising discovery Using a nitrate chemical ionization mass spectrometer, which allows scientists to identify chemical compounds in the air, the team measured air at the agricultural site 24 hours a day for one month. As Katz cataloged the data, he documented the different isotopic patterns in the compounds. The compounds measured by the team had distinct patterns, and he noticed new patterns that he immediately identified as different from the known chemical compounds. With some additional research, he identified them as chlorinated paraffins found in MCCPs. Katz says the makeup of MCCPs are similar to PFAS, long-lasting toxic chemicals that break down slowly over time. Known as “forever chemicals,” their presence in soils recently led the Oklahoma Senate to ban biosolid fertilizer. Now that researchers know how to measure MCCPs, the next step might be to measure the pollutants at different times throughout the year to understand how levels change each season. Many unknowns surrounding MCCPs remain, and there’s much more to learn about their environmental impacts. “We identified them, but we still don’t know exactly what they do when they are in the atmosphere, and they need to be investigated further,” Katz said. “I think it’s important that we continue to have governmental agencies that are capable of evaluating the science and regulating these chemicals as necessary for public health and safety.” Reference: “Real-Time Measurements of Gas-Phase Medium-Chain Chlorinated Paraffins Reveal Daily Changes in Gas-Particle Partitioning Controlled by Ambient Temperature” by Daniel John Katz, Bri Dobson, Mitchell Alton, Harald Stark, Douglas R. Worsnop, Manjula R. Canagaratna and Eleanor C. Browne, 5 June 2025, ACS Environmental Au. DOI: 10.1021/acsenvironau.5c00038 Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    411
    2 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
  • Rewriting SymCrypt in Rust to modernize Microsoft’s cryptographic library 

    Outdated coding practices and memory-unsafe languages like C are putting software, including cryptographic libraries, at risk. Fortunately, memory-safe languages like Rust, along with formal verification tools, are now mature enough to be used at scale, helping prevent issues like crashes, data corruption, flawed implementation, and side-channel attacks.
    To address these vulnerabilities and improve memory safety, we’re rewriting SymCrypt—Microsoft’s open-source cryptographic library—in Rust. We’re also incorporating formal verification methods. SymCrypt is used in Windows, Azure Linux, Xbox, and other platforms.
    Currently, SymCrypt is primarily written in cross-platform C, with limited use of hardware-specific optimizations through intrinsicsand assembly language. It provides a wide range of algorithms, including AES-GCM, SHA, ECDSA, and the more recent post-quantum algorithms ML-KEM and ML-DSA. 
    Formal verification will confirm that implementations behave as intended and don’t deviate from algorithm specifications, critical for preventing attacks. We’ll also analyze compiled code to detect side-channel leaks caused by timing or hardware-level behavior.
    Proving Rust program properties with Aeneas
    Program verification is the process of proving that a piece of code will always satisfy a given property, no matter the input. Rust’s type system profoundly improves the prospects for program verification by providing strong ownership guarantees, by construction, using a discipline known as “aliasing xor mutability”.
    For example, reasoning about C code often requires proving that two non-const pointers are live and non-overlapping, a property that can depend on external client code. In contrast, Rust’s type system guarantees this property for any two mutably borrowed references.
    As a result, new tools have emerged specifically for verifying Rust code. We chose Aeneasbecause it helps provide a clean separation between code and proofs.
    Developed by Microsoft Azure Research in partnership with Inria, the French National Institute for Research in Digital Science and Technology, Aeneas connects to proof assistants like Lean, allowing us to draw on a large body of mathematical proofs—especially valuable given the mathematical nature of cryptographic algorithms—and benefit from Lean’s active user community.
    Compiling Rust to C supports backward compatibility  
    We recognize that switching to Rust isn’t feasible for all use cases, so we’ll continue to support, extend, and certify C-based APIs as long as users need them. Users won’t see any changes, as Rust runs underneath the existing C APIs.
    Some users compile our C code directly and may rely on specific toolchains or compiler features that complicate the adoption of Rust code. To address this, we will use Eurydice, a Rust-to-C compiler developed by Microsoft Azure Research, to replace handwritten C code with C generated from formally verified Rust. Eurydicecompiles directly from Rust’s MIR intermediate language, and the resulting C code will be checked into the SymCrypt repository alongside the original Rust source code.
    As more users adopt Rust, we’ll continue supporting this compilation path for those who build SymCrypt from source code but aren’t ready to use the Rust compiler. In the long term, we hope to transition users to either use precompiled SymCrypt binaries, or compile from source code in Rust, at which point the Rust-to-C compilation path will no longer be needed.

    Microsoft research podcast

    Ideas: AI and democracy with Madeleine Daepp and Robert Osazuwa Ness
    As the “biggest election year in history” comes to an end, researchers Madeleine Daepp and Robert Osazuwa Ness and Democracy Forward GM Ginny Badanes discuss AI’s impact on democracy, including the tech’s use in Taiwan and India.

    Listen now

    Opens in a new tab
    Timing analysis with Revizor 
    Even software that has been verified for functional correctness can remain vulnerable to low-level security threats, such as side channels caused by timing leaks or speculative execution. These threats operate at the hardware level and can leak private information, such as memory load addresses, branch targets, or division operands, even when the source code is provably correct. 
    To address this, we’re extending Revizor, a tool developed by Microsoft Azure Research, to more effectively analyze SymCrypt binaries. Revizor models microarchitectural leakage and uses fuzzing techniques to systematically uncover instructions that may expose private information through known hardware-level effects.  
    Earlier cryptographic libraries relied on constant-time programming to avoid operations on secret data. However, recent research has shown that this alone is insufficient with today’s CPUs, where every new optimization may open a new side channel. 
    By analyzing binary code for specific compilers and platforms, our extended Revizor tool enables deeper scrutiny of vulnerabilities that aren’t visible in the source code.
    Verified Rust implementations begin with ML-KEM
    This long-term effort is in alignment with the Microsoft Secure Future Initiative and brings together experts across Microsoft, building on decades of Microsoft Research investment in program verification and security tooling.
    A preliminary version of ML-KEM in Rust is now available on the preview feature/verifiedcryptobranch of the SymCrypt repository. We encourage users to try the Rust build and share feedback. Looking ahead, we plan to support direct use of the same cryptographic library in Rust without requiring C bindings. 
    Over the coming months, we plan to rewrite, verify, and ship several algorithms in Rust as part of SymCrypt. As our investment in Rust deepens, we expect to gain new insights into how to best leverage the language for high-assurance cryptographic implementations with low-level optimizations. 
    As performance is key to scalability and sustainability, we’re holding new implementations to a high bar using our benchmarking tools to match or exceed existing systems.
    Looking forward 
    This is a pivotal moment for high-assurance software. Microsoft’s investment in Rust and formal verification presents a rare opportunity to advance one of our key libraries. We’re excited to scale this work and ultimately deliver an industrial-grade, Rust-based, FIPS-certified cryptographic library.
    Opens in a new tab
    #rewriting #symcrypt #rust #modernize #microsofts
    Rewriting SymCrypt in Rust to modernize Microsoft’s cryptographic library 
    Outdated coding practices and memory-unsafe languages like C are putting software, including cryptographic libraries, at risk. Fortunately, memory-safe languages like Rust, along with formal verification tools, are now mature enough to be used at scale, helping prevent issues like crashes, data corruption, flawed implementation, and side-channel attacks. To address these vulnerabilities and improve memory safety, we’re rewriting SymCrypt—Microsoft’s open-source cryptographic library—in Rust. We’re also incorporating formal verification methods. SymCrypt is used in Windows, Azure Linux, Xbox, and other platforms. Currently, SymCrypt is primarily written in cross-platform C, with limited use of hardware-specific optimizations through intrinsicsand assembly language. It provides a wide range of algorithms, including AES-GCM, SHA, ECDSA, and the more recent post-quantum algorithms ML-KEM and ML-DSA.  Formal verification will confirm that implementations behave as intended and don’t deviate from algorithm specifications, critical for preventing attacks. We’ll also analyze compiled code to detect side-channel leaks caused by timing or hardware-level behavior. Proving Rust program properties with Aeneas Program verification is the process of proving that a piece of code will always satisfy a given property, no matter the input. Rust’s type system profoundly improves the prospects for program verification by providing strong ownership guarantees, by construction, using a discipline known as “aliasing xor mutability”. For example, reasoning about C code often requires proving that two non-const pointers are live and non-overlapping, a property that can depend on external client code. In contrast, Rust’s type system guarantees this property for any two mutably borrowed references. As a result, new tools have emerged specifically for verifying Rust code. We chose Aeneasbecause it helps provide a clean separation between code and proofs. Developed by Microsoft Azure Research in partnership with Inria, the French National Institute for Research in Digital Science and Technology, Aeneas connects to proof assistants like Lean, allowing us to draw on a large body of mathematical proofs—especially valuable given the mathematical nature of cryptographic algorithms—and benefit from Lean’s active user community. Compiling Rust to C supports backward compatibility   We recognize that switching to Rust isn’t feasible for all use cases, so we’ll continue to support, extend, and certify C-based APIs as long as users need them. Users won’t see any changes, as Rust runs underneath the existing C APIs. Some users compile our C code directly and may rely on specific toolchains or compiler features that complicate the adoption of Rust code. To address this, we will use Eurydice, a Rust-to-C compiler developed by Microsoft Azure Research, to replace handwritten C code with C generated from formally verified Rust. Eurydicecompiles directly from Rust’s MIR intermediate language, and the resulting C code will be checked into the SymCrypt repository alongside the original Rust source code. As more users adopt Rust, we’ll continue supporting this compilation path for those who build SymCrypt from source code but aren’t ready to use the Rust compiler. In the long term, we hope to transition users to either use precompiled SymCrypt binaries, or compile from source code in Rust, at which point the Rust-to-C compilation path will no longer be needed. Microsoft research podcast Ideas: AI and democracy with Madeleine Daepp and Robert Osazuwa Ness As the “biggest election year in history” comes to an end, researchers Madeleine Daepp and Robert Osazuwa Ness and Democracy Forward GM Ginny Badanes discuss AI’s impact on democracy, including the tech’s use in Taiwan and India. Listen now Opens in a new tab Timing analysis with Revizor  Even software that has been verified for functional correctness can remain vulnerable to low-level security threats, such as side channels caused by timing leaks or speculative execution. These threats operate at the hardware level and can leak private information, such as memory load addresses, branch targets, or division operands, even when the source code is provably correct.  To address this, we’re extending Revizor, a tool developed by Microsoft Azure Research, to more effectively analyze SymCrypt binaries. Revizor models microarchitectural leakage and uses fuzzing techniques to systematically uncover instructions that may expose private information through known hardware-level effects.   Earlier cryptographic libraries relied on constant-time programming to avoid operations on secret data. However, recent research has shown that this alone is insufficient with today’s CPUs, where every new optimization may open a new side channel.  By analyzing binary code for specific compilers and platforms, our extended Revizor tool enables deeper scrutiny of vulnerabilities that aren’t visible in the source code. Verified Rust implementations begin with ML-KEM This long-term effort is in alignment with the Microsoft Secure Future Initiative and brings together experts across Microsoft, building on decades of Microsoft Research investment in program verification and security tooling. A preliminary version of ML-KEM in Rust is now available on the preview feature/verifiedcryptobranch of the SymCrypt repository. We encourage users to try the Rust build and share feedback. Looking ahead, we plan to support direct use of the same cryptographic library in Rust without requiring C bindings.  Over the coming months, we plan to rewrite, verify, and ship several algorithms in Rust as part of SymCrypt. As our investment in Rust deepens, we expect to gain new insights into how to best leverage the language for high-assurance cryptographic implementations with low-level optimizations.  As performance is key to scalability and sustainability, we’re holding new implementations to a high bar using our benchmarking tools to match or exceed existing systems. Looking forward  This is a pivotal moment for high-assurance software. Microsoft’s investment in Rust and formal verification presents a rare opportunity to advance one of our key libraries. We’re excited to scale this work and ultimately deliver an industrial-grade, Rust-based, FIPS-certified cryptographic library. Opens in a new tab #rewriting #symcrypt #rust #modernize #microsofts
    WWW.MICROSOFT.COM
    Rewriting SymCrypt in Rust to modernize Microsoft’s cryptographic library 
    Outdated coding practices and memory-unsafe languages like C are putting software, including cryptographic libraries, at risk. Fortunately, memory-safe languages like Rust, along with formal verification tools, are now mature enough to be used at scale, helping prevent issues like crashes, data corruption, flawed implementation, and side-channel attacks. To address these vulnerabilities and improve memory safety, we’re rewriting SymCrypt (opens in new tab)—Microsoft’s open-source cryptographic library—in Rust. We’re also incorporating formal verification methods. SymCrypt is used in Windows, Azure Linux, Xbox, and other platforms. Currently, SymCrypt is primarily written in cross-platform C, with limited use of hardware-specific optimizations through intrinsics (compiler-provided low-level functions) and assembly language (direct processor instructions). It provides a wide range of algorithms, including AES-GCM, SHA, ECDSA, and the more recent post-quantum algorithms ML-KEM and ML-DSA.  Formal verification will confirm that implementations behave as intended and don’t deviate from algorithm specifications, critical for preventing attacks. We’ll also analyze compiled code to detect side-channel leaks caused by timing or hardware-level behavior. Proving Rust program properties with Aeneas Program verification is the process of proving that a piece of code will always satisfy a given property, no matter the input. Rust’s type system profoundly improves the prospects for program verification by providing strong ownership guarantees, by construction, using a discipline known as “aliasing xor mutability”. For example, reasoning about C code often requires proving that two non-const pointers are live and non-overlapping, a property that can depend on external client code. In contrast, Rust’s type system guarantees this property for any two mutably borrowed references. As a result, new tools have emerged specifically for verifying Rust code. We chose Aeneas (opens in new tab) because it helps provide a clean separation between code and proofs. Developed by Microsoft Azure Research in partnership with Inria, the French National Institute for Research in Digital Science and Technology, Aeneas connects to proof assistants like Lean (opens in new tab), allowing us to draw on a large body of mathematical proofs—especially valuable given the mathematical nature of cryptographic algorithms—and benefit from Lean’s active user community. Compiling Rust to C supports backward compatibility   We recognize that switching to Rust isn’t feasible for all use cases, so we’ll continue to support, extend, and certify C-based APIs as long as users need them. Users won’t see any changes, as Rust runs underneath the existing C APIs. Some users compile our C code directly and may rely on specific toolchains or compiler features that complicate the adoption of Rust code. To address this, we will use Eurydice (opens in new tab), a Rust-to-C compiler developed by Microsoft Azure Research, to replace handwritten C code with C generated from formally verified Rust. Eurydice (opens in new tab) compiles directly from Rust’s MIR intermediate language, and the resulting C code will be checked into the SymCrypt repository alongside the original Rust source code. As more users adopt Rust, we’ll continue supporting this compilation path for those who build SymCrypt from source code but aren’t ready to use the Rust compiler. In the long term, we hope to transition users to either use precompiled SymCrypt binaries (via C or Rust APIs), or compile from source code in Rust, at which point the Rust-to-C compilation path will no longer be needed. Microsoft research podcast Ideas: AI and democracy with Madeleine Daepp and Robert Osazuwa Ness As the “biggest election year in history” comes to an end, researchers Madeleine Daepp and Robert Osazuwa Ness and Democracy Forward GM Ginny Badanes discuss AI’s impact on democracy, including the tech’s use in Taiwan and India. Listen now Opens in a new tab Timing analysis with Revizor  Even software that has been verified for functional correctness can remain vulnerable to low-level security threats, such as side channels caused by timing leaks or speculative execution. These threats operate at the hardware level and can leak private information, such as memory load addresses, branch targets, or division operands, even when the source code is provably correct.  To address this, we’re extending Revizor (opens in new tab), a tool developed by Microsoft Azure Research, to more effectively analyze SymCrypt binaries. Revizor models microarchitectural leakage and uses fuzzing techniques to systematically uncover instructions that may expose private information through known hardware-level effects.   Earlier cryptographic libraries relied on constant-time programming to avoid operations on secret data. However, recent research has shown that this alone is insufficient with today’s CPUs, where every new optimization may open a new side channel.  By analyzing binary code for specific compilers and platforms, our extended Revizor tool enables deeper scrutiny of vulnerabilities that aren’t visible in the source code. Verified Rust implementations begin with ML-KEM This long-term effort is in alignment with the Microsoft Secure Future Initiative and brings together experts across Microsoft, building on decades of Microsoft Research investment in program verification and security tooling. A preliminary version of ML-KEM in Rust is now available on the preview feature/verifiedcrypto (opens in new tab) branch of the SymCrypt repository. We encourage users to try the Rust build and share feedback (opens in new tab). Looking ahead, we plan to support direct use of the same cryptographic library in Rust without requiring C bindings.  Over the coming months, we plan to rewrite, verify, and ship several algorithms in Rust as part of SymCrypt. As our investment in Rust deepens, we expect to gain new insights into how to best leverage the language for high-assurance cryptographic implementations with low-level optimizations.  As performance is key to scalability and sustainability, we’re holding new implementations to a high bar using our benchmarking tools to match or exceed existing systems. Looking forward  This is a pivotal moment for high-assurance software. Microsoft’s investment in Rust and formal verification presents a rare opportunity to advance one of our key libraries. We’re excited to scale this work and ultimately deliver an industrial-grade, Rust-based, FIPS-certified cryptographic library. Opens in a new tab
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
  • New Zealand’s Email Security Requirements for Government Organizations: What You Need to Know

    The Secure Government EmailCommon Implementation Framework
    New Zealand’s government is introducing a comprehensive email security framework designed to protect official communications from phishing and domain spoofing. This new framework, which will be mandatory for all government agencies by October 2025, establishes clear technical standards to enhance email security and retire the outdated SEEMail service. 
    Key Takeaways

    All NZ government agencies must comply with new email security requirements by October 2025.
    The new framework strengthens trust and security in government communications by preventing spoofing and phishing.
    The framework mandates TLS 1.2+, SPF, DKIM, DMARC with p=reject, MTA-STS, and DLP controls.
    EasyDMARC simplifies compliance with our guided setup, monitoring, and automated reporting.

    Start a Free Trial

    What is the Secure Government Email Common Implementation Framework?
    The Secure Government EmailCommon Implementation Framework is a new government-led initiative in New Zealand designed to standardize email security across all government agencies. Its main goal is to secure external email communication, reduce domain spoofing in phishing attacks, and replace the legacy SEEMail service.
    Why is New Zealand Implementing New Government Email Security Standards?
    The framework was developed by New Zealand’s Department of Internal Affairsas part of its role in managing ICT Common Capabilities. It leverages modern email security controls via the Domain Name Systemto enable the retirement of the legacy SEEMail service and provide:

    Encryption for transmission security
    Digital signing for message integrity
    Basic non-repudiationDomain spoofing protection

    These improvements apply to all emails, not just those routed through SEEMail, offering broader protection across agency communications.
    What Email Security Technologies Are Required by the New NZ SGE Framework?
    The SGE Framework outlines the following key technologies that agencies must implement:

    TLS 1.2 or higher with implicit TLS enforced
    TLS-RPTSPFDKIMDMARCwith reporting
    MTA-STSData Loss Prevention controls

    These technologies work together to ensure encrypted email transmission, validate sender identity, prevent unauthorized use of domains, and reduce the risk of sensitive data leaks.

    Get in touch

    When Do NZ Government Agencies Need to Comply with this Framework?
    All New Zealand government agencies are expected to fully implement the Secure Government EmailCommon Implementation Framework by October 2025. Agencies should begin their planning and deployment now to ensure full compliance by the deadline.
    The All of Government Secure Email Common Implementation Framework v1.0
    What are the Mandated Requirements for Domains?
    Below are the exact requirements for all email-enabled domains under the new framework.
    ControlExact RequirementTLSMinimum TLS 1.2. TLS 1.1, 1.0, SSL, or clear-text not permitted.TLS-RPTAll email-sending domains must have TLS reporting enabled.SPFMust exist and end with -all.DKIMAll outbound email from every sending service must be DKIM-signed at the final hop.DMARCPolicy of p=reject on all email-enabled domains. adkim=s is recommended when not bulk-sending.MTA-STSEnabled and set to enforce.Implicit TLSMust be configured and enforced for every connection.Data Loss PreventionEnforce in line with the New Zealand Information Security Manualand Protective Security Requirements.
    Compliance Monitoring and Reporting
    The All of Government Service Deliveryteam will be monitoring compliance with the framework. Monitoring will initially cover SPF, DMARC, and MTA-STS settings and will be expanded to include DKIM. Changes to these settings will be monitored, enabling reporting on email security compliance across all government agencies. Ongoing monitoring will highlight changes to domains, ensure new domains are set up with security in place, and monitor the implementation of future email security technologies. 
    Should compliance changes occur, such as an agency’s SPF record being changed from -all to ~all, this will be captured so that the AoGSD Security Team can investigate. They will then communicate directly with the agency to determine if an issue exists or if an error has occurred, reviewing each case individually.
    Deployment Checklist for NZ Government Compliance

    Enforce TLS 1.2 minimum, implicit TLS, MTA-STS & TLS-RPT
    SPF with -all
    DKIM on all outbound email
    DMARC p=reject 
    adkim=s where suitable
    For non-email/parked domains: SPF -all, empty DKIM, DMARC reject strict
    Compliance dashboard
    Inbound DMARC evaluation enforced
    DLP aligned with NZISM

    Start a Free Trial

    How EasyDMARC Can Help Government Agencies Comply
    EasyDMARC provides a comprehensive email security solution that simplifies the deployment and ongoing management of DNS-based email security protocols like SPF, DKIM, and DMARC with reporting. Our platform offers automated checks, real-time monitoring, and a guided setup to help government organizations quickly reach compliance.
    1. TLS-RPT / MTA-STS audit
    EasyDMARC enables you to enable the Managed MTA-STS and TLS-RPT option with a single click. We provide the required DNS records and continuously monitor them for issues, delivering reports on TLS negotiation problems. This helps agencies ensure secure email transmission and quickly detect delivery or encryption failures.

    Note: In this screenshot, you can see how to deploy MTA-STS and TLS Reporting by adding just three CNAME records provided by EasyDMARC. It’s recommended to start in “testing” mode, evaluate the TLS-RPT reports, and then gradually switch your MTA-STS policy to “enforce”. The process is simple and takes just a few clicks.

    As shown above, EasyDMARC parses incoming TLS reports into a centralized dashboard, giving you clear visibility into delivery and encryption issues across all sending sources.
    2. SPF with “-all”In the EasyDARC platform, you can run the SPF Record Generator to create a compliant record. Publish your v=spf1 record with “-all” to enforce a hard fail for unauthorized senders and prevent spoofed emails from passing SPF checks. This strengthens your domain’s protection against impersonation.

    Note: It is highly recommended to start adjusting your SPF record only after you begin receiving DMARC reports and identifying your legitimate email sources. As we’ll explain in more detail below, both SPF and DKIM should be adjusted after you gain visibility through reports.
    Making changes without proper visibility can lead to false positives, misconfigurations, and potential loss of legitimate emails. That’s why the first step should always be setting DMARC to p=none, receiving reports, analyzing them, and then gradually fixing any SPF or DKIM issues.
    3. DKIM on all outbound email
    DKIM must be configured for all email sources sending emails on behalf of your domain. This is critical, as DKIM plays a bigger role than SPF when it comes to building domain reputation, surviving auto-forwarding, mailing lists, and other edge cases.
    As mentioned above, DMARC reports provide visibility into your email sources, allowing you to implement DKIM accordingly. If you’re using third-party services like Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, or Mimecast, you’ll need to retrieve the public DKIM key from your provider’s admin interface.
    EasyDMARC maintains a backend directory of over 1,400 email sources. We also give you detailed guidance on how to configure SPF and DKIM correctly for major ESPs. 
    Note: At the end of this article, you’ll find configuration links for well-known ESPs like Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, Zoho Mail, Amazon SES, and SendGrid – helping you avoid common misconfigurations and get aligned with SGE requirements.
    If you’re using a dedicated MTA, DKIM must be implemented manually. EasyDMARC’s DKIM Record Generator lets you generate both public and private keys for your server. The private key is stored on your MTA, while the public key must be published in your DNS.

    4. DMARC p=reject rollout
    As mentioned in previous points, DMARC reporting is the first and most important step on your DMARC enforcement journey. Always start with a p=none policy and configure RUA reports to be sent to EasyDMARC. Use the report insights to identify and fix SPF and DKIM alignment issues, then gradually move to p=quarantine and finally p=reject once all legitimate email sources have been authenticated. 
    This phased approach ensures full protection against domain spoofing without risking legitimate email delivery.

    5. adkim Strict Alignment Check
    This strict alignment check is not always applicable, especially if you’re using third-party bulk ESPs, such as Sendgrid, that require you to set DKIM on a subdomain level. You can set adkim=s in your DMARC TXT record, or simply enable strict mode in EasyDMARC’s Managed DMARC settings. This ensures that only emails with a DKIM signature that exactly match your domain pass alignment, adding an extra layer of protection against domain spoofing. But only do this if you are NOT a bulk sender.

    6. Securing Non-Email Enabled Domains
    The purpose of deploying email security to non-email-enabled domains, or parked domains, is to prevent messages being spoofed from that domain. This requirement remains even if the root-level domain has SP=reject set within its DMARC record.
    Under this new framework, you must bulk import and mark parked domains as “Parked.” Crucially, this requires adjusting SPF settings to an empty record, setting DMARC to p=reject, and ensuring an empty DKIM record is in place: • SPF record: “v=spf1 -all”.
    • Wildcard DKIM record with empty public key.• DMARC record: “v=DMARC1;p=reject;adkim=s;aspf=s;rua=mailto:…”.
    EasyDMARC allows you to add and label parked domains for free. This is important because it helps you monitor any activity from these domains and ensure they remain protected with a strict DMARC policy of p=reject.
    7. Compliance Dashboard
    Use EasyDMARC’s Domain Scanner to assess the security posture of each domain with a clear compliance score and risk level. The dashboard highlights configuration gaps and guides remediation steps, helping government agencies stay on track toward full compliance with the SGE Framework.

    8. Inbound DMARC Evaluation Enforced
    You don’t need to apply any changes if you’re using Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, or other major mailbox providers. Most of them already enforce DMARC evaluation on incoming emails.
    However, some legacy Microsoft 365 setups may still quarantine emails that fail DMARC checks, even when the sending domain has a p=reject policy, instead of rejecting them. This behavior can be adjusted directly from your Microsoft Defender portal. about this in our step-by-step guide on how to set up SPF, DKIM, and DMARC from Microsoft Defender.
    If you’re using a third-party mail provider that doesn’t enforce having a DMARC policy for incoming emails, which is rare, you’ll need to contact their support to request a configuration change.
    9. Data Loss Prevention Aligned with NZISM
    The New Zealand Information Security Manualis the New Zealand Government’s manual on information assurance and information systems security. It includes guidance on data loss prevention, which must be followed to be aligned with the SEG.
    Need Help Setting up SPF and DKIM for your Email Provider?
    Setting up SPF and DKIM for different ESPs often requires specific configurations. Some providers require you to publish SPF and DKIM on a subdomain, while others only require DKIM, or have different formatting rules. We’ve simplified all these steps to help you avoid misconfigurations that could delay your DMARC enforcement, or worse, block legitimate emails from reaching your recipients.
    Below you’ll find comprehensive setup guides for Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, Zoho Mail, Amazon SES, and SendGrid. You can also explore our full blog section that covers setup instructions for many other well-known ESPs.
    Remember, all this information is reflected in your DMARC aggregate reports. These reports give you live visibility into your outgoing email ecosystem, helping you analyze and fix any issues specific to a given provider.
    Here are our step-by-step guides for the most common platforms:

    Google Workspace

    Microsoft 365

    These guides will help ensure your DNS records are configured correctly as part of the Secure Government EmailFramework rollout.
    Meet New Government Email Security Standards With EasyDMARC
    New Zealand’s SEG Framework sets a clear path for government agencies to enhance their email security by October 2025. With EasyDMARC, you can meet these technical requirements efficiently and with confidence. From protocol setup to continuous monitoring and compliance tracking, EasyDMARC streamlines the entire process, ensuring strong protection against spoofing, phishing, and data loss while simplifying your transition from SEEMail.
    #new #zealands #email #security #requirements
    New Zealand’s Email Security Requirements for Government Organizations: What You Need to Know
    The Secure Government EmailCommon Implementation Framework New Zealand’s government is introducing a comprehensive email security framework designed to protect official communications from phishing and domain spoofing. This new framework, which will be mandatory for all government agencies by October 2025, establishes clear technical standards to enhance email security and retire the outdated SEEMail service.  Key Takeaways All NZ government agencies must comply with new email security requirements by October 2025. The new framework strengthens trust and security in government communications by preventing spoofing and phishing. The framework mandates TLS 1.2+, SPF, DKIM, DMARC with p=reject, MTA-STS, and DLP controls. EasyDMARC simplifies compliance with our guided setup, monitoring, and automated reporting. Start a Free Trial What is the Secure Government Email Common Implementation Framework? The Secure Government EmailCommon Implementation Framework is a new government-led initiative in New Zealand designed to standardize email security across all government agencies. Its main goal is to secure external email communication, reduce domain spoofing in phishing attacks, and replace the legacy SEEMail service. Why is New Zealand Implementing New Government Email Security Standards? The framework was developed by New Zealand’s Department of Internal Affairsas part of its role in managing ICT Common Capabilities. It leverages modern email security controls via the Domain Name Systemto enable the retirement of the legacy SEEMail service and provide: Encryption for transmission security Digital signing for message integrity Basic non-repudiationDomain spoofing protection These improvements apply to all emails, not just those routed through SEEMail, offering broader protection across agency communications. What Email Security Technologies Are Required by the New NZ SGE Framework? The SGE Framework outlines the following key technologies that agencies must implement: TLS 1.2 or higher with implicit TLS enforced TLS-RPTSPFDKIMDMARCwith reporting MTA-STSData Loss Prevention controls These technologies work together to ensure encrypted email transmission, validate sender identity, prevent unauthorized use of domains, and reduce the risk of sensitive data leaks. Get in touch When Do NZ Government Agencies Need to Comply with this Framework? All New Zealand government agencies are expected to fully implement the Secure Government EmailCommon Implementation Framework by October 2025. Agencies should begin their planning and deployment now to ensure full compliance by the deadline. The All of Government Secure Email Common Implementation Framework v1.0 What are the Mandated Requirements for Domains? Below are the exact requirements for all email-enabled domains under the new framework. ControlExact RequirementTLSMinimum TLS 1.2. TLS 1.1, 1.0, SSL, or clear-text not permitted.TLS-RPTAll email-sending domains must have TLS reporting enabled.SPFMust exist and end with -all.DKIMAll outbound email from every sending service must be DKIM-signed at the final hop.DMARCPolicy of p=reject on all email-enabled domains. adkim=s is recommended when not bulk-sending.MTA-STSEnabled and set to enforce.Implicit TLSMust be configured and enforced for every connection.Data Loss PreventionEnforce in line with the New Zealand Information Security Manualand Protective Security Requirements. Compliance Monitoring and Reporting The All of Government Service Deliveryteam will be monitoring compliance with the framework. Monitoring will initially cover SPF, DMARC, and MTA-STS settings and will be expanded to include DKIM. Changes to these settings will be monitored, enabling reporting on email security compliance across all government agencies. Ongoing monitoring will highlight changes to domains, ensure new domains are set up with security in place, and monitor the implementation of future email security technologies.  Should compliance changes occur, such as an agency’s SPF record being changed from -all to ~all, this will be captured so that the AoGSD Security Team can investigate. They will then communicate directly with the agency to determine if an issue exists or if an error has occurred, reviewing each case individually. Deployment Checklist for NZ Government Compliance Enforce TLS 1.2 minimum, implicit TLS, MTA-STS & TLS-RPT SPF with -all DKIM on all outbound email DMARC p=reject  adkim=s where suitable For non-email/parked domains: SPF -all, empty DKIM, DMARC reject strict Compliance dashboard Inbound DMARC evaluation enforced DLP aligned with NZISM Start a Free Trial How EasyDMARC Can Help Government Agencies Comply EasyDMARC provides a comprehensive email security solution that simplifies the deployment and ongoing management of DNS-based email security protocols like SPF, DKIM, and DMARC with reporting. Our platform offers automated checks, real-time monitoring, and a guided setup to help government organizations quickly reach compliance. 1. TLS-RPT / MTA-STS audit EasyDMARC enables you to enable the Managed MTA-STS and TLS-RPT option with a single click. We provide the required DNS records and continuously monitor them for issues, delivering reports on TLS negotiation problems. This helps agencies ensure secure email transmission and quickly detect delivery or encryption failures. Note: In this screenshot, you can see how to deploy MTA-STS and TLS Reporting by adding just three CNAME records provided by EasyDMARC. It’s recommended to start in “testing” mode, evaluate the TLS-RPT reports, and then gradually switch your MTA-STS policy to “enforce”. The process is simple and takes just a few clicks. As shown above, EasyDMARC parses incoming TLS reports into a centralized dashboard, giving you clear visibility into delivery and encryption issues across all sending sources. 2. SPF with “-all”In the EasyDARC platform, you can run the SPF Record Generator to create a compliant record. Publish your v=spf1 record with “-all” to enforce a hard fail for unauthorized senders and prevent spoofed emails from passing SPF checks. This strengthens your domain’s protection against impersonation. Note: It is highly recommended to start adjusting your SPF record only after you begin receiving DMARC reports and identifying your legitimate email sources. As we’ll explain in more detail below, both SPF and DKIM should be adjusted after you gain visibility through reports. Making changes without proper visibility can lead to false positives, misconfigurations, and potential loss of legitimate emails. That’s why the first step should always be setting DMARC to p=none, receiving reports, analyzing them, and then gradually fixing any SPF or DKIM issues. 3. DKIM on all outbound email DKIM must be configured for all email sources sending emails on behalf of your domain. This is critical, as DKIM plays a bigger role than SPF when it comes to building domain reputation, surviving auto-forwarding, mailing lists, and other edge cases. As mentioned above, DMARC reports provide visibility into your email sources, allowing you to implement DKIM accordingly. If you’re using third-party services like Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, or Mimecast, you’ll need to retrieve the public DKIM key from your provider’s admin interface. EasyDMARC maintains a backend directory of over 1,400 email sources. We also give you detailed guidance on how to configure SPF and DKIM correctly for major ESPs.  Note: At the end of this article, you’ll find configuration links for well-known ESPs like Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, Zoho Mail, Amazon SES, and SendGrid – helping you avoid common misconfigurations and get aligned with SGE requirements. If you’re using a dedicated MTA, DKIM must be implemented manually. EasyDMARC’s DKIM Record Generator lets you generate both public and private keys for your server. The private key is stored on your MTA, while the public key must be published in your DNS. 4. DMARC p=reject rollout As mentioned in previous points, DMARC reporting is the first and most important step on your DMARC enforcement journey. Always start with a p=none policy and configure RUA reports to be sent to EasyDMARC. Use the report insights to identify and fix SPF and DKIM alignment issues, then gradually move to p=quarantine and finally p=reject once all legitimate email sources have been authenticated.  This phased approach ensures full protection against domain spoofing without risking legitimate email delivery. 5. adkim Strict Alignment Check This strict alignment check is not always applicable, especially if you’re using third-party bulk ESPs, such as Sendgrid, that require you to set DKIM on a subdomain level. You can set adkim=s in your DMARC TXT record, or simply enable strict mode in EasyDMARC’s Managed DMARC settings. This ensures that only emails with a DKIM signature that exactly match your domain pass alignment, adding an extra layer of protection against domain spoofing. But only do this if you are NOT a bulk sender. 6. Securing Non-Email Enabled Domains The purpose of deploying email security to non-email-enabled domains, or parked domains, is to prevent messages being spoofed from that domain. This requirement remains even if the root-level domain has SP=reject set within its DMARC record. Under this new framework, you must bulk import and mark parked domains as “Parked.” Crucially, this requires adjusting SPF settings to an empty record, setting DMARC to p=reject, and ensuring an empty DKIM record is in place: • SPF record: “v=spf1 -all”. • Wildcard DKIM record with empty public key.• DMARC record: “v=DMARC1;p=reject;adkim=s;aspf=s;rua=mailto:…”. EasyDMARC allows you to add and label parked domains for free. This is important because it helps you monitor any activity from these domains and ensure they remain protected with a strict DMARC policy of p=reject. 7. Compliance Dashboard Use EasyDMARC’s Domain Scanner to assess the security posture of each domain with a clear compliance score and risk level. The dashboard highlights configuration gaps and guides remediation steps, helping government agencies stay on track toward full compliance with the SGE Framework. 8. Inbound DMARC Evaluation Enforced You don’t need to apply any changes if you’re using Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, or other major mailbox providers. Most of them already enforce DMARC evaluation on incoming emails. However, some legacy Microsoft 365 setups may still quarantine emails that fail DMARC checks, even when the sending domain has a p=reject policy, instead of rejecting them. This behavior can be adjusted directly from your Microsoft Defender portal. about this in our step-by-step guide on how to set up SPF, DKIM, and DMARC from Microsoft Defender. If you’re using a third-party mail provider that doesn’t enforce having a DMARC policy for incoming emails, which is rare, you’ll need to contact their support to request a configuration change. 9. Data Loss Prevention Aligned with NZISM The New Zealand Information Security Manualis the New Zealand Government’s manual on information assurance and information systems security. It includes guidance on data loss prevention, which must be followed to be aligned with the SEG. Need Help Setting up SPF and DKIM for your Email Provider? Setting up SPF and DKIM for different ESPs often requires specific configurations. Some providers require you to publish SPF and DKIM on a subdomain, while others only require DKIM, or have different formatting rules. We’ve simplified all these steps to help you avoid misconfigurations that could delay your DMARC enforcement, or worse, block legitimate emails from reaching your recipients. Below you’ll find comprehensive setup guides for Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, Zoho Mail, Amazon SES, and SendGrid. You can also explore our full blog section that covers setup instructions for many other well-known ESPs. Remember, all this information is reflected in your DMARC aggregate reports. These reports give you live visibility into your outgoing email ecosystem, helping you analyze and fix any issues specific to a given provider. Here are our step-by-step guides for the most common platforms: Google Workspace Microsoft 365 These guides will help ensure your DNS records are configured correctly as part of the Secure Government EmailFramework rollout. Meet New Government Email Security Standards With EasyDMARC New Zealand’s SEG Framework sets a clear path for government agencies to enhance their email security by October 2025. With EasyDMARC, you can meet these technical requirements efficiently and with confidence. From protocol setup to continuous monitoring and compliance tracking, EasyDMARC streamlines the entire process, ensuring strong protection against spoofing, phishing, and data loss while simplifying your transition from SEEMail. #new #zealands #email #security #requirements
    EASYDMARC.COM
    New Zealand’s Email Security Requirements for Government Organizations: What You Need to Know
    The Secure Government Email (SGE) Common Implementation Framework New Zealand’s government is introducing a comprehensive email security framework designed to protect official communications from phishing and domain spoofing. This new framework, which will be mandatory for all government agencies by October 2025, establishes clear technical standards to enhance email security and retire the outdated SEEMail service.  Key Takeaways All NZ government agencies must comply with new email security requirements by October 2025. The new framework strengthens trust and security in government communications by preventing spoofing and phishing. The framework mandates TLS 1.2+, SPF, DKIM, DMARC with p=reject, MTA-STS, and DLP controls. EasyDMARC simplifies compliance with our guided setup, monitoring, and automated reporting. Start a Free Trial What is the Secure Government Email Common Implementation Framework? The Secure Government Email (SGE) Common Implementation Framework is a new government-led initiative in New Zealand designed to standardize email security across all government agencies. Its main goal is to secure external email communication, reduce domain spoofing in phishing attacks, and replace the legacy SEEMail service. Why is New Zealand Implementing New Government Email Security Standards? The framework was developed by New Zealand’s Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) as part of its role in managing ICT Common Capabilities. It leverages modern email security controls via the Domain Name System (DNS) to enable the retirement of the legacy SEEMail service and provide: Encryption for transmission security Digital signing for message integrity Basic non-repudiation (by allowing only authorized senders) Domain spoofing protection These improvements apply to all emails, not just those routed through SEEMail, offering broader protection across agency communications. What Email Security Technologies Are Required by the New NZ SGE Framework? The SGE Framework outlines the following key technologies that agencies must implement: TLS 1.2 or higher with implicit TLS enforced TLS-RPT (TLS Reporting) SPF (Sender Policy Framework) DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail) DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance) with reporting MTA-STS (Mail Transfer Agent Strict Transport Security) Data Loss Prevention controls These technologies work together to ensure encrypted email transmission, validate sender identity, prevent unauthorized use of domains, and reduce the risk of sensitive data leaks. Get in touch When Do NZ Government Agencies Need to Comply with this Framework? All New Zealand government agencies are expected to fully implement the Secure Government Email (SGE) Common Implementation Framework by October 2025. Agencies should begin their planning and deployment now to ensure full compliance by the deadline. The All of Government Secure Email Common Implementation Framework v1.0 What are the Mandated Requirements for Domains? Below are the exact requirements for all email-enabled domains under the new framework. ControlExact RequirementTLSMinimum TLS 1.2. TLS 1.1, 1.0, SSL, or clear-text not permitted.TLS-RPTAll email-sending domains must have TLS reporting enabled.SPFMust exist and end with -all.DKIMAll outbound email from every sending service must be DKIM-signed at the final hop.DMARCPolicy of p=reject on all email-enabled domains. adkim=s is recommended when not bulk-sending.MTA-STSEnabled and set to enforce.Implicit TLSMust be configured and enforced for every connection.Data Loss PreventionEnforce in line with the New Zealand Information Security Manual (NZISM) and Protective Security Requirements (PSR). Compliance Monitoring and Reporting The All of Government Service Delivery (AoGSD) team will be monitoring compliance with the framework. Monitoring will initially cover SPF, DMARC, and MTA-STS settings and will be expanded to include DKIM. Changes to these settings will be monitored, enabling reporting on email security compliance across all government agencies. Ongoing monitoring will highlight changes to domains, ensure new domains are set up with security in place, and monitor the implementation of future email security technologies.  Should compliance changes occur, such as an agency’s SPF record being changed from -all to ~all, this will be captured so that the AoGSD Security Team can investigate. They will then communicate directly with the agency to determine if an issue exists or if an error has occurred, reviewing each case individually. Deployment Checklist for NZ Government Compliance Enforce TLS 1.2 minimum, implicit TLS, MTA-STS & TLS-RPT SPF with -all DKIM on all outbound email DMARC p=reject  adkim=s where suitable For non-email/parked domains: SPF -all, empty DKIM, DMARC reject strict Compliance dashboard Inbound DMARC evaluation enforced DLP aligned with NZISM Start a Free Trial How EasyDMARC Can Help Government Agencies Comply EasyDMARC provides a comprehensive email security solution that simplifies the deployment and ongoing management of DNS-based email security protocols like SPF, DKIM, and DMARC with reporting. Our platform offers automated checks, real-time monitoring, and a guided setup to help government organizations quickly reach compliance. 1. TLS-RPT / MTA-STS audit EasyDMARC enables you to enable the Managed MTA-STS and TLS-RPT option with a single click. We provide the required DNS records and continuously monitor them for issues, delivering reports on TLS negotiation problems. This helps agencies ensure secure email transmission and quickly detect delivery or encryption failures. Note: In this screenshot, you can see how to deploy MTA-STS and TLS Reporting by adding just three CNAME records provided by EasyDMARC. It’s recommended to start in “testing” mode, evaluate the TLS-RPT reports, and then gradually switch your MTA-STS policy to “enforce”. The process is simple and takes just a few clicks. As shown above, EasyDMARC parses incoming TLS reports into a centralized dashboard, giving you clear visibility into delivery and encryption issues across all sending sources. 2. SPF with “-all”In the EasyDARC platform, you can run the SPF Record Generator to create a compliant record. Publish your v=spf1 record with “-all” to enforce a hard fail for unauthorized senders and prevent spoofed emails from passing SPF checks. This strengthens your domain’s protection against impersonation. Note: It is highly recommended to start adjusting your SPF record only after you begin receiving DMARC reports and identifying your legitimate email sources. As we’ll explain in more detail below, both SPF and DKIM should be adjusted after you gain visibility through reports. Making changes without proper visibility can lead to false positives, misconfigurations, and potential loss of legitimate emails. That’s why the first step should always be setting DMARC to p=none, receiving reports, analyzing them, and then gradually fixing any SPF or DKIM issues. 3. DKIM on all outbound email DKIM must be configured for all email sources sending emails on behalf of your domain. This is critical, as DKIM plays a bigger role than SPF when it comes to building domain reputation, surviving auto-forwarding, mailing lists, and other edge cases. As mentioned above, DMARC reports provide visibility into your email sources, allowing you to implement DKIM accordingly (see first screenshot). If you’re using third-party services like Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, or Mimecast, you’ll need to retrieve the public DKIM key from your provider’s admin interface (see second screenshot). EasyDMARC maintains a backend directory of over 1,400 email sources. We also give you detailed guidance on how to configure SPF and DKIM correctly for major ESPs.  Note: At the end of this article, you’ll find configuration links for well-known ESPs like Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, Zoho Mail, Amazon SES, and SendGrid – helping you avoid common misconfigurations and get aligned with SGE requirements. If you’re using a dedicated MTA (e.g., Postfix), DKIM must be implemented manually. EasyDMARC’s DKIM Record Generator lets you generate both public and private keys for your server. The private key is stored on your MTA, while the public key must be published in your DNS (see third and fourth screenshots). 4. DMARC p=reject rollout As mentioned in previous points, DMARC reporting is the first and most important step on your DMARC enforcement journey. Always start with a p=none policy and configure RUA reports to be sent to EasyDMARC. Use the report insights to identify and fix SPF and DKIM alignment issues, then gradually move to p=quarantine and finally p=reject once all legitimate email sources have been authenticated.  This phased approach ensures full protection against domain spoofing without risking legitimate email delivery. 5. adkim Strict Alignment Check This strict alignment check is not always applicable, especially if you’re using third-party bulk ESPs, such as Sendgrid, that require you to set DKIM on a subdomain level. You can set adkim=s in your DMARC TXT record, or simply enable strict mode in EasyDMARC’s Managed DMARC settings. This ensures that only emails with a DKIM signature that exactly match your domain pass alignment, adding an extra layer of protection against domain spoofing. But only do this if you are NOT a bulk sender. 6. Securing Non-Email Enabled Domains The purpose of deploying email security to non-email-enabled domains, or parked domains, is to prevent messages being spoofed from that domain. This requirement remains even if the root-level domain has SP=reject set within its DMARC record. Under this new framework, you must bulk import and mark parked domains as “Parked.” Crucially, this requires adjusting SPF settings to an empty record, setting DMARC to p=reject, and ensuring an empty DKIM record is in place: • SPF record: “v=spf1 -all”. • Wildcard DKIM record with empty public key.• DMARC record: “v=DMARC1;p=reject;adkim=s;aspf=s;rua=mailto:…”. EasyDMARC allows you to add and label parked domains for free. This is important because it helps you monitor any activity from these domains and ensure they remain protected with a strict DMARC policy of p=reject. 7. Compliance Dashboard Use EasyDMARC’s Domain Scanner to assess the security posture of each domain with a clear compliance score and risk level. The dashboard highlights configuration gaps and guides remediation steps, helping government agencies stay on track toward full compliance with the SGE Framework. 8. Inbound DMARC Evaluation Enforced You don’t need to apply any changes if you’re using Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, or other major mailbox providers. Most of them already enforce DMARC evaluation on incoming emails. However, some legacy Microsoft 365 setups may still quarantine emails that fail DMARC checks, even when the sending domain has a p=reject policy, instead of rejecting them. This behavior can be adjusted directly from your Microsoft Defender portal. Read more about this in our step-by-step guide on how to set up SPF, DKIM, and DMARC from Microsoft Defender. If you’re using a third-party mail provider that doesn’t enforce having a DMARC policy for incoming emails, which is rare, you’ll need to contact their support to request a configuration change. 9. Data Loss Prevention Aligned with NZISM The New Zealand Information Security Manual (NZISM) is the New Zealand Government’s manual on information assurance and information systems security. It includes guidance on data loss prevention (DLP), which must be followed to be aligned with the SEG. Need Help Setting up SPF and DKIM for your Email Provider? Setting up SPF and DKIM for different ESPs often requires specific configurations. Some providers require you to publish SPF and DKIM on a subdomain, while others only require DKIM, or have different formatting rules. We’ve simplified all these steps to help you avoid misconfigurations that could delay your DMARC enforcement, or worse, block legitimate emails from reaching your recipients. Below you’ll find comprehensive setup guides for Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, Zoho Mail, Amazon SES, and SendGrid. You can also explore our full blog section that covers setup instructions for many other well-known ESPs. Remember, all this information is reflected in your DMARC aggregate reports. These reports give you live visibility into your outgoing email ecosystem, helping you analyze and fix any issues specific to a given provider. Here are our step-by-step guides for the most common platforms: Google Workspace Microsoft 365 These guides will help ensure your DNS records are configured correctly as part of the Secure Government Email (SGE) Framework rollout. Meet New Government Email Security Standards With EasyDMARC New Zealand’s SEG Framework sets a clear path for government agencies to enhance their email security by October 2025. With EasyDMARC, you can meet these technical requirements efficiently and with confidence. From protocol setup to continuous monitoring and compliance tracking, EasyDMARC streamlines the entire process, ensuring strong protection against spoofing, phishing, and data loss while simplifying your transition from SEEMail.
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
  • Do you think Sony will make support for their rumored new handheld mandatory for developers?

    Red Kong XIX
    Member

    Oct 11, 2020

    13,560

    This is assuming that the handheld can play PS4 games natively without any issues, so they are not included in the poll.
    Hardware leaker Kepler said it should be able to run PS5 games, even without a patch, but with a performance impact potentially. 

    Hero_of_the_Day
    Avenger

    Oct 27, 2017

    19,958

    Isn't the rumor that games don't require patches to run on it? That would imply that support isn't mandatory, but automatic.
     

    Homura
    ▲ Legend ▲
    Member

    Aug 20, 2019

    7,232

    As the post above said, the rumor is the PS5 portable will be able to run natively any and all PS4/PS5 games.

    Of course, some games might not work properly or require specific patches, but the idea is automatic compatibility. 

    shadowman16
    Member

    Oct 25, 2017

    42,292

    Ideally you'd want stuff to pretty much work out of the box. The more you ask devs to do, the less I imagine will want to support it... Or suddenly games get parred down so that they can run on handhelds.

    I personally would just prefer a solution where its automatic. I dont really care about a Sony handheld, dont really want devs to be forced to support the thing 

    Modest_Modsoul
    Living the Dreams
    Member

    Oct 29, 2017

    28,418


     

    setmymindforopensky
    Member

    Apr 20, 2025

    67

    a lot of games have performance modes. it should run a lot of the library even without any patching. if there's multiplat im sure itll default to the PS4 ver. im not sure what theyd do for something like GTA6 but itll have a series S version so its clearly scalable enough.

    im guessing PSTV situation. support it or not we dont care. 

    reksveks
    Member

    May 17, 2022

    7,628

    Think Kepler is personally assuming the goal of running without patches is a goal and one that won't happen just cause it's too late to force it.

    It's going to be an interesting solution to an interesting problem 

    Servbot24
    The Fallen

    Oct 25, 2017

    47,826

    Obviously not. Pretty absurd question tbh.
     

    RivalGT
    Member

    Dec 13, 2017

    7,616

    This one sounds like it requires a lot of work on Sony's end, I dont think developers will need to do much for games to work.

    Granted moving forward Sony is likely to make it easier for devs to have a more input on this portable mode.

    Things working out of the box is likely the goal, and thats what Sony needs if they want this to work, but devs having more input on this mode would be a plus I think. 

    Callibretto
    Member

    Oct 25, 2017

    10,445

    Indonesia

    shadowman16 said:

    Ideally you'd want stuff to pretty much work out of the box. The more you ask devs to do, the less I imagine will want to support it... Or suddenly games get parred down so that they can run on handhelds.

    I personally would just prefer a solution where its automatic. I dont really care about a Sony handheld, dont really want devs to be forced to support the thingClick to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    depend on the game imo, asking CD Project to somehow make Witcher 4 playable on handheld might be unreasonable. but any game that can run on Switch 2 should be playable on PSPortable without much issue
     

    Pheonix1
    Member

    Jun 22, 2024

    716

    Absolutely they will. Not sure why people think it would be hard, if they hand them.the right tools most ports won't take long anyhow.
     

    skeezx
    Member

    Oct 27, 2017

    23,994

    guessing there will be a "portable approved" label with the respective games going forward, regardless whether it's a PS5 or PS6 game. and when the thing is released popular past titles will be retroactively approved by sony, and up to developers if they want to patch the bigger games to be portable friendly.

    i guess where things could get tricky/laborious for developers is whether every game going forward is required to screen for portable performance, as it's not a PC so the portable will likely disallow for running "non-approved" games at all 

    AmFreak
    Member

    Oct 26, 2017

    3,245

    They need to give people some form of guarantee that it will get games, otherwise they greatly diminish their potential success.

    The best way to do this is to make it another SKU of the contemporary console. And witheverything already running at 60fps and progression slowing to a crawl it's far easier than it had been in the past. 

    Ruck
    Member

    Oct 25, 2017

    3,105

    I mean, what is the handheld? PS6? Or an actual second console? If the former, then yes, if the latter then no
     

    TitanicFall
    Member

    Nov 12, 2017

    9,340

    Nah. It might be incentivized though. There's not much in it for devs if it's a cross buy situation.
     

    Callibretto
    Member

    Oct 25, 2017

    10,445

    Indonesia

    imo, PS6 will remain their main console, focusing on high fidelity visuals that Switch 2 and portable PC won't be able to run without huge compromise.

    PSPortable will be secondary console, something like PSPortal, but this time able to play any games that Switch2 can reasonably run. and for the high end games that it can't run, it will use streaming, either from PS6 you own, or PS+ Premium subs 

    bleits
    Member

    Oct 14, 2023

    373

    They have to if they want to be taken seriously
     

    Vic Damone Jr.
    Member

    Oct 27, 2017

    20,534

    Nope Sony doesn't mandate this stuff and it's why their second product always dies.
     

    fiendcode
    Member

    Oct 26, 2017

    26,514

    I think it depends on what the device really is, if it's more of a "Portal 2" or a "Series SP" or something else entirely. Streaming might be enough for PS6 games along with incentivized PS5/4 patches but whatever SIE does they need to make sure their inhouse teams are ALL on board this time. That was a big part of PSP/Vita's downfall, that the biggest or most important PS Studios snubbed them and the teams that did show up with support are mostly closed and gone now.
     

    Callibretto
    Member

    Oct 25, 2017

    10,445

    Indonesia

    bleits said:

    They have to if they want to be taken seriously

    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    from the last interview with PS exec about Switch 2 spec, it seems clear that PS have no plan to abandon high end console spec to switch to mobile hardware like Switch 2 and Xbox Ally.

    PS consider their high fidelity visual as advantage and differentiator from Nintendo.

    so with PS6, their top studio will eventuall make games that just won't realistically run on handheld devices.

    so having a mandate where all PS6 games is playable on handheld is simply unrealistic imo 

    danm999
    Member

    Oct 29, 2017

    19,929

    Sydney

    Incentives, not mandates.
     

    NSESN
    ▲ Legend ▲
    Member

    Oct 25, 2017

    27,729

    I think people are setting themselves for disappointment in regards for how powerful this thing will be
     

    defaltoption
    Plug in a controller and enter the Konami code
    The Fallen

    Oct 27, 2017

    12,485

    Austin

    Depends on what they call it.

    If they call it anything related to ps6, expect very bad performance, and mandates

    If they call it ps5 portable, expect bad performance and no mandates as it will be handled on their end

    If they call it a ps portable expect it to have no support from Sony and get whatever it gets just be happy it functions till they abandon it. 

    Metnut
    Member

    Apr 7, 2025

    30

    Good question OP.

    I voted the middle one. I think anything that ships for PS5 will need to work for the handheld. Question is whether that works automatically or will need patches. 

    mute
    ▲ Legend ▲
    Member

    Oct 25, 2017

    29,807

    I think that would require a level of commitment to a secondary piece of hardware that Sony hasn't shown in a long time.
     

    Patison
    Member

    Oct 27, 2017

    761

    It's difficult to say without knowing what they're planning with this device exactly. If they're fully going Switch routeor more like a Steam Deck, which will run launch games perfectly and then, as time goes on, some titles might start looking less than ideal or be unplayable at all.

    Or Series S/X, just the Series S being portable — that would be preferable but also limiting but also diminishing returns between generations so might be worth it etc.

    And if that device happens at all and its development won't be dropped soon is another question. Lots of unknowns, but I'm interested to see what Sony comes up with, as long as they'll have games to support it this time around. 

    Jammerz
    Member

    Apr 29, 2023

    1,579

    I think it will be optional support.

    However sony needs to support it with their first parties to set an example and making it as easy as possible for other devs to scale down. For sony first party games maybe use nixxes to scale down so their studios aren't bogged down. 

    Hamchan
    The Fallen

    Oct 25, 2017

    6,000

    I think 99.9% of games will be crossgen between PS5 and PS6 for the entire generation, just based on how this industry is going, so it might not be much of an issue for Sony to mandate.
     

    Advance.Wars.Sgt.
    Member

    Jun 10, 2018

    10,456

    Honestly, I'd worry more about Sony's 1st party teams than 3rd party developers since they were notoriously adverse making software with a handheld power profile in mind.
     

    overthewaves
    Member

    Sep 30, 2020

    1,203

    Wouldn't that hamstring the games for ps6? That's PlayStation players biggest fear they don't want a series S type situation right? They treat series S like a punching bag.
     

    Neonvisions
    Member

    Oct 27, 2017

    707

    overthewaves said:

    Wouldn't that hamstring the games for ps6? That's PlayStation players biggest fear they don't want a series S type situation right? They treat series S like a punching bag.

    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    How would that effect PS6? Are you suggesting that the Series S hamstrings games for the X? 

    Gwarm
    Member

    Nov 13, 2017

    2,902

    I'd be shocked if Sony released a device that let's you play games that haven't been patched or confirmed to run acceptably. Imagine if certain games just hard crashed the console? This is the company that wouldn't let you play certain Vita games on the PSTV even if they actually worked.
     

    bloopland33
    Member

    Mar 4, 2020

    3,845

    I wonder if they'll just do the Steam Deck thing and do a compatibility badge. You can boot whatever software you want, but it might run at 5 fps and drain your battery.

    This would be in addition to whatever efforts they're doing to make things work out of the box, of course.

    But it's hard to imagine them mandating developers ship a PS6 profile and a PS6P profile for those heavier games 5-7 years from now…

    ….but it's also hard to imagine them shipping this PS6-gen device that doesn't play everything. So maybe they Steam Deck it 

    vivftp
    Member

    Oct 29, 2017

    23,016

    My guess, every PS6 game will be mandated to support it. PS5 games will support it natively for the simpler games and will require a patch as has been rumored to run on lesser specs

    I think next gen we get PS3 and Vita emulation so the PS6 and portable will be able to play games from PSN from every past PlayStation 

    Mocha Joe
    Member

    Jun 2, 2021

    13,636

    Really need to take the Steam Deck approach and don't make it a requirement. Just make it a complementary device where it is possible to play majority of the games available on PSN.
     

    overthewaves
    Member

    Sep 30, 2020

    1,203

    Neonvisions said:

    How would that effect PS6? Are you suggesting that the Series S hamstrings games for the X?

    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    I mean did you see the reaction here to the series S announcement lol. Everyone was saying it's gonna "hold back the generation".
     

    reksveks
    Member

    May 17, 2022

    7,628

    Neonvisions said:

    How would that effect PS6? Are you suggesting that the Series S hamstrings games for the X?

    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Or the perception is that it does but the truth is that there is a lot of factors
     

    Fabs
    Member

    Aug 22, 2019

    2,827

    I can't see the forcing handheld and pro support next gen.
     

    level
    Member

    May 25, 2023

    1,427

    Definitely not

    Games already take too long to make. Extra time isn't something they'll want to reinforce to their developers. 

    gofreak
    Member

    Oct 26, 2017

    8,411

    I don't think support will be mandatory. I think they're bringing it into a reality where a growing portion of games can, or could, run without much change or effort on the developer's part on a next gen handheld. They'll lean on that natural trend rather than a policy - anything that is outside of that will just be streamable as now with the Portal.
     

    Caiusto
    Member

    Oct 25, 2017

    7,086

    If they don't want to end up with another Vita yes they will.
     

    mute
    ▲ Legend ▲
    Member

    Oct 25, 2017

    29,807

    Advance.Wars.Sgt. said:

    Honestly, I'd worry more about Sony's 1st party teams than 3rd party developers since they were notoriously adverse making software with a handheld power profile in mind.

    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    It does seem kinda unthinkable that Intergalactic would be made with a handheld in mind, for example.
     

    AmFreak
    Member

    Oct 26, 2017

    3,245

    mute said:

    It does seem kinda unthinkable that Intergalactic would be made with a handheld in mind, for example.

    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Ratchet, Returnal, Cyberpunk, etc. also weren't made "with a handheld in mind".
     

    Spoit
    Member

    Oct 28, 2017

    5,599

    Given how much of a pain the series S mandate has been, I don't see them binding even first party studios to it, especially ones that are trying to go for the cutting edge of tech. Since given AMDs timelines, is not going to be anywhere near a base PS5.

    I'm also skeptical of the claim that'll be able to play ps5 games without extensive patching. 

    Jawmuncher
    Crisis Dino
    Moderator

    Oct 25, 2017

    45,166

    Ibis Island

    No, I think the portable will handle portable stuff "automatically" for what it converts
     

    knightmawk
    Member

    Dec 12, 2018

    8,900

    I expect they'll do everything they can to make sure no one has to think about it and it's as automatic as possible. It'll technically still be part of cert, but the goal will be for it to be rare that a game fails that part of cert and has to be sent back.

    That being said, I imagine there will be some games that still don't work and developers will be able to submit for that exception. 

    RivalGT
    Member

    Dec 13, 2017

    7,616

    I think the concept here is similar to how PS4 games play on PS5, the ones with patches I mean, the game will run with a different graphics preset then it would on PS4/ PS4 Pro, so in some cases this means higher resolution or higher frame rate cap.

    What Sony needs to work on their end is getting this to work without any patches from developers. Its the only way this can work. 

    Vexii
    Member

    Oct 31, 2017

    3,103

    UK

    if they don't mandate support, it'll just be a death knell for the format. I don't think they could get away with a dedicated handheld platform now when the Switch and Steam Deck exists
     

    Mobius and Pet Octopus
    Member

    Oct 25, 2017

    17,065

    Just because a game can run on a handheld, doesn't mean that's all required for support. The UI alone likely requires changes for an optimal experience, sometimes necessary to be "playable". Small screen sizes usually needs changes.
     

    SeanMN
    Member

    Oct 28, 2017

    2,437

    If PS6 games support is optional, that will create fragmentation of the platform and uncertain software support.

    If it's part of the PS6 family and support is mandatory, I can see there being concern that if would hold the generation back with a low capability sku.

    My thoughts are this should be a PS6 and support the same as the primary console. 
    #you #think #sony #will #make
    Do you think Sony will make support for their rumored new handheld mandatory for developers?
    Red Kong XIX Member Oct 11, 2020 13,560 This is assuming that the handheld can play PS4 games natively without any issues, so they are not included in the poll. Hardware leaker Kepler said it should be able to run PS5 games, even without a patch, but with a performance impact potentially.  Hero_of_the_Day Avenger Oct 27, 2017 19,958 Isn't the rumor that games don't require patches to run on it? That would imply that support isn't mandatory, but automatic.   Homura ▲ Legend ▲ Member Aug 20, 2019 7,232 As the post above said, the rumor is the PS5 portable will be able to run natively any and all PS4/PS5 games. Of course, some games might not work properly or require specific patches, but the idea is automatic compatibility.  shadowman16 Member Oct 25, 2017 42,292 Ideally you'd want stuff to pretty much work out of the box. The more you ask devs to do, the less I imagine will want to support it... Or suddenly games get parred down so that they can run on handhelds. I personally would just prefer a solution where its automatic. I dont really care about a Sony handheld, dont really want devs to be forced to support the thing  Modest_Modsoul Living the Dreams Member Oct 29, 2017 28,418 🤷‍♂️   setmymindforopensky Member Apr 20, 2025 67 a lot of games have performance modes. it should run a lot of the library even without any patching. if there's multiplat im sure itll default to the PS4 ver. im not sure what theyd do for something like GTA6 but itll have a series S version so its clearly scalable enough. im guessing PSTV situation. support it or not we dont care.  reksveks Member May 17, 2022 7,628 Think Kepler is personally assuming the goal of running without patches is a goal and one that won't happen just cause it's too late to force it. It's going to be an interesting solution to an interesting problem  Servbot24 The Fallen Oct 25, 2017 47,826 Obviously not. Pretty absurd question tbh.   RivalGT Member Dec 13, 2017 7,616 This one sounds like it requires a lot of work on Sony's end, I dont think developers will need to do much for games to work. Granted moving forward Sony is likely to make it easier for devs to have a more input on this portable mode. Things working out of the box is likely the goal, and thats what Sony needs if they want this to work, but devs having more input on this mode would be a plus I think.  Callibretto Member Oct 25, 2017 10,445 Indonesia shadowman16 said: Ideally you'd want stuff to pretty much work out of the box. The more you ask devs to do, the less I imagine will want to support it... Or suddenly games get parred down so that they can run on handhelds. I personally would just prefer a solution where its automatic. I dont really care about a Sony handheld, dont really want devs to be forced to support the thingClick to expand... Click to shrink... depend on the game imo, asking CD Project to somehow make Witcher 4 playable on handheld might be unreasonable. but any game that can run on Switch 2 should be playable on PSPortable without much issue   Pheonix1 Member Jun 22, 2024 716 Absolutely they will. Not sure why people think it would be hard, if they hand them.the right tools most ports won't take long anyhow.   skeezx Member Oct 27, 2017 23,994 guessing there will be a "portable approved" label with the respective games going forward, regardless whether it's a PS5 or PS6 game. and when the thing is released popular past titles will be retroactively approved by sony, and up to developers if they want to patch the bigger games to be portable friendly. i guess where things could get tricky/laborious for developers is whether every game going forward is required to screen for portable performance, as it's not a PC so the portable will likely disallow for running "non-approved" games at all  AmFreak Member Oct 26, 2017 3,245 They need to give people some form of guarantee that it will get games, otherwise they greatly diminish their potential success. The best way to do this is to make it another SKU of the contemporary console. And witheverything already running at 60fps and progression slowing to a crawl it's far easier than it had been in the past.  Ruck Member Oct 25, 2017 3,105 I mean, what is the handheld? PS6? Or an actual second console? If the former, then yes, if the latter then no   TitanicFall Member Nov 12, 2017 9,340 Nah. It might be incentivized though. There's not much in it for devs if it's a cross buy situation.   Callibretto Member Oct 25, 2017 10,445 Indonesia imo, PS6 will remain their main console, focusing on high fidelity visuals that Switch 2 and portable PC won't be able to run without huge compromise. PSPortable will be secondary console, something like PSPortal, but this time able to play any games that Switch2 can reasonably run. and for the high end games that it can't run, it will use streaming, either from PS6 you own, or PS+ Premium subs  bleits Member Oct 14, 2023 373 They have to if they want to be taken seriously   Vic Damone Jr. Member Oct 27, 2017 20,534 Nope Sony doesn't mandate this stuff and it's why their second product always dies.   fiendcode Member Oct 26, 2017 26,514 I think it depends on what the device really is, if it's more of a "Portal 2" or a "Series SP" or something else entirely. Streaming might be enough for PS6 games along with incentivized PS5/4 patches but whatever SIE does they need to make sure their inhouse teams are ALL on board this time. That was a big part of PSP/Vita's downfall, that the biggest or most important PS Studios snubbed them and the teams that did show up with support are mostly closed and gone now.   Callibretto Member Oct 25, 2017 10,445 Indonesia bleits said: They have to if they want to be taken seriously Click to expand... Click to shrink... from the last interview with PS exec about Switch 2 spec, it seems clear that PS have no plan to abandon high end console spec to switch to mobile hardware like Switch 2 and Xbox Ally. PS consider their high fidelity visual as advantage and differentiator from Nintendo. so with PS6, their top studio will eventuall make games that just won't realistically run on handheld devices. so having a mandate where all PS6 games is playable on handheld is simply unrealistic imo  danm999 Member Oct 29, 2017 19,929 Sydney Incentives, not mandates.   NSESN ▲ Legend ▲ Member Oct 25, 2017 27,729 I think people are setting themselves for disappointment in regards for how powerful this thing will be   defaltoption Plug in a controller and enter the Konami code The Fallen Oct 27, 2017 12,485 Austin Depends on what they call it. If they call it anything related to ps6, expect very bad performance, and mandates If they call it ps5 portable, expect bad performance and no mandates as it will be handled on their end If they call it a ps portable expect it to have no support from Sony and get whatever it gets just be happy it functions till they abandon it.  Metnut Member Apr 7, 2025 30 Good question OP. I voted the middle one. I think anything that ships for PS5 will need to work for the handheld. Question is whether that works automatically or will need patches.  mute ▲ Legend ▲ Member Oct 25, 2017 29,807 I think that would require a level of commitment to a secondary piece of hardware that Sony hasn't shown in a long time.   Patison Member Oct 27, 2017 761 It's difficult to say without knowing what they're planning with this device exactly. If they're fully going Switch routeor more like a Steam Deck, which will run launch games perfectly and then, as time goes on, some titles might start looking less than ideal or be unplayable at all. Or Series S/X, just the Series S being portable — that would be preferable but also limiting but also diminishing returns between generations so might be worth it etc. And if that device happens at all and its development won't be dropped soon is another question. Lots of unknowns, but I'm interested to see what Sony comes up with, as long as they'll have games to support it this time around.  Jammerz Member Apr 29, 2023 1,579 I think it will be optional support. However sony needs to support it with their first parties to set an example and making it as easy as possible for other devs to scale down. For sony first party games maybe use nixxes to scale down so their studios aren't bogged down.  Hamchan The Fallen Oct 25, 2017 6,000 I think 99.9% of games will be crossgen between PS5 and PS6 for the entire generation, just based on how this industry is going, so it might not be much of an issue for Sony to mandate.   Advance.Wars.Sgt. Member Jun 10, 2018 10,456 Honestly, I'd worry more about Sony's 1st party teams than 3rd party developers since they were notoriously adverse making software with a handheld power profile in mind.   overthewaves Member Sep 30, 2020 1,203 Wouldn't that hamstring the games for ps6? That's PlayStation players biggest fear they don't want a series S type situation right? They treat series S like a punching bag.   Neonvisions Member Oct 27, 2017 707 overthewaves said: Wouldn't that hamstring the games for ps6? That's PlayStation players biggest fear they don't want a series S type situation right? They treat series S like a punching bag. Click to expand... Click to shrink... How would that effect PS6? Are you suggesting that the Series S hamstrings games for the X?  Gwarm Member Nov 13, 2017 2,902 I'd be shocked if Sony released a device that let's you play games that haven't been patched or confirmed to run acceptably. Imagine if certain games just hard crashed the console? This is the company that wouldn't let you play certain Vita games on the PSTV even if they actually worked.   bloopland33 Member Mar 4, 2020 3,845 I wonder if they'll just do the Steam Deck thing and do a compatibility badge. You can boot whatever software you want, but it might run at 5 fps and drain your battery. This would be in addition to whatever efforts they're doing to make things work out of the box, of course. But it's hard to imagine them mandating developers ship a PS6 profile and a PS6P profile for those heavier games 5-7 years from now… ….but it's also hard to imagine them shipping this PS6-gen device that doesn't play everything. So maybe they Steam Deck it  vivftp Member Oct 29, 2017 23,016 My guess, every PS6 game will be mandated to support it. PS5 games will support it natively for the simpler games and will require a patch as has been rumored to run on lesser specs I think next gen we get PS3 and Vita emulation so the PS6 and portable will be able to play games from PSN from every past PlayStation  Mocha Joe Member Jun 2, 2021 13,636 Really need to take the Steam Deck approach and don't make it a requirement. Just make it a complementary device where it is possible to play majority of the games available on PSN.   overthewaves Member Sep 30, 2020 1,203 Neonvisions said: How would that effect PS6? Are you suggesting that the Series S hamstrings games for the X? Click to expand... Click to shrink... I mean did you see the reaction here to the series S announcement lol. Everyone was saying it's gonna "hold back the generation".   reksveks Member May 17, 2022 7,628 Neonvisions said: How would that effect PS6? Are you suggesting that the Series S hamstrings games for the X? Click to expand... Click to shrink... Or the perception is that it does but the truth is that there is a lot of factors   Fabs Member Aug 22, 2019 2,827 I can't see the forcing handheld and pro support next gen.   level Member May 25, 2023 1,427 Definitely not Games already take too long to make. Extra time isn't something they'll want to reinforce to their developers.  gofreak Member Oct 26, 2017 8,411 I don't think support will be mandatory. I think they're bringing it into a reality where a growing portion of games can, or could, run without much change or effort on the developer's part on a next gen handheld. They'll lean on that natural trend rather than a policy - anything that is outside of that will just be streamable as now with the Portal.   Caiusto Member Oct 25, 2017 7,086 If they don't want to end up with another Vita yes they will.   mute ▲ Legend ▲ Member Oct 25, 2017 29,807 Advance.Wars.Sgt. said: Honestly, I'd worry more about Sony's 1st party teams than 3rd party developers since they were notoriously adverse making software with a handheld power profile in mind. Click to expand... Click to shrink... It does seem kinda unthinkable that Intergalactic would be made with a handheld in mind, for example.   AmFreak Member Oct 26, 2017 3,245 mute said: It does seem kinda unthinkable that Intergalactic would be made with a handheld in mind, for example. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Ratchet, Returnal, Cyberpunk, etc. also weren't made "with a handheld in mind".   Spoit Member Oct 28, 2017 5,599 Given how much of a pain the series S mandate has been, I don't see them binding even first party studios to it, especially ones that are trying to go for the cutting edge of tech. Since given AMDs timelines, is not going to be anywhere near a base PS5. I'm also skeptical of the claim that'll be able to play ps5 games without extensive patching.  Jawmuncher Crisis Dino Moderator Oct 25, 2017 45,166 Ibis Island No, I think the portable will handle portable stuff "automatically" for what it converts   knightmawk Member Dec 12, 2018 8,900 I expect they'll do everything they can to make sure no one has to think about it and it's as automatic as possible. It'll technically still be part of cert, but the goal will be for it to be rare that a game fails that part of cert and has to be sent back. That being said, I imagine there will be some games that still don't work and developers will be able to submit for that exception.  RivalGT Member Dec 13, 2017 7,616 I think the concept here is similar to how PS4 games play on PS5, the ones with patches I mean, the game will run with a different graphics preset then it would on PS4/ PS4 Pro, so in some cases this means higher resolution or higher frame rate cap. What Sony needs to work on their end is getting this to work without any patches from developers. Its the only way this can work.  Vexii Member Oct 31, 2017 3,103 UK if they don't mandate support, it'll just be a death knell for the format. I don't think they could get away with a dedicated handheld platform now when the Switch and Steam Deck exists   Mobius and Pet Octopus Member Oct 25, 2017 17,065 Just because a game can run on a handheld, doesn't mean that's all required for support. The UI alone likely requires changes for an optimal experience, sometimes necessary to be "playable". Small screen sizes usually needs changes.   SeanMN Member Oct 28, 2017 2,437 If PS6 games support is optional, that will create fragmentation of the platform and uncertain software support. If it's part of the PS6 family and support is mandatory, I can see there being concern that if would hold the generation back with a low capability sku. My thoughts are this should be a PS6 and support the same as the primary console.  #you #think #sony #will #make
    WWW.RESETERA.COM
    Do you think Sony will make support for their rumored new handheld mandatory for developers?
    Red Kong XIX Member Oct 11, 2020 13,560 This is assuming that the handheld can play PS4 games natively without any issues, so they are not included in the poll. Hardware leaker Kepler said it should be able to run PS5 games, even without a patch, but with a performance impact potentially.  Hero_of_the_Day Avenger Oct 27, 2017 19,958 Isn't the rumor that games don't require patches to run on it? That would imply that support isn't mandatory, but automatic.   Homura ▲ Legend ▲ Member Aug 20, 2019 7,232 As the post above said, the rumor is the PS5 portable will be able to run natively any and all PS4/PS5 games. Of course, some games might not work properly or require specific patches, but the idea is automatic compatibility.  shadowman16 Member Oct 25, 2017 42,292 Ideally you'd want stuff to pretty much work out of the box. The more you ask devs to do, the less I imagine will want to support it... Or suddenly games get parred down so that they can run on handhelds (which considering how people hated cross gen for that reason, they'd hate it here as well). I personally would just prefer a solution where its automatic. I dont really care about a Sony handheld, dont really want devs to be forced to support the thing (considering how shit Sony is at supporting its peripherals - like the Vita or PSVR2)  Modest_Modsoul Living the Dreams Member Oct 29, 2017 28,418 🤷‍♂️   setmymindforopensky Member Apr 20, 2025 67 a lot of games have performance modes. it should run a lot of the library even without any patching. if there's multiplat im sure itll default to the PS4 ver. im not sure what theyd do for something like GTA6 but itll have a series S version so its clearly scalable enough. im guessing PSTV situation. support it or not we dont care.  reksveks Member May 17, 2022 7,628 Think Kepler is personally assuming the goal of running without patches is a goal and one that won't happen just cause it's too late to force it. It's going to be an interesting solution to an interesting problem  Servbot24 The Fallen Oct 25, 2017 47,826 Obviously not. Pretty absurd question tbh.   RivalGT Member Dec 13, 2017 7,616 This one sounds like it requires a lot of work on Sony's end, I dont think developers will need to do much for games to work. Granted moving forward Sony is likely to make it easier for devs to have a more input on this portable mode. Things working out of the box is likely the goal, and thats what Sony needs if they want this to work, but devs having more input on this mode would be a plus I think.  Callibretto Member Oct 25, 2017 10,445 Indonesia shadowman16 said: Ideally you'd want stuff to pretty much work out of the box. The more you ask devs to do, the less I imagine will want to support it... Or suddenly games get parred down so that they can run on handhelds (which considering how people hated cross gen for that reason, they'd hate it here as well). I personally would just prefer a solution where its automatic. I dont really care about a Sony handheld, dont really want devs to be forced to support the thing (considering how shit Sony is at supporting its peripherals - like the Vita or PSVR2) Click to expand... Click to shrink... depend on the game imo, asking CD Project to somehow make Witcher 4 playable on handheld might be unreasonable. but any game that can run on Switch 2 should be playable on PSPortable without much issue   Pheonix1 Member Jun 22, 2024 716 Absolutely they will. Not sure why people think it would be hard, if they hand them.the right tools most ports won't take long anyhow.   skeezx Member Oct 27, 2017 23,994 guessing there will be a "portable approved" label with the respective games going forward, regardless whether it's a PS5 or PS6 game. and when the thing is released popular past titles will be retroactively approved by sony, and up to developers if they want to patch the bigger games to be portable friendly. i guess where things could get tricky/laborious for developers is whether every game going forward is required to screen for portable performance, as it's not a PC so the portable will likely disallow for running "non-approved" games at all  AmFreak Member Oct 26, 2017 3,245 They need to give people some form of guarantee that it will get games, otherwise they greatly diminish their potential success. The best way to do this is to make it another SKU of the contemporary console. And with (close to) everything already running at 60fps and progression slowing to a crawl it's far easier than it had been in the past.  Ruck Member Oct 25, 2017 3,105 I mean, what is the handheld? PS6? Or an actual second console? If the former, then yes, if the latter then no   TitanicFall Member Nov 12, 2017 9,340 Nah. It might be incentivized though. There's not much in it for devs if it's a cross buy situation.   Callibretto Member Oct 25, 2017 10,445 Indonesia imo, PS6 will remain their main console, focusing on high fidelity visuals that Switch 2 and portable PC won't be able to run without huge compromise. PSPortable will be secondary console, something like PSPortal, but this time able to play any games that Switch2 can reasonably run. and for the high end games that it can't run, it will use streaming, either from PS6 you own, or PS+ Premium subs  bleits Member Oct 14, 2023 373 They have to if they want to be taken seriously   Vic Damone Jr. Member Oct 27, 2017 20,534 Nope Sony doesn't mandate this stuff and it's why their second product always dies.   fiendcode Member Oct 26, 2017 26,514 I think it depends on what the device really is, if it's more of a "Portal 2" or a "Series SP" or something else entirely (PSP3?). Streaming might be enough for PS6 games along with incentivized PS5/4 patches but whatever SIE does they need to make sure their inhouse teams are ALL on board this time. That was a big part of PSP/Vita's downfall, that the biggest or most important PS Studios snubbed them and the teams that did show up with support are mostly closed and gone now.   Callibretto Member Oct 25, 2017 10,445 Indonesia bleits said: They have to if they want to be taken seriously Click to expand... Click to shrink... from the last interview with PS exec about Switch 2 spec, it seems clear that PS have no plan to abandon high end console spec to switch to mobile hardware like Switch 2 and Xbox Ally. PS consider their high fidelity visual as advantage and differentiator from Nintendo. so with PS6, their top studio will eventuall make games that just won't realistically run on handheld devices. so having a mandate where all PS6 games is playable on handheld is simply unrealistic imo  danm999 Member Oct 29, 2017 19,929 Sydney Incentives, not mandates.   NSESN ▲ Legend ▲ Member Oct 25, 2017 27,729 I think people are setting themselves for disappointment in regards for how powerful this thing will be   defaltoption Plug in a controller and enter the Konami code The Fallen Oct 27, 2017 12,485 Austin Depends on what they call it. If they call it anything related to ps6, expect very bad performance, and mandates If they call it ps5 portable, expect bad performance and no mandates as it will be handled on their end If they call it a ps portable expect it to have no support from Sony and get whatever it gets just be happy it functions till they abandon it.  Metnut Member Apr 7, 2025 30 Good question OP. I voted the middle one. I think anything that ships for PS5 will need to work for the handheld. Question is whether that works automatically or will need patches.  mute ▲ Legend ▲ Member Oct 25, 2017 29,807 I think that would require a level of commitment to a secondary piece of hardware that Sony hasn't shown in a long time.   Patison Member Oct 27, 2017 761 It's difficult to say without knowing what they're planning with this device exactly. If they're fully going Switch route (or PS Vita/PS TV route) or more like a Steam Deck, which will run launch games perfectly and then, as time goes on, some titles might start looking less than ideal or be unplayable at all. Or Series S/X, just the Series S being portable — that would be preferable but also limiting but also diminishing returns between generations so might be worth it etc. And if that device happens at all and its development won't be dropped soon is another question. Lots of unknowns, but I'm interested to see what Sony comes up with, as long as they'll have games to support it this time around.  Jammerz Member Apr 29, 2023 1,579 I think it will be optional support. However sony needs to support it with their first parties to set an example and making it as easy as possible for other devs to scale down. For sony first party games maybe use nixxes to scale down so their studios aren't bogged down.  Hamchan The Fallen Oct 25, 2017 6,000 I think 99.9% of games will be crossgen between PS5 and PS6 for the entire generation, just based on how this industry is going, so it might not be much of an issue for Sony to mandate.   Advance.Wars.Sgt. Member Jun 10, 2018 10,456 Honestly, I'd worry more about Sony's 1st party teams than 3rd party developers since they were notoriously adverse making software with a handheld power profile in mind.   overthewaves Member Sep 30, 2020 1,203 Wouldn't that hamstring the games for ps6? That's PlayStation players biggest fear they don't want a series S type situation right? They treat series S like a punching bag.   Neonvisions Member Oct 27, 2017 707 overthewaves said: Wouldn't that hamstring the games for ps6? That's PlayStation players biggest fear they don't want a series S type situation right? They treat series S like a punching bag. Click to expand... Click to shrink... How would that effect PS6? Are you suggesting that the Series S hamstrings games for the X?  Gwarm Member Nov 13, 2017 2,902 I'd be shocked if Sony released a device that let's you play games that haven't been patched or confirmed to run acceptably. Imagine if certain games just hard crashed the console? This is the company that wouldn't let you play certain Vita games on the PSTV even if they actually worked.   bloopland33 Member Mar 4, 2020 3,845 I wonder if they'll just do the Steam Deck thing and do a compatibility badge. You can boot whatever software you want, but it might run at 5 fps and drain your battery. This would be in addition to whatever efforts they're doing to make things work out of the box, of course. But it's hard to imagine them mandating developers ship a PS6 profile and a PS6P profile for those heavier games 5-7 years from now… ….but it's also hard to imagine them shipping this PS6-gen device that doesn't play everything (depending on how they position it). So maybe they Steam Deck it  vivftp Member Oct 29, 2017 23,016 My guess, every PS6 game will be mandated to support it. PS5 games will support it natively for the simpler games and will require a patch as has been rumored to run on lesser specs I think next gen we get PS3 and Vita emulation so the PS6 and portable will be able to play games from PSN from every past PlayStation  Mocha Joe Member Jun 2, 2021 13,636 Really need to take the Steam Deck approach and don't make it a requirement. Just make it a complementary device where it is possible to play majority of the games available on PSN.   overthewaves Member Sep 30, 2020 1,203 Neonvisions said: How would that effect PS6? Are you suggesting that the Series S hamstrings games for the X? Click to expand... Click to shrink... I mean did you see the reaction here to the series S announcement lol. Everyone was saying it's gonna "hold back the generation".   reksveks Member May 17, 2022 7,628 Neonvisions said: How would that effect PS6? Are you suggesting that the Series S hamstrings games for the X? Click to expand... Click to shrink... Or the perception is that it does but the truth is that there is a lot of factors   Fabs Member Aug 22, 2019 2,827 I can't see the forcing handheld and pro support next gen.   level Member May 25, 2023 1,427 Definitely not Games already take too long to make. Extra time isn't something they'll want to reinforce to their developers.  gofreak Member Oct 26, 2017 8,411 I don't think support will be mandatory. I think they're bringing it into a reality where a growing portion of games can, or could, run without much change or effort on the developer's part on a next gen handheld. They'll lean on that natural trend rather than a policy - anything that is outside of that will just be streamable as now with the Portal.   Caiusto Member Oct 25, 2017 7,086 If they don't want to end up with another Vita yes they will.   mute ▲ Legend ▲ Member Oct 25, 2017 29,807 Advance.Wars.Sgt. said: Honestly, I'd worry more about Sony's 1st party teams than 3rd party developers since they were notoriously adverse making software with a handheld power profile in mind. Click to expand... Click to shrink... It does seem kinda unthinkable that Intergalactic would be made with a handheld in mind, for example.   AmFreak Member Oct 26, 2017 3,245 mute said: It does seem kinda unthinkable that Intergalactic would be made with a handheld in mind, for example. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Ratchet, Returnal, Cyberpunk, etc. also weren't made "with a handheld in mind".   Spoit Member Oct 28, 2017 5,599 Given how much of a pain the series S mandate has been, I don't see them binding even first party studios to it, especially ones that are trying to go for the cutting edge of tech. Since given AMDs timelines, is not going to be anywhere near a base PS5. I'm also skeptical of the claim that'll be able to play ps5 games without extensive patching.  Jawmuncher Crisis Dino Moderator Oct 25, 2017 45,166 Ibis Island No, I think the portable will handle portable stuff "automatically" for what it converts   knightmawk Member Dec 12, 2018 8,900 I expect they'll do everything they can to make sure no one has to think about it and it's as automatic as possible. It'll technically still be part of cert, but the goal will be for it to be rare that a game fails that part of cert and has to be sent back. That being said, I imagine there will be some games that still don't work and developers will be able to submit for that exception.  RivalGT Member Dec 13, 2017 7,616 I think the concept here is similar to how PS4 games play on PS5, the ones with patches I mean, the game will run with a different graphics preset then it would on PS4/ PS4 Pro, so in some cases this means higher resolution or higher frame rate cap. What Sony needs to work on their end is getting this to work without any patches from developers. Its the only way this can work.  Vexii Member Oct 31, 2017 3,103 UK if they don't mandate support, it'll just be a death knell for the format. I don't think they could get away with a dedicated handheld platform now when the Switch and Steam Deck exists   Mobius and Pet Octopus Member Oct 25, 2017 17,065 Just because a game can run on a handheld, doesn't mean that's all required for support. The UI alone likely requires changes for an optimal experience, sometimes necessary to be "playable". Small screen sizes usually needs changes.   SeanMN Member Oct 28, 2017 2,437 If PS6 games support is optional, that will create fragmentation of the platform and uncertain software support. If it's part of the PS6 family and support is mandatory, I can see there being concern that if would hold the generation back with a low capability sku. My thoughts are this should be a PS6 and support the same as the primary console. 
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
  • Leaked Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 Series Renders Reveal 3 Smartwatches With Squircle Design: Report

    Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 series is expected to make its debut later this year alongside the next-generation foldables. As we wait for the official unveil, renders of the purported smartwatches have surfaced which corroborate previous leaks and suggest that Samsung could bring the unique “Squircle” design of the Galaxy Watch Ultra to other models this year. According to a report, a total of three smartwatches may be launched as part of the Galaxy Watch 8 lineup.Squircle Design of Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 SeriesAndroid Headlines shared exclusive renders of the Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 series in a report. The publication claims that three smartwatches will be introduced this year — Galaxy Watch 8, Galaxy Watch 8 Classic, and a Galaxy Watch Ultra successor, and all three models will sport a squircle design which debuted last year with the Galaxy Watch Ultra.Photo Credit: Android HeadlinesIt is expected to comprise a circular display housed inside a square dial. Renders also suggest that the standard Galaxy Watch 8 will have a two-button design, while the Watch 8 Classic and 2025 Watch Ultra models could be equipped with three buttons, including a Quick button which may be accented in a different colour.Notably, it is a customisable button which is designed to toggle a workout mode or for playing a siren on the Galaxy Watch Ultra.The purported Galaxy Watch 8 Classic is also shown sporting a rotating physical dial, similar to other Classic models of the past. This usually gives it a more traditional watch aesthetic while retaining smartwatch functionality.This report corroborates a previous discovery in the animation files of the leaked One UI 8 Watch which hinted towards the implementation of the squircle design across Samsung's next generation Galaxy Watch lineup. The unreleased firmware contained references of two smartwatches — the Galaxy Watch 8 and Galaxy Watch 8 Classic.

    Further, the report also suggested that the smartwatches could also benefit from stronger vibrations, aided by extended vibration pattern support akin to the flagship Galaxy Watch Ultra.
    #leaked #samsung #galaxy #watch #series
    Leaked Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 Series Renders Reveal 3 Smartwatches With Squircle Design: Report
    Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 series is expected to make its debut later this year alongside the next-generation foldables. As we wait for the official unveil, renders of the purported smartwatches have surfaced which corroborate previous leaks and suggest that Samsung could bring the unique “Squircle” design of the Galaxy Watch Ultra to other models this year. According to a report, a total of three smartwatches may be launched as part of the Galaxy Watch 8 lineup.Squircle Design of Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 SeriesAndroid Headlines shared exclusive renders of the Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 series in a report. The publication claims that three smartwatches will be introduced this year — Galaxy Watch 8, Galaxy Watch 8 Classic, and a Galaxy Watch Ultra successor, and all three models will sport a squircle design which debuted last year with the Galaxy Watch Ultra.Photo Credit: Android HeadlinesIt is expected to comprise a circular display housed inside a square dial. Renders also suggest that the standard Galaxy Watch 8 will have a two-button design, while the Watch 8 Classic and 2025 Watch Ultra models could be equipped with three buttons, including a Quick button which may be accented in a different colour.Notably, it is a customisable button which is designed to toggle a workout mode or for playing a siren on the Galaxy Watch Ultra.The purported Galaxy Watch 8 Classic is also shown sporting a rotating physical dial, similar to other Classic models of the past. This usually gives it a more traditional watch aesthetic while retaining smartwatch functionality.This report corroborates a previous discovery in the animation files of the leaked One UI 8 Watch which hinted towards the implementation of the squircle design across Samsung's next generation Galaxy Watch lineup. The unreleased firmware contained references of two smartwatches — the Galaxy Watch 8 and Galaxy Watch 8 Classic. Further, the report also suggested that the smartwatches could also benefit from stronger vibrations, aided by extended vibration pattern support akin to the flagship Galaxy Watch Ultra. #leaked #samsung #galaxy #watch #series
    WWW.GADGETS360.COM
    Leaked Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 Series Renders Reveal 3 Smartwatches With Squircle Design: Report
    Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 series is expected to make its debut later this year alongside the next-generation foldables. As we wait for the official unveil, renders of the purported smartwatches have surfaced which corroborate previous leaks and suggest that Samsung could bring the unique “Squircle” design of the Galaxy Watch Ultra to other models this year. According to a report, a total of three smartwatches may be launched as part of the Galaxy Watch 8 lineup.Squircle Design of Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 SeriesAndroid Headlines shared exclusive renders of the Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 series in a report. The publication claims that three smartwatches will be introduced this year — Galaxy Watch 8, Galaxy Watch 8 Classic, and a Galaxy Watch Ultra successor, and all three models will sport a squircle design which debuted last year with the Galaxy Watch Ultra.Photo Credit: Android HeadlinesIt is expected to comprise a circular display housed inside a square dial. Renders also suggest that the standard Galaxy Watch 8 will have a two-button design, while the Watch 8 Classic and 2025 Watch Ultra models could be equipped with three buttons, including a Quick button which may be accented in a different colour.Notably, it is a customisable button which is designed to toggle a workout mode or for playing a siren on the Galaxy Watch Ultra.The purported Galaxy Watch 8 Classic is also shown sporting a rotating physical dial, similar to other Classic models of the past. This usually gives it a more traditional watch aesthetic while retaining smartwatch functionality.This report corroborates a previous discovery in the animation files of the leaked One UI 8 Watch which hinted towards the implementation of the squircle design across Samsung's next generation Galaxy Watch lineup. The unreleased firmware contained references of two smartwatches — the Galaxy Watch 8 and Galaxy Watch 8 Classic. Further, the report also suggested that the smartwatches could also benefit from stronger vibrations, aided by extended vibration pattern support akin to the flagship Galaxy Watch Ultra.
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
  • How AI is reshaping the future of healthcare and medical research

    Transcript       
    PETER LEE: “In ‘The Little Black Bag,’ a classic science fiction story, a high-tech doctor’s kit of the future is accidentally transported back to the 1950s, into the shaky hands of a washed-up, alcoholic doctor. The ultimate medical tool, it redeems the doctor wielding it, allowing him to practice gratifyingly heroic medicine. … The tale ends badly for the doctor and his treacherous assistant, but it offered a picture of how advanced technology could transform medicine—powerful when it was written nearly 75 years ago and still so today. What would be the Al equivalent of that little black bag? At this moment when new capabilities are emerging, how do we imagine them into medicine?”          
    This is The AI Revolution in Medicine, Revisited. I’m your host, Peter Lee.   
    Shortly after OpenAI’s GPT-4 was publicly released, Carey Goldberg, Dr. Zak Kohane, and I published The AI Revolution in Medicine to help educate the world of healthcare and medical research about the transformative impact this new generative AI technology could have. But because we wrote the book when GPT-4 was still a secret, we had to speculate. Now, two years later, what did we get right, and what did we get wrong?    
    In this series, we’ll talk to clinicians, patients, hospital administrators, and others to understand the reality of AI in the field and where we go from here.  The book passage I read at the top is from “Chapter 10: The Big Black Bag.” 
    In imagining AI in medicine, Carey, Zak, and I included in our book two fictional accounts. In the first, a medical resident consults GPT-4 on her personal phone as the patient in front of her crashes. Within seconds, it offers an alternate response based on recent literature. In the second account, a 90-year-old woman with several chronic conditions is living independently and receiving near-constant medical support from an AI aide.   
    In our conversations with the guests we’ve spoken to so far, we’ve caught a glimpse of these predicted futures, seeing how clinicians and patients are actually using AI today and how developers are leveraging the technology in the healthcare products and services they’re creating. In fact, that first fictional account isn’t so fictional after all, as most of the doctors in the real world actually appear to be using AI at least occasionally—and sometimes much more than occasionally—to help in their daily clinical work. And as for the second fictional account, which is more of a science fiction account, it seems we are indeed on the verge of a new way of delivering and receiving healthcare, though the future is still very much open. 
    As we continue to examine the current state of AI in healthcare and its potential to transform the field, I’m pleased to welcome Bill Gates and Sébastien Bubeck.  
    Bill may be best known as the co-founder of Microsoft, having created the company with his childhood friend Paul Allen in 1975. He’s now the founder of Breakthrough Energy, which aims to advance clean energy innovation, and TerraPower, a company developing groundbreaking nuclear energy and science technologies. He also chairs the world’s largest philanthropic organization, the Gates Foundation, and focuses on solving a variety of health challenges around the globe and here at home. 
    Sébastien is a research lead at OpenAI. He was previously a distinguished scientist, vice president of AI, and a colleague of mine here at Microsoft, where his work included spearheading the development of the family of small language models known as Phi. While at Microsoft, he also coauthored the discussion-provoking 2023 paper “Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence,” which presented the results of early experiments with GPT-4 conducted by a small team from Microsoft Research.     
    Here’s my conversation with Bill Gates and Sébastien Bubeck. 
    LEE: Bill, welcome. 
    BILL GATES: Thank you. 
    LEE: Seb … 
    SÉBASTIEN BUBECK: Yeah. Hi, hi, Peter. Nice to be here. 
    LEE: You know, one of the things that I’ve been doing just to get the conversation warmed up is to talk about origin stories, and what I mean about origin stories is, you know, what was the first contact that you had with large language models or the concept of generative AI that convinced you or made you think that something really important was happening? 
    And so, Bill, I think I’ve heard the story about, you know, the time when the OpenAI folks—Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and others—showed you something, but could we hear from you what those early encounters were like and what was going through your mind?  
    GATES: Well, I’d been visiting OpenAI soon after it was created to see things like GPT-2 and to see the little arm they had that was trying to match human manipulation and, you know, looking at their games like Dota that they were trying to get as good as human play. And honestly, I didn’t think the language model stuff they were doing, even when they got to GPT-3, would show the ability to learn, you know, in the same sense that a human reads a biology book and is able to take that knowledge and access it not only to pass a test but also to create new medicines. 
    And so my challenge to them was that if their LLM could get a five on the advanced placement biology test, then I would say, OK, it took biologic knowledge and encoded it in an accessible way and that I didn’t expect them to do that very quickly but it would be profound.  
    And it was only about six months after I challenged them to do that, that an early version of GPT-4 they brought up to a dinner at my house, and in fact, it answered most of the questions that night very well. The one it got totally wrong, we were … because it was so good, we kept thinking, Oh, we must be wrong. It turned out it was a math weaknessthat, you know, we later understood that that was an area of, weirdly, of incredible weakness of those early models. But, you know, that was when I realized, OK, the age of cheap intelligence was at its beginning. 
    LEE: Yeah. So I guess it seems like you had something similar to me in that my first encounters, I actually harbored some skepticism. Is it fair to say you were skeptical before that? 
    GATES: Well, the idea that we’ve figured out how to encode and access knowledge in this very deep sense without even understanding the nature of the encoding, … 
    LEE: Right.  
    GATES: … that is a bit weird.  
    LEE: Yeah. 
    GATES: We have an algorithm that creates the computation, but even say, OK, where is the president’s birthday stored in there? Where is this fact stored in there? The fact that even now when we’re playing around, getting a little bit more sense of it, it’s opaque to us what the semantic encoding is, it’s, kind of, amazing to me. I thought the invention of knowledge storage would be an explicit way of encoding knowledge, not an implicit statistical training. 
    LEE: Yeah, yeah. All right. So, Seb, you know, on this same topic, you know, I got—as we say at Microsoft—I got pulled into the tent. 
    BUBECK: Yes.  
    LEE: Because this was a very secret project. And then, um, I had the opportunity to select a small number of researchers in MSRto join and start investigating this thing seriously. And the first person I pulled in was you. 
    BUBECK: Yeah. 
    LEE: And so what were your first encounters? Because I actually don’t remember what happened then. 
    BUBECK: Oh, I remember it very well.My first encounter with GPT-4 was in a meeting with the two of you, actually. But my kind of first contact, the first moment where I realized that something was happening with generative AI, was before that. And I agree with Bill that I also wasn’t too impressed by GPT-3. 
    I though that it was kind of, you know, very naturally mimicking the web, sort of parroting what was written there in a nice way. Still in a way which seemed very impressive. But it wasn’t really intelligent in any way. But shortly after GPT-3, there was a model before GPT-4 that really shocked me, and this was the first image generation model, DALL-E 1. 
    So that was in 2021. And I will forever remember the press release of OpenAI where they had this prompt of an avocado chair and then you had this image of the avocado chair.And what really shocked me is that clearly the model kind of “understood” what is a chair, what is an avocado, and was able to merge those concepts. 
    So this was really, to me, the first moment where I saw some understanding in those models.  
    LEE: So this was, just to get the timing right, that was before I pulled you into the tent. 
    BUBECK: That was before. That was like a year before. 
    LEE: Right.  
    BUBECK: And now I will tell you how, you know, we went from that moment to the meeting with the two of you and GPT-4. 
    So once I saw this kind of understanding, I thought, OK, fine. It understands concept, but it’s still not able to reason. It cannot—as, you know, Bill was saying—it cannot learn from your document. It cannot reason.  
    So I set out to try to prove that. You know, this is what I was in the business of at the time, trying to prove things in mathematics. So I was trying to prove that basically autoregressive transformers could never reason. So I was trying to prove this. And after a year of work, I had something reasonable to show. And so I had the meeting with the two of you, and I had this example where I wanted to say, there is no way that an LLM is going to be able to do x. 
    And then as soon as I … I don’t know if you remember, Bill. But as soon as I said that, you said, oh, but wait a second. I had, you know, the OpenAI crew at my house recently, and they showed me a new model. Why don’t we ask this new model this question?  
    LEE: Yeah.
    BUBECK: And we did, and it solved it on the spot. And that really, honestly, just changed my life. Like, you know, I had been working for a year trying to say that this was impossible. And just right there, it was shown to be possible.  
    LEE:One of the very first things I got interested in—because I was really thinking a lot about healthcare—was healthcare and medicine. 
    And I don’t know if the two of you remember, but I ended up doing a lot of tests. I ran through, you know, step one and step two of the US Medical Licensing Exam. Did a whole bunch of other things. I wrote this big report. It was, you know, I can’t remember … a couple hundred pages.  
    And I needed to share this with someone. I didn’t … there weren’t too many people I could share it with. So I sent, I think, a copy to you, Bill. Sent a copy to you, Seb.  
    I hardly slept for about a week putting that report together. And, yeah, and I kept working on it. But I was far from alone. I think everyone who was in the tent, so to speak, in those early days was going through something pretty similar. All right. So I think … of course, a lot of what I put in the report also ended up being examples that made it into the book. 
    But the main purpose of this conversation isn’t to reminisce aboutor indulge in those reminiscences but to talk about what’s happening in healthcare and medicine. And, you know, as I said, we wrote this book. We did it very, very quickly. Seb, you helped. Bill, you know, you provided a review and some endorsements. 
    But, you know, honestly, we didn’t know what we were talking about because no one had access to this thing. And so we just made a bunch of guesses. So really, the whole thing I wanted to probe with the two of you is, now with two years of experience out in the world, what, you know, what do we think is happening today? 
    You know, is AI actually having an impact, positive or negative, on healthcare and medicine? And what do we now think is going to happen in the next two years, five years, or 10 years? And so I realize it’s a little bit too abstract to just ask it that way. So let me just try to narrow the discussion and guide us a little bit.  
    Um, the kind of administrative and clerical work, paperwork, around healthcare—and we made a lot of guesses about that—that appears to be going well, but, you know, Bill, I know we’ve discussed that sometimes that you think there ought to be a lot more going on. Do you have a viewpoint on how AI is actually finding its way into reducing paperwork? 
    GATES: Well, I’m stunned … I don’t think there should be a patient-doctor meeting where the AI is not sitting in and both transcribing, offering to help with the paperwork, and even making suggestions, although the doctor will be the one, you know, who makes the final decision about the diagnosis and whatever prescription gets done.  
    It’s so helpful. You know, when that patient goes home and their, you know, son who wants to understand what happened has some questions, that AI should be available to continue that conversation. And the way you can improve that experience and streamline things and, you know, involve the people who advise you. I don’t understand why that’s not more adopted, because there you still have the human in the loop making that final decision. 
    But even for, like, follow-up calls to make sure the patient did things, to understand if they have concerns and knowing when to escalate back to the doctor, the benefit is incredible. And, you know, that thing is ready for prime time. That paradigm is ready for prime time, in my view. 
    LEE: Yeah, there are some good products, but it seems like the number one use right now—and we kind of got this from some of the previous guests in previous episodes—is the use of AI just to respond to emails from patients.Does that make sense to you? 
    BUBECK: Yeah. So maybe I want to second what Bill was saying but maybe take a step back first. You know, two years ago, like, the concept of clinical scribes, which is one of the things that we’re talking about right now, it would have sounded, in fact, it sounded two years ago, borderline dangerous. Because everybody was worried about hallucinations. What happened if you have this AI listening in and then it transcribes, you know, something wrong? 
    Now, two years later, I think it’s mostly working. And in fact, it is not yet, you know, fully adopted. You’re right. But it is in production. It is used, you know, in many, many places. So this rate of progress is astounding because it wasn’t obvious that we would be able to overcome those obstacles of hallucination. It’s not to say that hallucinations are fully solved. In the case of the closed system, they are.  
    Now, I think more generally what’s going on in the background is that there is something that we, that certainly I, underestimated, which is this management overhead. So I think the reason why this is not adopted everywhere is really a training and teaching aspect. People need to be taught, like, those systems, how to interact with them. 
    And one example that I really like, a study that recently appeared where they tried to use ChatGPT for diagnosis and they were comparing doctors without and with ChatGPT. And the amazing thing … so this was a set of cases where the accuracy of the doctors alone was around 75%. ChatGPT alone was 90%. So that’s already kind of mind blowing. But then the kicker is that doctors with ChatGPT was 80%.  
    Intelligence alone is not enough. It’s also how it’s presented, how you interact with it. And ChatGPT, it’s an amazing tool. Obviously, I absolutely love it. But it’s not … you don’t want a doctor to have to type in, you know, prompts and use it that way. 
    It should be, as Bill was saying, kind of running continuously in the background, sending you notifications. And you have to be really careful of the rate at which those notifications are being sent. Because if they are too frequent, then the doctor will learn to ignore them. So you have to … all of those things matter, in fact, at least as much as the level of intelligence of the machine. 
    LEE: One of the things I think about, Bill, in that scenario that you described, doctors do some thinking about the patient when they write the note. So, you know, I’m always a little uncertain whether it’s actually … you know, you wouldn’t necessarily want to fully automate this, I don’t think. Or at least there needs to be some prompt to the doctor to make sure that the doctor puts some thought into what happened in the encounter with the patient. Does that make sense to you at all? 
    GATES: At this stage, you know, I’d still put the onus on the doctor to write the conclusions and the summary and not delegate that. 
    The tradeoffs you make a little bit are somewhat dependent on the situation you’re in. If you’re in Africa,
    So, yes, the doctor’s still going to have to do a lot of work, but just the quality of letting the patient and the people around them interact and ask questions and have things explained, that alone is such a quality improvement. It’s mind blowing.  
    LEE: So since you mentioned, you know, Africa—and, of course, this touches on the mission and some of the priorities of the Gates Foundation and this idea of democratization of access to expert medical care—what’s the most interesting stuff going on right now? Are there people and organizations or technologies that are impressing you or that you’re tracking? 
    GATES: Yeah. So the Gates Foundation has given out a lot of grants to people in Africa doing education, agriculture but more healthcare examples than anything. And the way these things start off, they often start out either being patient-centric in a narrow situation, like, OK, I’m a pregnant woman; talk to me. Or, I have infectious disease symptoms; talk to me. Or they’re connected to a health worker where they’re helping that worker get their job done. And we have lots of pilots out, you know, in both of those cases.  
    The dream would be eventually to have the thing the patient consults be so broad that it’s like having a doctor available who understands the local things.  
    LEE: Right.  
    GATES: We’re not there yet. But over the next two or three years, you know, particularly given the worsening financial constraints against African health systems, where the withdrawal of money has been dramatic, you know, figuring out how to take this—what I sometimes call “free intelligence”—and build a quality health system around that, we will have to be more radical in low-income countries than any rich country is ever going to be.  
    LEE: Also, there’s maybe a different regulatory environment, so some of those things maybe are easier? Because right now, I think the world hasn’t figured out how to and whether to regulate, let’s say, an AI that might give a medical diagnosis or write a prescription for a medication. 
    BUBECK: Yeah. I think one issue with this, and it’s also slowing down the deployment of AI in healthcare more generally, is a lack of proper benchmark. Because, you know, you were mentioning the USMLE, for example. That’s a great test to test human beings and their knowledge of healthcare and medicine. But it’s not a great test to give to an AI. 
    It’s not asking the right questions. So finding what are the right questions to test whether an AI system is ready to give diagnosis in a constrained setting, that’s a very, very important direction, which to my surprise, is not yet accelerating at the rate that I was hoping for. 
    LEE: OK, so that gives me an excuse to get more now into the core AI tech because something I’ve discussed with both of you is this issue of what are the right tests. And you both know the very first test I give to any new spin of an LLM is I present a patient, the results—a mythical patient—the results of my physical exam, my mythical physical exam. Maybe some results of some initial labs. And then I present or propose a differential diagnosis. And if you’re not in medicine, a differential diagnosis you can just think of as a prioritized list of the possible diagnoses that fit with all that data. And in that proposed differential, I always intentionally make two mistakes. 
    I make a textbook technical error in one of the possible elements of the differential diagnosis, and I have an error of omission. And, you know, I just want to know, does the LLM understand what I’m talking about? And all the good ones out there do now. But then I want to know, can it spot the errors? And then most importantly, is it willing to tell me I’m wrong, that I’ve made a mistake?  
    That last piece seems really hard for AI today. And so let me ask you first, Seb, because at the time of this taping, of course, there was a new spin of GPT-4o last week that became overly sycophantic. In other words, it was actually prone in that test of mine not only to not tell me I’m wrong, but it actually praised me for the creativity of my differential.What’s up with that? 
    BUBECK: Yeah, I guess it’s a testament to the fact that training those models is still more of an art than a science. So it’s a difficult job. Just to be clear with the audience, we have rolled back thatversion of GPT-4o, so now we don’t have the sycophant version out there. 
    Yeah, no, it’s a really difficult question. It has to do … as you said, it’s very technical. It has to do with the post-training and how, like, where do you nudge the model? So, you know, there is this very classical by now technique called RLHF, where you push the model in the direction of a certain reward model. So the reward model is just telling the model, you know, what behavior is good, what behavior is bad. 
    But this reward model is itself an LLM, and, you know, Bill was saying at the very beginning of the conversation that we don’t really understand how those LLMs deal with concepts like, you know, where is the capital of France located? Things like that. It is the same thing for this reward model. We don’t know why it says that it prefers one output to another, and whether this is correlated with some sycophancy is, you know, something that we discovered basically just now. That if you push too hard in optimization on this reward model, you will get a sycophant model. 
    So it’s kind of … what I’m trying to say is we became too good at what we were doing, and we ended up, in fact, in a trap of the reward model. 
    LEE: I mean, you do want … it’s a difficult balance because you do want models to follow your desires and … 
    BUBECK: It’s a very difficult, very difficult balance. 
    LEE: So this brings up then the following question for me, which is the extent to which we think we’ll need to have specially trained models for things. So let me start with you, Bill. Do you have a point of view on whether we will need to, you know, quote-unquote take AI models to med school? Have them specially trained? Like, if you were going to deploy something to give medical care in underserved parts of the world, do we need to do something special to create those models? 
    GATES: We certainly need to teach them the African languages and the unique dialects so that the multimedia interactions are very high quality. We certainly need to teach them the disease prevalence and unique disease patterns like, you know, neglected tropical diseases and malaria. So we need to gather a set of facts that somebody trying to go for a US customer base, you know, wouldn’t necessarily have that in there. 
    Those two things are actually very straightforward because the additional training time is small. I’d say for the next few years, we’ll also need to do reinforcement learning about the context of being a doctor and how important certain behaviors are. Humans learn over the course of their life to some degree that, I’m in a different context and the way I behave in terms of being willing to criticize or be nice, you know, how important is it? Who’s here? What’s my relationship to them?  
    Right now, these machines don’t have that broad social experience. And so if you know it’s going to be used for health things, a lot of reinforcement learning of the very best humans in that context would still be valuable. Eventually, the models will, having read all the literature of the world about good doctors, bad doctors, it’ll understand as soon as you say, “I want you to be a doctor diagnosing somebody.” All of the implicit reinforcement that fits that situation, you know, will be there.
    LEE: Yeah.
    GATES: And so I hope three years from now, we don’t have to do that reinforcement learning. But today, for any medical context, you would want a lot of data to reinforce tone, willingness to say things when, you know, there might be something significant at stake. 
    LEE: Yeah. So, you know, something Bill said, kind of, reminds me of another thing that I think we missed, which is, the context also … and the specialization also pertains to different, I guess, what we still call “modes,” although I don’t know if the idea of multimodal is the same as it was two years ago. But, you know, what do you make of all of the hubbub around—in fact, within Microsoft Research, this is a big deal, but I think we’re far from alone—you know, medical images and vision, video, proteins and molecules, cell, you know, cellular data and so on. 
    BUBECK: Yeah. OK. So there is a lot to say to everything … to the last, you know, couple of minutes. Maybe on the specialization aspect, you know, I think there is, hiding behind this, a really fundamental scientific question of whether eventually we have a singular AGIthat kind of knows everything and you can just put, you know, explain your own context and it will just get it and understand everything. 
    That’s one vision. I have to say, I don’t particularly believe in this vision. In fact, we humans are not like that at all. I think, hopefully, we are general intelligences, yet we have to specialize a lot. And, you know, I did myself a lot of RL, reinforcement learning, on mathematics. Like, that’s what I did, you know, spent a lot of time doing that. And I didn’t improve on other aspects. You know, in fact, I probably degraded in other aspects.So it’s … I think it’s an important example to have in mind. 
    LEE: I think I might disagree with you on that, though, because, like, doesn’t a model have to see both good science and bad science in order to be able to gain the ability to discern between the two? 
    BUBECK: Yeah, no, that absolutely. I think there is value in seeing the generality, in having a very broad base. But then you, kind of, specialize on verticals. And this is where also, you know, open-weights model, which we haven’t talked about yet, are really important because they allow you to provide this broad base to everyone. And then you can specialize on top of it. 
    LEE: So we have about three hours of stuff to talk about, but our time is actually running low.
    BUBECK: Yes, yes, yes.  
    LEE: So I think I want … there’s a more provocative question. It’s almost a silly question, but I need to ask it of the two of you, which is, is there a future, you know, where AI replaces doctors or replaces, you know, medical specialties that we have today? So what does the world look like, say, five years from now? 
    GATES: Well, it’s important to distinguish healthcare discovery activity from healthcare delivery activity. We focused mostly on delivery. I think it’s very much within the realm of possibility that the AI is not only accelerating healthcare discovery but substituting for a lot of the roles of, you know, I’m an organic chemist, or I run various types of assays. I can see those, which are, you know, testable-output-type jobs but with still very high value, I can see, you know, some replacement in those areas before the doctor.  
    The doctor, still understanding the human condition and long-term dialogues, you know, they’ve had a lifetime of reinforcement of that, particularly when you get into areas like mental health. So I wouldn’t say in five years, either people will choose to adopt it, but it will be profound that there’ll be this nearly free intelligence that can do follow-up, that can help you, you know, make sure you went through different possibilities. 
    And so I’d say, yes, we’ll have doctors, but I’d say healthcare will be massively transformed in its quality and in efficiency by AI in that time period. 
    LEE: Is there a comparison, useful comparison, say, between doctors and, say, programmers, computer programmers, or doctors and, I don’t know, lawyers? 
    GATES: Programming is another one that has, kind of, a mathematical correctness to it, you know, and so the objective function that you’re trying to reinforce to, as soon as you can understand the state machines, you can have something that’s “checkable”; that’s correct. So I think programming, you know, which is weird to say, that the machine will beat us at most programming tasks before we let it take over roles that have deep empathy, you know, physical presence and social understanding in them. 
    LEE: Yeah. By the way, you know, I fully expect in five years that AI will produce mathematical proofs that are checkable for validity, easily checkable, because they’ll be written in a proof-checking language like Lean or something but will be so complex that no human mathematician can understand them. I expect that to happen.  
    I can imagine in some fields, like cellular biology, we could have the same situation in the future because the molecular pathways, the chemistry, biochemistry of human cells or living cells is as complex as any mathematics, and so it seems possible that we may be in a state where in wet lab, we see, Oh yeah, this actually works, but no one can understand why. 
    BUBECK: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think I really agree with Bill’s distinction of the discovery and the delivery, and indeed, the discovery’s when you can check things, and at the end, there is an artifact that you can verify. You know, you can run the protocol in the wet lab and seeproduced what you wanted. So I absolutely agree with that.  
    And in fact, you know, we don’t have to talk five years from now. I don’t know if you know, but just recently, there was a paper that was published on a scientific discovery using o3- mini. So this is really amazing. And, you know, just very quickly, just so people know, it was about this statistical physics model, the frustrated Potts model, which has to do with coloring, and basically, the case of three colors, like, more than two colors was open for a long time, and o3 was able to reduce the case of three colors to two colors.  
    LEE: Yeah. 
    BUBECK: Which is just, like, astounding. And this is not … this is now. This is happening right now. So this is something that I personally didn’t expect it would happen so quickly, and it’s due to those reasoning models.  
    Now, on the delivery side, I would add something more to it for the reason why doctors and, in fact, lawyers and coders will remain for a long time, and it’s because we still don’t understand how those models generalize. Like, at the end of the day, we are not able to tell you when they are confronted with a really new, novel situation, whether they will work or not. 
    Nobody is able to give you that guarantee. And I think until we understand this generalization better, we’re not going to be willing to just let the system in the wild without human supervision. 
    LEE: But don’t human doctors, human specialists … so, for example, a cardiologist sees a patient in a certain way that a nephrologist … 
    BUBECK: Yeah.
    LEE: … or an endocrinologist might not.
    BUBECK: That’s right. But another cardiologist will understand and, kind of, expect a certain level of generalization from their peer. And this, we just don’t have it with AI models. Now, of course, you’re exactly right. That generalization is also hard for humans. Like, if you have a human trained for one task and you put them into another task, then you don’t … you often don’t know.
    LEE: OK. You know, the podcast is focused on what’s happened over the last two years. But now, I’d like one provocative prediction about what you think the world of AI and medicine is going to be at some point in the future. You pick your timeframe. I don’t care if it’s two years or 20 years from now, but, you know, what do you think will be different about AI in medicine in that future than today? 
    BUBECK: Yeah, I think the deployment is going to accelerate soon. Like, we’re really not missing very much. There is this enormous capability overhang. Like, even if progress completely stopped, with current systems, we can do a lot more than what we’re doing right now. So I think this will … this has to be realized, you know, sooner rather than later. 
    And I think it’s probably dependent on these benchmarks and proper evaluation and tying this with regulation. So these are things that take time in human society and for good reason. But now we already are at two years; you know, give it another two years and it should be really …  
    LEE: Will AI prescribe your medicines? Write your prescriptions? 
    BUBECK: I think yes. I think yes. 
    LEE: OK. Bill? 
    GATES: Well, I think the next two years, we’ll have massive pilots, and so the amount of use of the AI, still in a copilot-type mode, you know, we should get millions of patient visits, you know, both in general medicine and in the mental health side, as well. And I think that’s going to build up both the data and the confidence to give the AI some additional autonomy. You know, are you going to let it talk to you at night when you’re panicked about your mental health with some ability to escalate?
    And, you know, I’ve gone so far as to tell politicians with national health systems that if they deploy AI appropriately, that the quality of care, the overload of the doctors, the improvement in the economics will be enough that their voters will be stunned because they just don’t expect this, and, you know, they could be reelectedjust on this one thing of fixing what is a very overloaded and economically challenged health system in these rich countries. 
    You know, my personal role is going to be to make sure that in the poorer countries, there isn’t some lag; in fact, in many cases, that we’ll be more aggressive because, you know, we’re comparing to having no access to doctors at all. And, you know, so I think whether it’s India or Africa, there’ll be lessons that are globally valuable because we need medical intelligence. And, you know, thank god AI is going to provide a lot of that. 
    LEE: Well, on that optimistic note, I think that’s a good way to end. Bill, Seb, really appreciate all of this.  
    I think the most fundamental prediction we made in the book is that AI would actually find its way into the practice of medicine, and I think that that at least has come true, maybe in different ways than we expected, but it’s come true, and I think it’ll only accelerate from here. So thanks again, both of you.  
    GATES: Yeah. Thanks, you guys. 
    BUBECK: Thank you, Peter. Thanks, Bill. 
    LEE: I just always feel such a sense of privilege to have a chance to interact and actually work with people like Bill and Sébastien.   
    With Bill, I’m always amazed at how practically minded he is. He’s really thinking about the nuts and bolts of what AI might be able to do for people, and his thoughts about underserved parts of the world, the idea that we might actually be able to empower people with access to expert medical knowledge, I think is both inspiring and amazing.  
    And then, Seb, Sébastien Bubeck, he’s just absolutely a brilliant mind. He has a really firm grip on the deep mathematics of artificial intelligence and brings that to bear in his research and development work. And where that mathematics takes him isn’t just into the nuts and bolts of algorithms but into philosophical questions about the nature of intelligence.  
    One of the things that Sébastien brought up was the state of evaluation of AI systems. And indeed, he was fairly critical in our conversation. But of course, the world of AI research and development is just moving so fast, and indeed, since we recorded our conversation, OpenAI, in fact, released a new evaluation metric that is directly relevant to medical applications, and that is something called HealthBench. And Microsoft Research also released a new evaluation approach or process called ADeLe.  
    HealthBench and ADeLe are examples of new approaches to evaluating AI models that are less about testing their knowledge and ability to pass multiple-choice exams and instead are evaluation approaches designed to assess how well AI models are able to complete tasks that actually arise every day in typical healthcare or biomedical research settings. These are examples of really important good work that speak to how well AI models work in the real world of healthcare and biomedical research and how well they can collaborate with human beings in those settings. 
    You know, I asked Bill and Seb to make some predictions about the future. You know, my own answer, I expect that we’re going to be able to use AI to change how we diagnose patients, change how we decide treatment options.  
    If you’re a doctor or a nurse and you encounter a patient, you’ll ask questions, do a physical exam, you know, call out for labs just like you do today, but then you’ll be able to engage with AI based on all of that data and just ask, you know, based on all the other people who have gone through the same experience, who have similar data, how were they diagnosed? How were they treated? What were their outcomes? And what does that mean for the patient I have right now? Some people call it the “patients like me” paradigm. And I think that’s going to become real because of AI within our lifetimes. That idea of really grounding the delivery in healthcare and medical practice through data and intelligence, I actually now don’t see any barriers to that future becoming real.  
    I’d like to extend another big thank you to Bill and Sébastien for their time. And to our listeners, as always, it’s a pleasure to have you along for the ride. I hope you’ll join us for our remaining conversations, as well as a second coauthor roundtable with Carey and Zak.  
    Until next time.  
    #how #reshaping #future #healthcare #medical
    How AI is reshaping the future of healthcare and medical research
    Transcript        PETER LEE: “In ‘The Little Black Bag,’ a classic science fiction story, a high-tech doctor’s kit of the future is accidentally transported back to the 1950s, into the shaky hands of a washed-up, alcoholic doctor. The ultimate medical tool, it redeems the doctor wielding it, allowing him to practice gratifyingly heroic medicine. … The tale ends badly for the doctor and his treacherous assistant, but it offered a picture of how advanced technology could transform medicine—powerful when it was written nearly 75 years ago and still so today. What would be the Al equivalent of that little black bag? At this moment when new capabilities are emerging, how do we imagine them into medicine?”           This is The AI Revolution in Medicine, Revisited. I’m your host, Peter Lee.    Shortly after OpenAI’s GPT-4 was publicly released, Carey Goldberg, Dr. Zak Kohane, and I published The AI Revolution in Medicine to help educate the world of healthcare and medical research about the transformative impact this new generative AI technology could have. But because we wrote the book when GPT-4 was still a secret, we had to speculate. Now, two years later, what did we get right, and what did we get wrong?     In this series, we’ll talk to clinicians, patients, hospital administrators, and others to understand the reality of AI in the field and where we go from here.  The book passage I read at the top is from “Chapter 10: The Big Black Bag.”  In imagining AI in medicine, Carey, Zak, and I included in our book two fictional accounts. In the first, a medical resident consults GPT-4 on her personal phone as the patient in front of her crashes. Within seconds, it offers an alternate response based on recent literature. In the second account, a 90-year-old woman with several chronic conditions is living independently and receiving near-constant medical support from an AI aide.    In our conversations with the guests we’ve spoken to so far, we’ve caught a glimpse of these predicted futures, seeing how clinicians and patients are actually using AI today and how developers are leveraging the technology in the healthcare products and services they’re creating. In fact, that first fictional account isn’t so fictional after all, as most of the doctors in the real world actually appear to be using AI at least occasionally—and sometimes much more than occasionally—to help in their daily clinical work. And as for the second fictional account, which is more of a science fiction account, it seems we are indeed on the verge of a new way of delivering and receiving healthcare, though the future is still very much open.  As we continue to examine the current state of AI in healthcare and its potential to transform the field, I’m pleased to welcome Bill Gates and Sébastien Bubeck.   Bill may be best known as the co-founder of Microsoft, having created the company with his childhood friend Paul Allen in 1975. He’s now the founder of Breakthrough Energy, which aims to advance clean energy innovation, and TerraPower, a company developing groundbreaking nuclear energy and science technologies. He also chairs the world’s largest philanthropic organization, the Gates Foundation, and focuses on solving a variety of health challenges around the globe and here at home.  Sébastien is a research lead at OpenAI. He was previously a distinguished scientist, vice president of AI, and a colleague of mine here at Microsoft, where his work included spearheading the development of the family of small language models known as Phi. While at Microsoft, he also coauthored the discussion-provoking 2023 paper “Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence,” which presented the results of early experiments with GPT-4 conducted by a small team from Microsoft Research.      Here’s my conversation with Bill Gates and Sébastien Bubeck.  LEE: Bill, welcome.  BILL GATES: Thank you.  LEE: Seb …  SÉBASTIEN BUBECK: Yeah. Hi, hi, Peter. Nice to be here.  LEE: You know, one of the things that I’ve been doing just to get the conversation warmed up is to talk about origin stories, and what I mean about origin stories is, you know, what was the first contact that you had with large language models or the concept of generative AI that convinced you or made you think that something really important was happening?  And so, Bill, I think I’ve heard the story about, you know, the time when the OpenAI folks—Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and others—showed you something, but could we hear from you what those early encounters were like and what was going through your mind?   GATES: Well, I’d been visiting OpenAI soon after it was created to see things like GPT-2 and to see the little arm they had that was trying to match human manipulation and, you know, looking at their games like Dota that they were trying to get as good as human play. And honestly, I didn’t think the language model stuff they were doing, even when they got to GPT-3, would show the ability to learn, you know, in the same sense that a human reads a biology book and is able to take that knowledge and access it not only to pass a test but also to create new medicines.  And so my challenge to them was that if their LLM could get a five on the advanced placement biology test, then I would say, OK, it took biologic knowledge and encoded it in an accessible way and that I didn’t expect them to do that very quickly but it would be profound.   And it was only about six months after I challenged them to do that, that an early version of GPT-4 they brought up to a dinner at my house, and in fact, it answered most of the questions that night very well. The one it got totally wrong, we were … because it was so good, we kept thinking, Oh, we must be wrong. It turned out it was a math weaknessthat, you know, we later understood that that was an area of, weirdly, of incredible weakness of those early models. But, you know, that was when I realized, OK, the age of cheap intelligence was at its beginning.  LEE: Yeah. So I guess it seems like you had something similar to me in that my first encounters, I actually harbored some skepticism. Is it fair to say you were skeptical before that?  GATES: Well, the idea that we’ve figured out how to encode and access knowledge in this very deep sense without even understanding the nature of the encoding, …  LEE: Right.   GATES: … that is a bit weird.   LEE: Yeah.  GATES: We have an algorithm that creates the computation, but even say, OK, where is the president’s birthday stored in there? Where is this fact stored in there? The fact that even now when we’re playing around, getting a little bit more sense of it, it’s opaque to us what the semantic encoding is, it’s, kind of, amazing to me. I thought the invention of knowledge storage would be an explicit way of encoding knowledge, not an implicit statistical training.  LEE: Yeah, yeah. All right. So, Seb, you know, on this same topic, you know, I got—as we say at Microsoft—I got pulled into the tent.  BUBECK: Yes.   LEE: Because this was a very secret project. And then, um, I had the opportunity to select a small number of researchers in MSRto join and start investigating this thing seriously. And the first person I pulled in was you.  BUBECK: Yeah.  LEE: And so what were your first encounters? Because I actually don’t remember what happened then.  BUBECK: Oh, I remember it very well.My first encounter with GPT-4 was in a meeting with the two of you, actually. But my kind of first contact, the first moment where I realized that something was happening with generative AI, was before that. And I agree with Bill that I also wasn’t too impressed by GPT-3.  I though that it was kind of, you know, very naturally mimicking the web, sort of parroting what was written there in a nice way. Still in a way which seemed very impressive. But it wasn’t really intelligent in any way. But shortly after GPT-3, there was a model before GPT-4 that really shocked me, and this was the first image generation model, DALL-E 1.  So that was in 2021. And I will forever remember the press release of OpenAI where they had this prompt of an avocado chair and then you had this image of the avocado chair.And what really shocked me is that clearly the model kind of “understood” what is a chair, what is an avocado, and was able to merge those concepts.  So this was really, to me, the first moment where I saw some understanding in those models.   LEE: So this was, just to get the timing right, that was before I pulled you into the tent.  BUBECK: That was before. That was like a year before.  LEE: Right.   BUBECK: And now I will tell you how, you know, we went from that moment to the meeting with the two of you and GPT-4.  So once I saw this kind of understanding, I thought, OK, fine. It understands concept, but it’s still not able to reason. It cannot—as, you know, Bill was saying—it cannot learn from your document. It cannot reason.   So I set out to try to prove that. You know, this is what I was in the business of at the time, trying to prove things in mathematics. So I was trying to prove that basically autoregressive transformers could never reason. So I was trying to prove this. And after a year of work, I had something reasonable to show. And so I had the meeting with the two of you, and I had this example where I wanted to say, there is no way that an LLM is going to be able to do x.  And then as soon as I … I don’t know if you remember, Bill. But as soon as I said that, you said, oh, but wait a second. I had, you know, the OpenAI crew at my house recently, and they showed me a new model. Why don’t we ask this new model this question?   LEE: Yeah. BUBECK: And we did, and it solved it on the spot. And that really, honestly, just changed my life. Like, you know, I had been working for a year trying to say that this was impossible. And just right there, it was shown to be possible.   LEE:One of the very first things I got interested in—because I was really thinking a lot about healthcare—was healthcare and medicine.  And I don’t know if the two of you remember, but I ended up doing a lot of tests. I ran through, you know, step one and step two of the US Medical Licensing Exam. Did a whole bunch of other things. I wrote this big report. It was, you know, I can’t remember … a couple hundred pages.   And I needed to share this with someone. I didn’t … there weren’t too many people I could share it with. So I sent, I think, a copy to you, Bill. Sent a copy to you, Seb.   I hardly slept for about a week putting that report together. And, yeah, and I kept working on it. But I was far from alone. I think everyone who was in the tent, so to speak, in those early days was going through something pretty similar. All right. So I think … of course, a lot of what I put in the report also ended up being examples that made it into the book.  But the main purpose of this conversation isn’t to reminisce aboutor indulge in those reminiscences but to talk about what’s happening in healthcare and medicine. And, you know, as I said, we wrote this book. We did it very, very quickly. Seb, you helped. Bill, you know, you provided a review and some endorsements.  But, you know, honestly, we didn’t know what we were talking about because no one had access to this thing. And so we just made a bunch of guesses. So really, the whole thing I wanted to probe with the two of you is, now with two years of experience out in the world, what, you know, what do we think is happening today?  You know, is AI actually having an impact, positive or negative, on healthcare and medicine? And what do we now think is going to happen in the next two years, five years, or 10 years? And so I realize it’s a little bit too abstract to just ask it that way. So let me just try to narrow the discussion and guide us a little bit.   Um, the kind of administrative and clerical work, paperwork, around healthcare—and we made a lot of guesses about that—that appears to be going well, but, you know, Bill, I know we’ve discussed that sometimes that you think there ought to be a lot more going on. Do you have a viewpoint on how AI is actually finding its way into reducing paperwork?  GATES: Well, I’m stunned … I don’t think there should be a patient-doctor meeting where the AI is not sitting in and both transcribing, offering to help with the paperwork, and even making suggestions, although the doctor will be the one, you know, who makes the final decision about the diagnosis and whatever prescription gets done.   It’s so helpful. You know, when that patient goes home and their, you know, son who wants to understand what happened has some questions, that AI should be available to continue that conversation. And the way you can improve that experience and streamline things and, you know, involve the people who advise you. I don’t understand why that’s not more adopted, because there you still have the human in the loop making that final decision.  But even for, like, follow-up calls to make sure the patient did things, to understand if they have concerns and knowing when to escalate back to the doctor, the benefit is incredible. And, you know, that thing is ready for prime time. That paradigm is ready for prime time, in my view.  LEE: Yeah, there are some good products, but it seems like the number one use right now—and we kind of got this from some of the previous guests in previous episodes—is the use of AI just to respond to emails from patients.Does that make sense to you?  BUBECK: Yeah. So maybe I want to second what Bill was saying but maybe take a step back first. You know, two years ago, like, the concept of clinical scribes, which is one of the things that we’re talking about right now, it would have sounded, in fact, it sounded two years ago, borderline dangerous. Because everybody was worried about hallucinations. What happened if you have this AI listening in and then it transcribes, you know, something wrong?  Now, two years later, I think it’s mostly working. And in fact, it is not yet, you know, fully adopted. You’re right. But it is in production. It is used, you know, in many, many places. So this rate of progress is astounding because it wasn’t obvious that we would be able to overcome those obstacles of hallucination. It’s not to say that hallucinations are fully solved. In the case of the closed system, they are.   Now, I think more generally what’s going on in the background is that there is something that we, that certainly I, underestimated, which is this management overhead. So I think the reason why this is not adopted everywhere is really a training and teaching aspect. People need to be taught, like, those systems, how to interact with them.  And one example that I really like, a study that recently appeared where they tried to use ChatGPT for diagnosis and they were comparing doctors without and with ChatGPT. And the amazing thing … so this was a set of cases where the accuracy of the doctors alone was around 75%. ChatGPT alone was 90%. So that’s already kind of mind blowing. But then the kicker is that doctors with ChatGPT was 80%.   Intelligence alone is not enough. It’s also how it’s presented, how you interact with it. And ChatGPT, it’s an amazing tool. Obviously, I absolutely love it. But it’s not … you don’t want a doctor to have to type in, you know, prompts and use it that way.  It should be, as Bill was saying, kind of running continuously in the background, sending you notifications. And you have to be really careful of the rate at which those notifications are being sent. Because if they are too frequent, then the doctor will learn to ignore them. So you have to … all of those things matter, in fact, at least as much as the level of intelligence of the machine.  LEE: One of the things I think about, Bill, in that scenario that you described, doctors do some thinking about the patient when they write the note. So, you know, I’m always a little uncertain whether it’s actually … you know, you wouldn’t necessarily want to fully automate this, I don’t think. Or at least there needs to be some prompt to the doctor to make sure that the doctor puts some thought into what happened in the encounter with the patient. Does that make sense to you at all?  GATES: At this stage, you know, I’d still put the onus on the doctor to write the conclusions and the summary and not delegate that.  The tradeoffs you make a little bit are somewhat dependent on the situation you’re in. If you’re in Africa, So, yes, the doctor’s still going to have to do a lot of work, but just the quality of letting the patient and the people around them interact and ask questions and have things explained, that alone is such a quality improvement. It’s mind blowing.   LEE: So since you mentioned, you know, Africa—and, of course, this touches on the mission and some of the priorities of the Gates Foundation and this idea of democratization of access to expert medical care—what’s the most interesting stuff going on right now? Are there people and organizations or technologies that are impressing you or that you’re tracking?  GATES: Yeah. So the Gates Foundation has given out a lot of grants to people in Africa doing education, agriculture but more healthcare examples than anything. And the way these things start off, they often start out either being patient-centric in a narrow situation, like, OK, I’m a pregnant woman; talk to me. Or, I have infectious disease symptoms; talk to me. Or they’re connected to a health worker where they’re helping that worker get their job done. And we have lots of pilots out, you know, in both of those cases.   The dream would be eventually to have the thing the patient consults be so broad that it’s like having a doctor available who understands the local things.   LEE: Right.   GATES: We’re not there yet. But over the next two or three years, you know, particularly given the worsening financial constraints against African health systems, where the withdrawal of money has been dramatic, you know, figuring out how to take this—what I sometimes call “free intelligence”—and build a quality health system around that, we will have to be more radical in low-income countries than any rich country is ever going to be.   LEE: Also, there’s maybe a different regulatory environment, so some of those things maybe are easier? Because right now, I think the world hasn’t figured out how to and whether to regulate, let’s say, an AI that might give a medical diagnosis or write a prescription for a medication.  BUBECK: Yeah. I think one issue with this, and it’s also slowing down the deployment of AI in healthcare more generally, is a lack of proper benchmark. Because, you know, you were mentioning the USMLE, for example. That’s a great test to test human beings and their knowledge of healthcare and medicine. But it’s not a great test to give to an AI.  It’s not asking the right questions. So finding what are the right questions to test whether an AI system is ready to give diagnosis in a constrained setting, that’s a very, very important direction, which to my surprise, is not yet accelerating at the rate that I was hoping for.  LEE: OK, so that gives me an excuse to get more now into the core AI tech because something I’ve discussed with both of you is this issue of what are the right tests. And you both know the very first test I give to any new spin of an LLM is I present a patient, the results—a mythical patient—the results of my physical exam, my mythical physical exam. Maybe some results of some initial labs. And then I present or propose a differential diagnosis. And if you’re not in medicine, a differential diagnosis you can just think of as a prioritized list of the possible diagnoses that fit with all that data. And in that proposed differential, I always intentionally make two mistakes.  I make a textbook technical error in one of the possible elements of the differential diagnosis, and I have an error of omission. And, you know, I just want to know, does the LLM understand what I’m talking about? And all the good ones out there do now. But then I want to know, can it spot the errors? And then most importantly, is it willing to tell me I’m wrong, that I’ve made a mistake?   That last piece seems really hard for AI today. And so let me ask you first, Seb, because at the time of this taping, of course, there was a new spin of GPT-4o last week that became overly sycophantic. In other words, it was actually prone in that test of mine not only to not tell me I’m wrong, but it actually praised me for the creativity of my differential.What’s up with that?  BUBECK: Yeah, I guess it’s a testament to the fact that training those models is still more of an art than a science. So it’s a difficult job. Just to be clear with the audience, we have rolled back thatversion of GPT-4o, so now we don’t have the sycophant version out there.  Yeah, no, it’s a really difficult question. It has to do … as you said, it’s very technical. It has to do with the post-training and how, like, where do you nudge the model? So, you know, there is this very classical by now technique called RLHF, where you push the model in the direction of a certain reward model. So the reward model is just telling the model, you know, what behavior is good, what behavior is bad.  But this reward model is itself an LLM, and, you know, Bill was saying at the very beginning of the conversation that we don’t really understand how those LLMs deal with concepts like, you know, where is the capital of France located? Things like that. It is the same thing for this reward model. We don’t know why it says that it prefers one output to another, and whether this is correlated with some sycophancy is, you know, something that we discovered basically just now. That if you push too hard in optimization on this reward model, you will get a sycophant model.  So it’s kind of … what I’m trying to say is we became too good at what we were doing, and we ended up, in fact, in a trap of the reward model.  LEE: I mean, you do want … it’s a difficult balance because you do want models to follow your desires and …  BUBECK: It’s a very difficult, very difficult balance.  LEE: So this brings up then the following question for me, which is the extent to which we think we’ll need to have specially trained models for things. So let me start with you, Bill. Do you have a point of view on whether we will need to, you know, quote-unquote take AI models to med school? Have them specially trained? Like, if you were going to deploy something to give medical care in underserved parts of the world, do we need to do something special to create those models?  GATES: We certainly need to teach them the African languages and the unique dialects so that the multimedia interactions are very high quality. We certainly need to teach them the disease prevalence and unique disease patterns like, you know, neglected tropical diseases and malaria. So we need to gather a set of facts that somebody trying to go for a US customer base, you know, wouldn’t necessarily have that in there.  Those two things are actually very straightforward because the additional training time is small. I’d say for the next few years, we’ll also need to do reinforcement learning about the context of being a doctor and how important certain behaviors are. Humans learn over the course of their life to some degree that, I’m in a different context and the way I behave in terms of being willing to criticize or be nice, you know, how important is it? Who’s here? What’s my relationship to them?   Right now, these machines don’t have that broad social experience. And so if you know it’s going to be used for health things, a lot of reinforcement learning of the very best humans in that context would still be valuable. Eventually, the models will, having read all the literature of the world about good doctors, bad doctors, it’ll understand as soon as you say, “I want you to be a doctor diagnosing somebody.” All of the implicit reinforcement that fits that situation, you know, will be there. LEE: Yeah. GATES: And so I hope three years from now, we don’t have to do that reinforcement learning. But today, for any medical context, you would want a lot of data to reinforce tone, willingness to say things when, you know, there might be something significant at stake.  LEE: Yeah. So, you know, something Bill said, kind of, reminds me of another thing that I think we missed, which is, the context also … and the specialization also pertains to different, I guess, what we still call “modes,” although I don’t know if the idea of multimodal is the same as it was two years ago. But, you know, what do you make of all of the hubbub around—in fact, within Microsoft Research, this is a big deal, but I think we’re far from alone—you know, medical images and vision, video, proteins and molecules, cell, you know, cellular data and so on.  BUBECK: Yeah. OK. So there is a lot to say to everything … to the last, you know, couple of minutes. Maybe on the specialization aspect, you know, I think there is, hiding behind this, a really fundamental scientific question of whether eventually we have a singular AGIthat kind of knows everything and you can just put, you know, explain your own context and it will just get it and understand everything.  That’s one vision. I have to say, I don’t particularly believe in this vision. In fact, we humans are not like that at all. I think, hopefully, we are general intelligences, yet we have to specialize a lot. And, you know, I did myself a lot of RL, reinforcement learning, on mathematics. Like, that’s what I did, you know, spent a lot of time doing that. And I didn’t improve on other aspects. You know, in fact, I probably degraded in other aspects.So it’s … I think it’s an important example to have in mind.  LEE: I think I might disagree with you on that, though, because, like, doesn’t a model have to see both good science and bad science in order to be able to gain the ability to discern between the two?  BUBECK: Yeah, no, that absolutely. I think there is value in seeing the generality, in having a very broad base. But then you, kind of, specialize on verticals. And this is where also, you know, open-weights model, which we haven’t talked about yet, are really important because they allow you to provide this broad base to everyone. And then you can specialize on top of it.  LEE: So we have about three hours of stuff to talk about, but our time is actually running low. BUBECK: Yes, yes, yes.   LEE: So I think I want … there’s a more provocative question. It’s almost a silly question, but I need to ask it of the two of you, which is, is there a future, you know, where AI replaces doctors or replaces, you know, medical specialties that we have today? So what does the world look like, say, five years from now?  GATES: Well, it’s important to distinguish healthcare discovery activity from healthcare delivery activity. We focused mostly on delivery. I think it’s very much within the realm of possibility that the AI is not only accelerating healthcare discovery but substituting for a lot of the roles of, you know, I’m an organic chemist, or I run various types of assays. I can see those, which are, you know, testable-output-type jobs but with still very high value, I can see, you know, some replacement in those areas before the doctor.   The doctor, still understanding the human condition and long-term dialogues, you know, they’ve had a lifetime of reinforcement of that, particularly when you get into areas like mental health. So I wouldn’t say in five years, either people will choose to adopt it, but it will be profound that there’ll be this nearly free intelligence that can do follow-up, that can help you, you know, make sure you went through different possibilities.  And so I’d say, yes, we’ll have doctors, but I’d say healthcare will be massively transformed in its quality and in efficiency by AI in that time period.  LEE: Is there a comparison, useful comparison, say, between doctors and, say, programmers, computer programmers, or doctors and, I don’t know, lawyers?  GATES: Programming is another one that has, kind of, a mathematical correctness to it, you know, and so the objective function that you’re trying to reinforce to, as soon as you can understand the state machines, you can have something that’s “checkable”; that’s correct. So I think programming, you know, which is weird to say, that the machine will beat us at most programming tasks before we let it take over roles that have deep empathy, you know, physical presence and social understanding in them.  LEE: Yeah. By the way, you know, I fully expect in five years that AI will produce mathematical proofs that are checkable for validity, easily checkable, because they’ll be written in a proof-checking language like Lean or something but will be so complex that no human mathematician can understand them. I expect that to happen.   I can imagine in some fields, like cellular biology, we could have the same situation in the future because the molecular pathways, the chemistry, biochemistry of human cells or living cells is as complex as any mathematics, and so it seems possible that we may be in a state where in wet lab, we see, Oh yeah, this actually works, but no one can understand why.  BUBECK: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think I really agree with Bill’s distinction of the discovery and the delivery, and indeed, the discovery’s when you can check things, and at the end, there is an artifact that you can verify. You know, you can run the protocol in the wet lab and seeproduced what you wanted. So I absolutely agree with that.   And in fact, you know, we don’t have to talk five years from now. I don’t know if you know, but just recently, there was a paper that was published on a scientific discovery using o3- mini. So this is really amazing. And, you know, just very quickly, just so people know, it was about this statistical physics model, the frustrated Potts model, which has to do with coloring, and basically, the case of three colors, like, more than two colors was open for a long time, and o3 was able to reduce the case of three colors to two colors.   LEE: Yeah.  BUBECK: Which is just, like, astounding. And this is not … this is now. This is happening right now. So this is something that I personally didn’t expect it would happen so quickly, and it’s due to those reasoning models.   Now, on the delivery side, I would add something more to it for the reason why doctors and, in fact, lawyers and coders will remain for a long time, and it’s because we still don’t understand how those models generalize. Like, at the end of the day, we are not able to tell you when they are confronted with a really new, novel situation, whether they will work or not.  Nobody is able to give you that guarantee. And I think until we understand this generalization better, we’re not going to be willing to just let the system in the wild without human supervision.  LEE: But don’t human doctors, human specialists … so, for example, a cardiologist sees a patient in a certain way that a nephrologist …  BUBECK: Yeah. LEE: … or an endocrinologist might not. BUBECK: That’s right. But another cardiologist will understand and, kind of, expect a certain level of generalization from their peer. And this, we just don’t have it with AI models. Now, of course, you’re exactly right. That generalization is also hard for humans. Like, if you have a human trained for one task and you put them into another task, then you don’t … you often don’t know. LEE: OK. You know, the podcast is focused on what’s happened over the last two years. But now, I’d like one provocative prediction about what you think the world of AI and medicine is going to be at some point in the future. You pick your timeframe. I don’t care if it’s two years or 20 years from now, but, you know, what do you think will be different about AI in medicine in that future than today?  BUBECK: Yeah, I think the deployment is going to accelerate soon. Like, we’re really not missing very much. There is this enormous capability overhang. Like, even if progress completely stopped, with current systems, we can do a lot more than what we’re doing right now. So I think this will … this has to be realized, you know, sooner rather than later.  And I think it’s probably dependent on these benchmarks and proper evaluation and tying this with regulation. So these are things that take time in human society and for good reason. But now we already are at two years; you know, give it another two years and it should be really …   LEE: Will AI prescribe your medicines? Write your prescriptions?  BUBECK: I think yes. I think yes.  LEE: OK. Bill?  GATES: Well, I think the next two years, we’ll have massive pilots, and so the amount of use of the AI, still in a copilot-type mode, you know, we should get millions of patient visits, you know, both in general medicine and in the mental health side, as well. And I think that’s going to build up both the data and the confidence to give the AI some additional autonomy. You know, are you going to let it talk to you at night when you’re panicked about your mental health with some ability to escalate? And, you know, I’ve gone so far as to tell politicians with national health systems that if they deploy AI appropriately, that the quality of care, the overload of the doctors, the improvement in the economics will be enough that their voters will be stunned because they just don’t expect this, and, you know, they could be reelectedjust on this one thing of fixing what is a very overloaded and economically challenged health system in these rich countries.  You know, my personal role is going to be to make sure that in the poorer countries, there isn’t some lag; in fact, in many cases, that we’ll be more aggressive because, you know, we’re comparing to having no access to doctors at all. And, you know, so I think whether it’s India or Africa, there’ll be lessons that are globally valuable because we need medical intelligence. And, you know, thank god AI is going to provide a lot of that.  LEE: Well, on that optimistic note, I think that’s a good way to end. Bill, Seb, really appreciate all of this.   I think the most fundamental prediction we made in the book is that AI would actually find its way into the practice of medicine, and I think that that at least has come true, maybe in different ways than we expected, but it’s come true, and I think it’ll only accelerate from here. So thanks again, both of you.   GATES: Yeah. Thanks, you guys.  BUBECK: Thank you, Peter. Thanks, Bill.  LEE: I just always feel such a sense of privilege to have a chance to interact and actually work with people like Bill and Sébastien.    With Bill, I’m always amazed at how practically minded he is. He’s really thinking about the nuts and bolts of what AI might be able to do for people, and his thoughts about underserved parts of the world, the idea that we might actually be able to empower people with access to expert medical knowledge, I think is both inspiring and amazing.   And then, Seb, Sébastien Bubeck, he’s just absolutely a brilliant mind. He has a really firm grip on the deep mathematics of artificial intelligence and brings that to bear in his research and development work. And where that mathematics takes him isn’t just into the nuts and bolts of algorithms but into philosophical questions about the nature of intelligence.   One of the things that Sébastien brought up was the state of evaluation of AI systems. And indeed, he was fairly critical in our conversation. But of course, the world of AI research and development is just moving so fast, and indeed, since we recorded our conversation, OpenAI, in fact, released a new evaluation metric that is directly relevant to medical applications, and that is something called HealthBench. And Microsoft Research also released a new evaluation approach or process called ADeLe.   HealthBench and ADeLe are examples of new approaches to evaluating AI models that are less about testing their knowledge and ability to pass multiple-choice exams and instead are evaluation approaches designed to assess how well AI models are able to complete tasks that actually arise every day in typical healthcare or biomedical research settings. These are examples of really important good work that speak to how well AI models work in the real world of healthcare and biomedical research and how well they can collaborate with human beings in those settings.  You know, I asked Bill and Seb to make some predictions about the future. You know, my own answer, I expect that we’re going to be able to use AI to change how we diagnose patients, change how we decide treatment options.   If you’re a doctor or a nurse and you encounter a patient, you’ll ask questions, do a physical exam, you know, call out for labs just like you do today, but then you’ll be able to engage with AI based on all of that data and just ask, you know, based on all the other people who have gone through the same experience, who have similar data, how were they diagnosed? How were they treated? What were their outcomes? And what does that mean for the patient I have right now? Some people call it the “patients like me” paradigm. And I think that’s going to become real because of AI within our lifetimes. That idea of really grounding the delivery in healthcare and medical practice through data and intelligence, I actually now don’t see any barriers to that future becoming real.   I’d like to extend another big thank you to Bill and Sébastien for their time. And to our listeners, as always, it’s a pleasure to have you along for the ride. I hope you’ll join us for our remaining conversations, as well as a second coauthor roundtable with Carey and Zak.   Until next time.   #how #reshaping #future #healthcare #medical
    WWW.MICROSOFT.COM
    How AI is reshaping the future of healthcare and medical research
    Transcript [MUSIC]      [BOOK PASSAGE]   PETER LEE: “In ‘The Little Black Bag,’ a classic science fiction story, a high-tech doctor’s kit of the future is accidentally transported back to the 1950s, into the shaky hands of a washed-up, alcoholic doctor. The ultimate medical tool, it redeems the doctor wielding it, allowing him to practice gratifyingly heroic medicine. … The tale ends badly for the doctor and his treacherous assistant, but it offered a picture of how advanced technology could transform medicine—powerful when it was written nearly 75 years ago and still so today. What would be the Al equivalent of that little black bag? At this moment when new capabilities are emerging, how do we imagine them into medicine?”   [END OF BOOK PASSAGE]     [THEME MUSIC]     This is The AI Revolution in Medicine, Revisited. I’m your host, Peter Lee.    Shortly after OpenAI’s GPT-4 was publicly released, Carey Goldberg, Dr. Zak Kohane, and I published The AI Revolution in Medicine to help educate the world of healthcare and medical research about the transformative impact this new generative AI technology could have. But because we wrote the book when GPT-4 was still a secret, we had to speculate. Now, two years later, what did we get right, and what did we get wrong?     In this series, we’ll talk to clinicians, patients, hospital administrators, and others to understand the reality of AI in the field and where we go from here.   [THEME MUSIC FADES] The book passage I read at the top is from “Chapter 10: The Big Black Bag.”  In imagining AI in medicine, Carey, Zak, and I included in our book two fictional accounts. In the first, a medical resident consults GPT-4 on her personal phone as the patient in front of her crashes. Within seconds, it offers an alternate response based on recent literature. In the second account, a 90-year-old woman with several chronic conditions is living independently and receiving near-constant medical support from an AI aide.    In our conversations with the guests we’ve spoken to so far, we’ve caught a glimpse of these predicted futures, seeing how clinicians and patients are actually using AI today and how developers are leveraging the technology in the healthcare products and services they’re creating. In fact, that first fictional account isn’t so fictional after all, as most of the doctors in the real world actually appear to be using AI at least occasionally—and sometimes much more than occasionally—to help in their daily clinical work. And as for the second fictional account, which is more of a science fiction account, it seems we are indeed on the verge of a new way of delivering and receiving healthcare, though the future is still very much open.  As we continue to examine the current state of AI in healthcare and its potential to transform the field, I’m pleased to welcome Bill Gates and Sébastien Bubeck.   Bill may be best known as the co-founder of Microsoft, having created the company with his childhood friend Paul Allen in 1975. He’s now the founder of Breakthrough Energy, which aims to advance clean energy innovation, and TerraPower, a company developing groundbreaking nuclear energy and science technologies. He also chairs the world’s largest philanthropic organization, the Gates Foundation, and focuses on solving a variety of health challenges around the globe and here at home.  Sébastien is a research lead at OpenAI. He was previously a distinguished scientist, vice president of AI, and a colleague of mine here at Microsoft, where his work included spearheading the development of the family of small language models known as Phi. While at Microsoft, he also coauthored the discussion-provoking 2023 paper “Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence,” which presented the results of early experiments with GPT-4 conducted by a small team from Microsoft Research.    [TRANSITION MUSIC]   Here’s my conversation with Bill Gates and Sébastien Bubeck.  LEE: Bill, welcome.  BILL GATES: Thank you.  LEE: Seb …  SÉBASTIEN BUBECK: Yeah. Hi, hi, Peter. Nice to be here.  LEE: You know, one of the things that I’ve been doing just to get the conversation warmed up is to talk about origin stories, and what I mean about origin stories is, you know, what was the first contact that you had with large language models or the concept of generative AI that convinced you or made you think that something really important was happening?  And so, Bill, I think I’ve heard the story about, you know, the time when the OpenAI folks—Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and others—showed you something, but could we hear from you what those early encounters were like and what was going through your mind?   GATES: Well, I’d been visiting OpenAI soon after it was created to see things like GPT-2 and to see the little arm they had that was trying to match human manipulation and, you know, looking at their games like Dota that they were trying to get as good as human play. And honestly, I didn’t think the language model stuff they were doing, even when they got to GPT-3, would show the ability to learn, you know, in the same sense that a human reads a biology book and is able to take that knowledge and access it not only to pass a test but also to create new medicines.  And so my challenge to them was that if their LLM could get a five on the advanced placement biology test, then I would say, OK, it took biologic knowledge and encoded it in an accessible way and that I didn’t expect them to do that very quickly but it would be profound.   And it was only about six months after I challenged them to do that, that an early version of GPT-4 they brought up to a dinner at my house, and in fact, it answered most of the questions that night very well. The one it got totally wrong, we were … because it was so good, we kept thinking, Oh, we must be wrong. It turned out it was a math weakness [LAUGHTER] that, you know, we later understood that that was an area of, weirdly, of incredible weakness of those early models. But, you know, that was when I realized, OK, the age of cheap intelligence was at its beginning.  LEE: Yeah. So I guess it seems like you had something similar to me in that my first encounters, I actually harbored some skepticism. Is it fair to say you were skeptical before that?  GATES: Well, the idea that we’ve figured out how to encode and access knowledge in this very deep sense without even understanding the nature of the encoding, …  LEE: Right.   GATES: … that is a bit weird.   LEE: Yeah.  GATES: We have an algorithm that creates the computation, but even say, OK, where is the president’s birthday stored in there? Where is this fact stored in there? The fact that even now when we’re playing around, getting a little bit more sense of it, it’s opaque to us what the semantic encoding is, it’s, kind of, amazing to me. I thought the invention of knowledge storage would be an explicit way of encoding knowledge, not an implicit statistical training.  LEE: Yeah, yeah. All right. So, Seb, you know, on this same topic, you know, I got—as we say at Microsoft—I got pulled into the tent. [LAUGHS]  BUBECK: Yes.   LEE: Because this was a very secret project. And then, um, I had the opportunity to select a small number of researchers in MSR [Microsoft Research] to join and start investigating this thing seriously. And the first person I pulled in was you.  BUBECK: Yeah.  LEE: And so what were your first encounters? Because I actually don’t remember what happened then.  BUBECK: Oh, I remember it very well. [LAUGHS] My first encounter with GPT-4 was in a meeting with the two of you, actually. But my kind of first contact, the first moment where I realized that something was happening with generative AI, was before that. And I agree with Bill that I also wasn’t too impressed by GPT-3.  I though that it was kind of, you know, very naturally mimicking the web, sort of parroting what was written there in a nice way. Still in a way which seemed very impressive. But it wasn’t really intelligent in any way. But shortly after GPT-3, there was a model before GPT-4 that really shocked me, and this was the first image generation model, DALL-E 1.  So that was in 2021. And I will forever remember the press release of OpenAI where they had this prompt of an avocado chair and then you had this image of the avocado chair. [LAUGHTER] And what really shocked me is that clearly the model kind of “understood” what is a chair, what is an avocado, and was able to merge those concepts.  So this was really, to me, the first moment where I saw some understanding in those models.   LEE: So this was, just to get the timing right, that was before I pulled you into the tent.  BUBECK: That was before. That was like a year before.  LEE: Right.   BUBECK: And now I will tell you how, you know, we went from that moment to the meeting with the two of you and GPT-4.  So once I saw this kind of understanding, I thought, OK, fine. It understands concept, but it’s still not able to reason. It cannot—as, you know, Bill was saying—it cannot learn from your document. It cannot reason.   So I set out to try to prove that. You know, this is what I was in the business of at the time, trying to prove things in mathematics. So I was trying to prove that basically autoregressive transformers could never reason. So I was trying to prove this. And after a year of work, I had something reasonable to show. And so I had the meeting with the two of you, and I had this example where I wanted to say, there is no way that an LLM is going to be able to do x.  And then as soon as I … I don’t know if you remember, Bill. But as soon as I said that, you said, oh, but wait a second. I had, you know, the OpenAI crew at my house recently, and they showed me a new model. Why don’t we ask this new model this question?   LEE: Yeah. BUBECK: And we did, and it solved it on the spot. And that really, honestly, just changed my life. Like, you know, I had been working for a year trying to say that this was impossible. And just right there, it was shown to be possible.   LEE: [LAUGHS] One of the very first things I got interested in—because I was really thinking a lot about healthcare—was healthcare and medicine.  And I don’t know if the two of you remember, but I ended up doing a lot of tests. I ran through, you know, step one and step two of the US Medical Licensing Exam. Did a whole bunch of other things. I wrote this big report. It was, you know, I can’t remember … a couple hundred pages.   And I needed to share this with someone. I didn’t … there weren’t too many people I could share it with. So I sent, I think, a copy to you, Bill. Sent a copy to you, Seb.   I hardly slept for about a week putting that report together. And, yeah, and I kept working on it. But I was far from alone. I think everyone who was in the tent, so to speak, in those early days was going through something pretty similar. All right. So I think … of course, a lot of what I put in the report also ended up being examples that made it into the book.  But the main purpose of this conversation isn’t to reminisce about [LAUGHS] or indulge in those reminiscences but to talk about what’s happening in healthcare and medicine. And, you know, as I said, we wrote this book. We did it very, very quickly. Seb, you helped. Bill, you know, you provided a review and some endorsements.  But, you know, honestly, we didn’t know what we were talking about because no one had access to this thing. And so we just made a bunch of guesses. So really, the whole thing I wanted to probe with the two of you is, now with two years of experience out in the world, what, you know, what do we think is happening today?  You know, is AI actually having an impact, positive or negative, on healthcare and medicine? And what do we now think is going to happen in the next two years, five years, or 10 years? And so I realize it’s a little bit too abstract to just ask it that way. So let me just try to narrow the discussion and guide us a little bit.   Um, the kind of administrative and clerical work, paperwork, around healthcare—and we made a lot of guesses about that—that appears to be going well, but, you know, Bill, I know we’ve discussed that sometimes that you think there ought to be a lot more going on. Do you have a viewpoint on how AI is actually finding its way into reducing paperwork?  GATES: Well, I’m stunned … I don’t think there should be a patient-doctor meeting where the AI is not sitting in and both transcribing, offering to help with the paperwork, and even making suggestions, although the doctor will be the one, you know, who makes the final decision about the diagnosis and whatever prescription gets done.   It’s so helpful. You know, when that patient goes home and their, you know, son who wants to understand what happened has some questions, that AI should be available to continue that conversation. And the way you can improve that experience and streamline things and, you know, involve the people who advise you. I don’t understand why that’s not more adopted, because there you still have the human in the loop making that final decision.  But even for, like, follow-up calls to make sure the patient did things, to understand if they have concerns and knowing when to escalate back to the doctor, the benefit is incredible. And, you know, that thing is ready for prime time. That paradigm is ready for prime time, in my view.  LEE: Yeah, there are some good products, but it seems like the number one use right now—and we kind of got this from some of the previous guests in previous episodes—is the use of AI just to respond to emails from patients. [LAUGHTER] Does that make sense to you?  BUBECK: Yeah. So maybe I want to second what Bill was saying but maybe take a step back first. You know, two years ago, like, the concept of clinical scribes, which is one of the things that we’re talking about right now, it would have sounded, in fact, it sounded two years ago, borderline dangerous. Because everybody was worried about hallucinations. What happened if you have this AI listening in and then it transcribes, you know, something wrong?  Now, two years later, I think it’s mostly working. And in fact, it is not yet, you know, fully adopted. You’re right. But it is in production. It is used, you know, in many, many places. So this rate of progress is astounding because it wasn’t obvious that we would be able to overcome those obstacles of hallucination. It’s not to say that hallucinations are fully solved. In the case of the closed system, they are.   Now, I think more generally what’s going on in the background is that there is something that we, that certainly I, underestimated, which is this management overhead. So I think the reason why this is not adopted everywhere is really a training and teaching aspect. People need to be taught, like, those systems, how to interact with them.  And one example that I really like, a study that recently appeared where they tried to use ChatGPT for diagnosis and they were comparing doctors without and with ChatGPT (opens in new tab). And the amazing thing … so this was a set of cases where the accuracy of the doctors alone was around 75%. ChatGPT alone was 90%. So that’s already kind of mind blowing. But then the kicker is that doctors with ChatGPT was 80%.   Intelligence alone is not enough. It’s also how it’s presented, how you interact with it. And ChatGPT, it’s an amazing tool. Obviously, I absolutely love it. But it’s not … you don’t want a doctor to have to type in, you know, prompts and use it that way.  It should be, as Bill was saying, kind of running continuously in the background, sending you notifications. And you have to be really careful of the rate at which those notifications are being sent. Because if they are too frequent, then the doctor will learn to ignore them. So you have to … all of those things matter, in fact, at least as much as the level of intelligence of the machine.  LEE: One of the things I think about, Bill, in that scenario that you described, doctors do some thinking about the patient when they write the note. So, you know, I’m always a little uncertain whether it’s actually … you know, you wouldn’t necessarily want to fully automate this, I don’t think. Or at least there needs to be some prompt to the doctor to make sure that the doctor puts some thought into what happened in the encounter with the patient. Does that make sense to you at all?  GATES: At this stage, you know, I’d still put the onus on the doctor to write the conclusions and the summary and not delegate that.  The tradeoffs you make a little bit are somewhat dependent on the situation you’re in. If you’re in Africa, So, yes, the doctor’s still going to have to do a lot of work, but just the quality of letting the patient and the people around them interact and ask questions and have things explained, that alone is such a quality improvement. It’s mind blowing.   LEE: So since you mentioned, you know, Africa—and, of course, this touches on the mission and some of the priorities of the Gates Foundation and this idea of democratization of access to expert medical care—what’s the most interesting stuff going on right now? Are there people and organizations or technologies that are impressing you or that you’re tracking?  GATES: Yeah. So the Gates Foundation has given out a lot of grants to people in Africa doing education, agriculture but more healthcare examples than anything. And the way these things start off, they often start out either being patient-centric in a narrow situation, like, OK, I’m a pregnant woman; talk to me. Or, I have infectious disease symptoms; talk to me. Or they’re connected to a health worker where they’re helping that worker get their job done. And we have lots of pilots out, you know, in both of those cases.   The dream would be eventually to have the thing the patient consults be so broad that it’s like having a doctor available who understands the local things.   LEE: Right.   GATES: We’re not there yet. But over the next two or three years, you know, particularly given the worsening financial constraints against African health systems, where the withdrawal of money has been dramatic, you know, figuring out how to take this—what I sometimes call “free intelligence”—and build a quality health system around that, we will have to be more radical in low-income countries than any rich country is ever going to be.   LEE: Also, there’s maybe a different regulatory environment, so some of those things maybe are easier? Because right now, I think the world hasn’t figured out how to and whether to regulate, let’s say, an AI that might give a medical diagnosis or write a prescription for a medication.  BUBECK: Yeah. I think one issue with this, and it’s also slowing down the deployment of AI in healthcare more generally, is a lack of proper benchmark. Because, you know, you were mentioning the USMLE [United States Medical Licensing Examination], for example. That’s a great test to test human beings and their knowledge of healthcare and medicine. But it’s not a great test to give to an AI.  It’s not asking the right questions. So finding what are the right questions to test whether an AI system is ready to give diagnosis in a constrained setting, that’s a very, very important direction, which to my surprise, is not yet accelerating at the rate that I was hoping for.  LEE: OK, so that gives me an excuse to get more now into the core AI tech because something I’ve discussed with both of you is this issue of what are the right tests. And you both know the very first test I give to any new spin of an LLM is I present a patient, the results—a mythical patient—the results of my physical exam, my mythical physical exam. Maybe some results of some initial labs. And then I present or propose a differential diagnosis. And if you’re not in medicine, a differential diagnosis you can just think of as a prioritized list of the possible diagnoses that fit with all that data. And in that proposed differential, I always intentionally make two mistakes.  I make a textbook technical error in one of the possible elements of the differential diagnosis, and I have an error of omission. And, you know, I just want to know, does the LLM understand what I’m talking about? And all the good ones out there do now. But then I want to know, can it spot the errors? And then most importantly, is it willing to tell me I’m wrong, that I’ve made a mistake?   That last piece seems really hard for AI today. And so let me ask you first, Seb, because at the time of this taping, of course, there was a new spin of GPT-4o last week that became overly sycophantic. In other words, it was actually prone in that test of mine not only to not tell me I’m wrong, but it actually praised me for the creativity of my differential. [LAUGHTER] What’s up with that?  BUBECK: Yeah, I guess it’s a testament to the fact that training those models is still more of an art than a science. So it’s a difficult job. Just to be clear with the audience, we have rolled back that [LAUGHS] version of GPT-4o, so now we don’t have the sycophant version out there.  Yeah, no, it’s a really difficult question. It has to do … as you said, it’s very technical. It has to do with the post-training and how, like, where do you nudge the model? So, you know, there is this very classical by now technique called RLHF [reinforcement learning from human feedback], where you push the model in the direction of a certain reward model. So the reward model is just telling the model, you know, what behavior is good, what behavior is bad.  But this reward model is itself an LLM, and, you know, Bill was saying at the very beginning of the conversation that we don’t really understand how those LLMs deal with concepts like, you know, where is the capital of France located? Things like that. It is the same thing for this reward model. We don’t know why it says that it prefers one output to another, and whether this is correlated with some sycophancy is, you know, something that we discovered basically just now. That if you push too hard in optimization on this reward model, you will get a sycophant model.  So it’s kind of … what I’m trying to say is we became too good at what we were doing, and we ended up, in fact, in a trap of the reward model.  LEE: I mean, you do want … it’s a difficult balance because you do want models to follow your desires and …  BUBECK: It’s a very difficult, very difficult balance.  LEE: So this brings up then the following question for me, which is the extent to which we think we’ll need to have specially trained models for things. So let me start with you, Bill. Do you have a point of view on whether we will need to, you know, quote-unquote take AI models to med school? Have them specially trained? Like, if you were going to deploy something to give medical care in underserved parts of the world, do we need to do something special to create those models?  GATES: We certainly need to teach them the African languages and the unique dialects so that the multimedia interactions are very high quality. We certainly need to teach them the disease prevalence and unique disease patterns like, you know, neglected tropical diseases and malaria. So we need to gather a set of facts that somebody trying to go for a US customer base, you know, wouldn’t necessarily have that in there.  Those two things are actually very straightforward because the additional training time is small. I’d say for the next few years, we’ll also need to do reinforcement learning about the context of being a doctor and how important certain behaviors are. Humans learn over the course of their life to some degree that, I’m in a different context and the way I behave in terms of being willing to criticize or be nice, you know, how important is it? Who’s here? What’s my relationship to them?   Right now, these machines don’t have that broad social experience. And so if you know it’s going to be used for health things, a lot of reinforcement learning of the very best humans in that context would still be valuable. Eventually, the models will, having read all the literature of the world about good doctors, bad doctors, it’ll understand as soon as you say, “I want you to be a doctor diagnosing somebody.” All of the implicit reinforcement that fits that situation, you know, will be there. LEE: Yeah. GATES: And so I hope three years from now, we don’t have to do that reinforcement learning. But today, for any medical context, you would want a lot of data to reinforce tone, willingness to say things when, you know, there might be something significant at stake.  LEE: Yeah. So, you know, something Bill said, kind of, reminds me of another thing that I think we missed, which is, the context also … and the specialization also pertains to different, I guess, what we still call “modes,” although I don’t know if the idea of multimodal is the same as it was two years ago. But, you know, what do you make of all of the hubbub around—in fact, within Microsoft Research, this is a big deal, but I think we’re far from alone—you know, medical images and vision, video, proteins and molecules, cell, you know, cellular data and so on.  BUBECK: Yeah. OK. So there is a lot to say to everything … to the last, you know, couple of minutes. Maybe on the specialization aspect, you know, I think there is, hiding behind this, a really fundamental scientific question of whether eventually we have a singular AGI [artificial general intelligence] that kind of knows everything and you can just put, you know, explain your own context and it will just get it and understand everything.  That’s one vision. I have to say, I don’t particularly believe in this vision. In fact, we humans are not like that at all. I think, hopefully, we are general intelligences, yet we have to specialize a lot. And, you know, I did myself a lot of RL, reinforcement learning, on mathematics. Like, that’s what I did, you know, spent a lot of time doing that. And I didn’t improve on other aspects. You know, in fact, I probably degraded in other aspects. [LAUGHTER] So it’s … I think it’s an important example to have in mind.  LEE: I think I might disagree with you on that, though, because, like, doesn’t a model have to see both good science and bad science in order to be able to gain the ability to discern between the two?  BUBECK: Yeah, no, that absolutely. I think there is value in seeing the generality, in having a very broad base. But then you, kind of, specialize on verticals. And this is where also, you know, open-weights model, which we haven’t talked about yet, are really important because they allow you to provide this broad base to everyone. And then you can specialize on top of it.  LEE: So we have about three hours of stuff to talk about, but our time is actually running low. BUBECK: Yes, yes, yes.   LEE: So I think I want … there’s a more provocative question. It’s almost a silly question, but I need to ask it of the two of you, which is, is there a future, you know, where AI replaces doctors or replaces, you know, medical specialties that we have today? So what does the world look like, say, five years from now?  GATES: Well, it’s important to distinguish healthcare discovery activity from healthcare delivery activity. We focused mostly on delivery. I think it’s very much within the realm of possibility that the AI is not only accelerating healthcare discovery but substituting for a lot of the roles of, you know, I’m an organic chemist, or I run various types of assays. I can see those, which are, you know, testable-output-type jobs but with still very high value, I can see, you know, some replacement in those areas before the doctor.   The doctor, still understanding the human condition and long-term dialogues, you know, they’ve had a lifetime of reinforcement of that, particularly when you get into areas like mental health. So I wouldn’t say in five years, either people will choose to adopt it, but it will be profound that there’ll be this nearly free intelligence that can do follow-up, that can help you, you know, make sure you went through different possibilities.  And so I’d say, yes, we’ll have doctors, but I’d say healthcare will be massively transformed in its quality and in efficiency by AI in that time period.  LEE: Is there a comparison, useful comparison, say, between doctors and, say, programmers, computer programmers, or doctors and, I don’t know, lawyers?  GATES: Programming is another one that has, kind of, a mathematical correctness to it, you know, and so the objective function that you’re trying to reinforce to, as soon as you can understand the state machines, you can have something that’s “checkable”; that’s correct. So I think programming, you know, which is weird to say, that the machine will beat us at most programming tasks before we let it take over roles that have deep empathy, you know, physical presence and social understanding in them.  LEE: Yeah. By the way, you know, I fully expect in five years that AI will produce mathematical proofs that are checkable for validity, easily checkable, because they’ll be written in a proof-checking language like Lean or something but will be so complex that no human mathematician can understand them. I expect that to happen.   I can imagine in some fields, like cellular biology, we could have the same situation in the future because the molecular pathways, the chemistry, biochemistry of human cells or living cells is as complex as any mathematics, and so it seems possible that we may be in a state where in wet lab, we see, Oh yeah, this actually works, but no one can understand why.  BUBECK: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think I really agree with Bill’s distinction of the discovery and the delivery, and indeed, the discovery’s when you can check things, and at the end, there is an artifact that you can verify. You know, you can run the protocol in the wet lab and see [if you have] produced what you wanted. So I absolutely agree with that.   And in fact, you know, we don’t have to talk five years from now. I don’t know if you know, but just recently, there was a paper that was published on a scientific discovery using o3- mini (opens in new tab). So this is really amazing. And, you know, just very quickly, just so people know, it was about this statistical physics model, the frustrated Potts model, which has to do with coloring, and basically, the case of three colors, like, more than two colors was open for a long time, and o3 was able to reduce the case of three colors to two colors.   LEE: Yeah.  BUBECK: Which is just, like, astounding. And this is not … this is now. This is happening right now. So this is something that I personally didn’t expect it would happen so quickly, and it’s due to those reasoning models.   Now, on the delivery side, I would add something more to it for the reason why doctors and, in fact, lawyers and coders will remain for a long time, and it’s because we still don’t understand how those models generalize. Like, at the end of the day, we are not able to tell you when they are confronted with a really new, novel situation, whether they will work or not.  Nobody is able to give you that guarantee. And I think until we understand this generalization better, we’re not going to be willing to just let the system in the wild without human supervision.  LEE: But don’t human doctors, human specialists … so, for example, a cardiologist sees a patient in a certain way that a nephrologist …  BUBECK: Yeah. LEE: … or an endocrinologist might not. BUBECK: That’s right. But another cardiologist will understand and, kind of, expect a certain level of generalization from their peer. And this, we just don’t have it with AI models. Now, of course, you’re exactly right. That generalization is also hard for humans. Like, if you have a human trained for one task and you put them into another task, then you don’t … you often don’t know. LEE: OK. You know, the podcast is focused on what’s happened over the last two years. But now, I’d like one provocative prediction about what you think the world of AI and medicine is going to be at some point in the future. You pick your timeframe. I don’t care if it’s two years or 20 years from now, but, you know, what do you think will be different about AI in medicine in that future than today?  BUBECK: Yeah, I think the deployment is going to accelerate soon. Like, we’re really not missing very much. There is this enormous capability overhang. Like, even if progress completely stopped, with current systems, we can do a lot more than what we’re doing right now. So I think this will … this has to be realized, you know, sooner rather than later.  And I think it’s probably dependent on these benchmarks and proper evaluation and tying this with regulation. So these are things that take time in human society and for good reason. But now we already are at two years; you know, give it another two years and it should be really …   LEE: Will AI prescribe your medicines? Write your prescriptions?  BUBECK: I think yes. I think yes.  LEE: OK. Bill?  GATES: Well, I think the next two years, we’ll have massive pilots, and so the amount of use of the AI, still in a copilot-type mode, you know, we should get millions of patient visits, you know, both in general medicine and in the mental health side, as well. And I think that’s going to build up both the data and the confidence to give the AI some additional autonomy. You know, are you going to let it talk to you at night when you’re panicked about your mental health with some ability to escalate? And, you know, I’ve gone so far as to tell politicians with national health systems that if they deploy AI appropriately, that the quality of care, the overload of the doctors, the improvement in the economics will be enough that their voters will be stunned because they just don’t expect this, and, you know, they could be reelected [LAUGHTER] just on this one thing of fixing what is a very overloaded and economically challenged health system in these rich countries.  You know, my personal role is going to be to make sure that in the poorer countries, there isn’t some lag; in fact, in many cases, that we’ll be more aggressive because, you know, we’re comparing to having no access to doctors at all. And, you know, so I think whether it’s India or Africa, there’ll be lessons that are globally valuable because we need medical intelligence. And, you know, thank god AI is going to provide a lot of that.  LEE: Well, on that optimistic note, I think that’s a good way to end. Bill, Seb, really appreciate all of this.   I think the most fundamental prediction we made in the book is that AI would actually find its way into the practice of medicine, and I think that that at least has come true, maybe in different ways than we expected, but it’s come true, and I think it’ll only accelerate from here. So thanks again, both of you.  [TRANSITION MUSIC]  GATES: Yeah. Thanks, you guys.  BUBECK: Thank you, Peter. Thanks, Bill.  LEE: I just always feel such a sense of privilege to have a chance to interact and actually work with people like Bill and Sébastien.    With Bill, I’m always amazed at how practically minded he is. He’s really thinking about the nuts and bolts of what AI might be able to do for people, and his thoughts about underserved parts of the world, the idea that we might actually be able to empower people with access to expert medical knowledge, I think is both inspiring and amazing.   And then, Seb, Sébastien Bubeck, he’s just absolutely a brilliant mind. He has a really firm grip on the deep mathematics of artificial intelligence and brings that to bear in his research and development work. And where that mathematics takes him isn’t just into the nuts and bolts of algorithms but into philosophical questions about the nature of intelligence.   One of the things that Sébastien brought up was the state of evaluation of AI systems. And indeed, he was fairly critical in our conversation. But of course, the world of AI research and development is just moving so fast, and indeed, since we recorded our conversation, OpenAI, in fact, released a new evaluation metric that is directly relevant to medical applications, and that is something called HealthBench. And Microsoft Research also released a new evaluation approach or process called ADeLe.   HealthBench and ADeLe are examples of new approaches to evaluating AI models that are less about testing their knowledge and ability to pass multiple-choice exams and instead are evaluation approaches designed to assess how well AI models are able to complete tasks that actually arise every day in typical healthcare or biomedical research settings. These are examples of really important good work that speak to how well AI models work in the real world of healthcare and biomedical research and how well they can collaborate with human beings in those settings.  You know, I asked Bill and Seb to make some predictions about the future. You know, my own answer, I expect that we’re going to be able to use AI to change how we diagnose patients, change how we decide treatment options.   If you’re a doctor or a nurse and you encounter a patient, you’ll ask questions, do a physical exam, you know, call out for labs just like you do today, but then you’ll be able to engage with AI based on all of that data and just ask, you know, based on all the other people who have gone through the same experience, who have similar data, how were they diagnosed? How were they treated? What were their outcomes? And what does that mean for the patient I have right now? Some people call it the “patients like me” paradigm. And I think that’s going to become real because of AI within our lifetimes. That idea of really grounding the delivery in healthcare and medical practice through data and intelligence, I actually now don’t see any barriers to that future becoming real.  [THEME MUSIC]  I’d like to extend another big thank you to Bill and Sébastien for their time. And to our listeners, as always, it’s a pleasure to have you along for the ride. I hope you’ll join us for our remaining conversations, as well as a second coauthor roundtable with Carey and Zak.   Until next time.   [MUSIC FADES]
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos
Páginas impulsionada