• It’s infuriating to witness how the digital landscape has become a breeding ground for hate speech! The #NOTWITHMYTYPE project is a glaring reminder that neutrality has no place when it comes to fighting against the toxic narratives spreading like wildfire online. Typography may be neutral, but the messages we choose to amplify are not! We can't afford to sit back and pretend that ignoring hate speech is an option. Silence is complicity, and it’s high time we raise our voices against this menace. Let's stand up, get creative, and dismantle these harmful discourses! The battle against hate starts with us!

    #NOTWITHMYTYPE #HateSpeech #DigitalActivism #StandAgainstHate #CreativityAgainstHate
    It’s infuriating to witness how the digital landscape has become a breeding ground for hate speech! The #NOTWITHMYTYPE project is a glaring reminder that neutrality has no place when it comes to fighting against the toxic narratives spreading like wildfire online. Typography may be neutral, but the messages we choose to amplify are not! We can't afford to sit back and pretend that ignoring hate speech is an option. Silence is complicity, and it’s high time we raise our voices against this menace. Let's stand up, get creative, and dismantle these harmful discourses! The battle against hate starts with us! #NOTWITHMYTYPE #HateSpeech #DigitalActivism #StandAgainstHate #CreativityAgainstHate
    GRAFFICA.INFO
    #NOTWITHMYTYPE, creatividad contra los discursos de odio
    #NOTWITHMYTYPE, proyecto finalista de los New Blood Awards de la D&AD, es una voz de alarma sobre el aumento de los discursos de odio en el entorno digital.   Una tipografía es una herramienta y en la naturaleza de las herramientas está la neutra
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Angry
    Sad
    37
    1 Σχόλια 0 Μοιράστηκε
  • Tech billionaires are making a risky bet with humanity’s future

    “The best way to predict the future is to invent it,” the famed computer scientist Alan Kay once said. Uttered more out of exasperation than as inspiration, his remark has nevertheless attained gospel-like status among Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, in particular a handful of tech billionaires who fancy themselves the chief architects of humanity’s future. 

    Sam Altman, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and others may have slightly different goals and ambitions in the near term, but their grand visions for the next decade and beyond are remarkably similar. Framed less as technological objectives and more as existential imperatives, they include aligning AI with the interests of humanity; creating an artificial superintelligence that will solve all the world’s most pressing problems; merging with that superintelligence to achieve immortality; establishing a permanent, self-­sustaining colony on Mars; and, ultimately, spreading out across the cosmos.

    While there’s a sprawling patchwork of ideas and philosophies powering these visions, three features play a central role, says Adam Becker, a science writer and astrophysicist: an unshakable certainty that technology can solve any problem, a belief in the necessity of perpetual growth, and a quasi-religious obsession with transcending our physical and biological limits. In his timely new book, More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity, Becker calls this triumvirate of beliefs the “ideology of technological salvation” and warns that tech titans are using it to steer humanity in a dangerous direction. 

    “In most of these isms you’ll find the idea of escape and transcendence, as well as the promise of an amazing future, full of unimaginable wonders—so long as we don’t get in the way of technological progress.”

    “The credence that tech billionaires give to these specific science-fictional futures validates their pursuit of more—to portray the growth of their businesses as a moral imperative, to reduce the complex problems of the world to simple questions of technology,to justify nearly any action they might want to take,” he writes. Becker argues that the only way to break free of these visions is to see them for what they are: a convenient excuse to continue destroying the environment, skirt regulations, amass more power and control, and dismiss the very real problems of today to focus on the imagined ones of tomorrow. 

    A lot of critics, academics, and journalists have tried to define or distill the Silicon Valley ethos over the years. There was the “Californian Ideology” in the mid-’90s, the “Move fast and break things” era of the early 2000s, and more recently the “Libertarianism for me, feudalism for thee”  or “techno-­authoritarian” views. How do you see the “ideology of technological salvation” fitting in? 

    I’d say it’s very much of a piece with those earlier attempts to describe the Silicon Valley mindset. I mean, you can draw a pretty straight line from Max More’s principles of transhumanism in the ’90s to the Californian Ideologyand through to what I call the ideology of technological salvation. The fact is, many of the ideas that define or animate Silicon Valley thinking have never been much of a ­mystery—libertarianism, an antipathy toward the government and regulation, the boundless faith in technology, the obsession with optimization. 

    What can be difficult is to parse where all these ideas come from and how they fit together—or if they fit together at all. I came up with the ideology of technological salvation as a way to name and give shape to a group of interrelated concepts and philosophies that can seem sprawling and ill-defined at first, but that actually sit at the center of a worldview shared by venture capitalists, executives, and other thought leaders in the tech industry. 

    Readers will likely be familiar with the tech billionaires featured in your book and at least some of their ambitions. I’m guessing they’ll be less familiar with the various “isms” that you argue have influenced or guided their thinking. Effective altruism, rationalism, long­termism, extropianism, effective accelerationism, futurism, singularitarianism, ­transhumanism—there are a lot of them. Is there something that they all share? 

    They’re definitely connected. In a sense, you could say they’re all versions or instantiations of the ideology of technological salvation, but there are also some very deep historical connections between the people in these groups and their aims and beliefs. The Extropians in the late ’80s believed in self-­transformation through technology and freedom from limitations of any kind—ideas that Ray Kurzweil eventually helped popularize and legitimize for a larger audience with the Singularity. 

    In most of these isms you’ll find the idea of escape and transcendence, as well as the promise of an amazing future, full of unimaginable wonders—so long as we don’t get in the way of technological progress. I should say that AI researcher Timnit Gebru and philosopher Émile Torres have also done a lot of great work linking these ideologies to one another and showing how they all have ties to racism, misogyny, and eugenics.

    You argue that the Singularity is the purest expression of the ideology of technological salvation. How so?

    Well, for one thing, it’s just this very simple, straightforward idea—the Singularity is coming and will occur when we merge our brains with the cloud and expand our intelligence a millionfold. This will then deepen our awareness and consciousness and everything will be amazing. In many ways, it’s a fantastical vision of a perfect technological utopia. We’re all going to live as long as we want in an eternal paradise, watched over by machines of loving grace, and everything will just get exponentially better forever. The end.

    The other isms I talk about in the book have a little more … heft isn’t the right word—they just have more stuff going on. There’s more to them, right? The rationalists and the effective altruists and the longtermists—they think that something like a singularity will happen, or could happen, but that there’s this really big danger between where we are now and that potential event. We have to address the fact that an all-powerful AI might destroy humanity—the so-called alignment problem—before any singularity can happen. 

    Then you’ve got the effective accelerationists, who are more like Kurzweil, but they’ve got more of a tech-bro spin on things. They’ve taken some of the older transhumanist ideas from the Singularity and updated them for startup culture. Marc Andreessen’s “Techno-Optimist Manifesto”is a good example. You could argue that all of these other philosophies that have gained purchase in Silicon Valley are just twists on Kurzweil’s Singularity, each one building on top of the core ideas of transcendence, techno­-optimism, and exponential growth. 

    Early on in the book you take aim at that idea of exponential growth—specifically, Kurzweil’s “Law of Accelerating Returns.” Could you explain what that is and why you think it’s flawed?

    Kurzweil thinks there’s this immutable “Law of Accelerating Returns” at work in the affairs of the universe, especially when it comes to technology. It’s the idea that technological progress isn’t linear but exponential. Advancements in one technology fuel even more rapid advancements in the future, which in turn lead to greater complexity and greater technological power, and on and on. This is just a mistake. Kurzweil uses the Law of Accelerating Returns to explain why the Singularity is inevitable, but to be clear, he’s far from the only one who believes in this so-called law.

    “I really believe that when you get as rich as some of these guys are, you can just do things that seem like thinking and no one is really going to correct you or tell you things you don’t want to hear.”

    My sense is that it’s an idea that comes from staring at Moore’s Law for too long. Moore’s Law is of course the famous prediction that the number of transistors on a chip will double roughly every two years, with a minimal increase in cost. Now, that has in fact happened for the last 50 years or so, but not because of some fundamental law in the universe. It’s because the tech industry made a choice and some very sizable investments to make it happen. Moore’s Law was ultimately this really interesting observation or projection of a historical trend, but even Gordon Mooreknew that it wouldn’t and couldn’t last forever. In fact, some think it’s already over. 

    These ideologies take inspiration from some pretty unsavory characters. Transhumanism, you say, was first popularized by the eugenicist Julian Huxley in a speech in 1951. Marc Andreessen’s “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” name-checks the noted fascist Filippo Tommaso Marinetti and his futurist manifesto. Did you get the sense while researching the book that the tech titans who champion these ideas understand their dangerous origins?

    You’re assuming in the framing of that question that there’s any rigorous thought going on here at all. As I say in the book, Andreessen’s manifesto runs almost entirely on vibes, not logic. I think someone may have told him about the futurist manifesto at some point, and he just sort of liked the general vibe, which is why he paraphrases a part of it. Maybe he learned something about Marinetti and forgot it. Maybe he didn’t care. 

    I really believe that when you get as rich as some of these guys are, you can just do things that seem like thinking and no one is really going to correct you or tell you things you don’t want to hear. For many of these billionaires, the vibes of fascism, authoritarianism, and colonialism are attractive because they’re fundamentally about creating a fantasy of control. 

    You argue that these visions of the future are being used to hasten environmental destruction, increase authoritarianism, and exacerbate inequalities. You also admit that they appeal to lots of people who aren’t billionaires. Why do you think that is? 

    I think a lot of us are also attracted to these ideas for the same reasons the tech billionaires are—they offer this fantasy of knowing what the future holds, of transcending death, and a sense that someone or something out there is in control. It’s hard to overstate how comforting a simple, coherent narrative can be in an increasingly complex and fast-moving world. This is of course what religion offers for many of us, and I don’t think it’s an accident that a sizable number of people in the rationalist and effective altruist communities are actually ex-evangelicals.

    More than any one specific technology, it seems like the most consequential thing these billionaires have invented is a sense of inevitability—that their visions for the future are somehow predestined. How does one fight against that?

    It’s a difficult question. For me, the answer was to write this book. I guess I’d also say this: Silicon Valley enjoyed well over a decade with little to no pushback on anything. That’s definitely a big part of how we ended up in this mess. There was no regulation, very little critical coverage in the press, and a lot of self-mythologizing going on. Things have started to change, especially as the social and environmental damage that tech companies and industry leaders have helped facilitate has become more clear. That understanding is an essential part of deflating the power of these tech billionaires and breaking free of their visions. When we understand that these dreams of the future are actually nightmares for the rest of us, I think you’ll see that senseof inevitability vanish pretty fast. 

    This interview was edited for length and clarity.

    Bryan Gardiner is a writer based in Oakland, California. 
    #tech #billionaires #are #making #risky
    Tech billionaires are making a risky bet with humanity’s future
    “The best way to predict the future is to invent it,” the famed computer scientist Alan Kay once said. Uttered more out of exasperation than as inspiration, his remark has nevertheless attained gospel-like status among Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, in particular a handful of tech billionaires who fancy themselves the chief architects of humanity’s future.  Sam Altman, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and others may have slightly different goals and ambitions in the near term, but their grand visions for the next decade and beyond are remarkably similar. Framed less as technological objectives and more as existential imperatives, they include aligning AI with the interests of humanity; creating an artificial superintelligence that will solve all the world’s most pressing problems; merging with that superintelligence to achieve immortality; establishing a permanent, self-­sustaining colony on Mars; and, ultimately, spreading out across the cosmos. While there’s a sprawling patchwork of ideas and philosophies powering these visions, three features play a central role, says Adam Becker, a science writer and astrophysicist: an unshakable certainty that technology can solve any problem, a belief in the necessity of perpetual growth, and a quasi-religious obsession with transcending our physical and biological limits. In his timely new book, More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity, Becker calls this triumvirate of beliefs the “ideology of technological salvation” and warns that tech titans are using it to steer humanity in a dangerous direction.  “In most of these isms you’ll find the idea of escape and transcendence, as well as the promise of an amazing future, full of unimaginable wonders—so long as we don’t get in the way of technological progress.” “The credence that tech billionaires give to these specific science-fictional futures validates their pursuit of more—to portray the growth of their businesses as a moral imperative, to reduce the complex problems of the world to simple questions of technology,to justify nearly any action they might want to take,” he writes. Becker argues that the only way to break free of these visions is to see them for what they are: a convenient excuse to continue destroying the environment, skirt regulations, amass more power and control, and dismiss the very real problems of today to focus on the imagined ones of tomorrow.  A lot of critics, academics, and journalists have tried to define or distill the Silicon Valley ethos over the years. There was the “Californian Ideology” in the mid-’90s, the “Move fast and break things” era of the early 2000s, and more recently the “Libertarianism for me, feudalism for thee”  or “techno-­authoritarian” views. How do you see the “ideology of technological salvation” fitting in?  I’d say it’s very much of a piece with those earlier attempts to describe the Silicon Valley mindset. I mean, you can draw a pretty straight line from Max More’s principles of transhumanism in the ’90s to the Californian Ideologyand through to what I call the ideology of technological salvation. The fact is, many of the ideas that define or animate Silicon Valley thinking have never been much of a ­mystery—libertarianism, an antipathy toward the government and regulation, the boundless faith in technology, the obsession with optimization.  What can be difficult is to parse where all these ideas come from and how they fit together—or if they fit together at all. I came up with the ideology of technological salvation as a way to name and give shape to a group of interrelated concepts and philosophies that can seem sprawling and ill-defined at first, but that actually sit at the center of a worldview shared by venture capitalists, executives, and other thought leaders in the tech industry.  Readers will likely be familiar with the tech billionaires featured in your book and at least some of their ambitions. I’m guessing they’ll be less familiar with the various “isms” that you argue have influenced or guided their thinking. Effective altruism, rationalism, long­termism, extropianism, effective accelerationism, futurism, singularitarianism, ­transhumanism—there are a lot of them. Is there something that they all share?  They’re definitely connected. In a sense, you could say they’re all versions or instantiations of the ideology of technological salvation, but there are also some very deep historical connections between the people in these groups and their aims and beliefs. The Extropians in the late ’80s believed in self-­transformation through technology and freedom from limitations of any kind—ideas that Ray Kurzweil eventually helped popularize and legitimize for a larger audience with the Singularity.  In most of these isms you’ll find the idea of escape and transcendence, as well as the promise of an amazing future, full of unimaginable wonders—so long as we don’t get in the way of technological progress. I should say that AI researcher Timnit Gebru and philosopher Émile Torres have also done a lot of great work linking these ideologies to one another and showing how they all have ties to racism, misogyny, and eugenics. You argue that the Singularity is the purest expression of the ideology of technological salvation. How so? Well, for one thing, it’s just this very simple, straightforward idea—the Singularity is coming and will occur when we merge our brains with the cloud and expand our intelligence a millionfold. This will then deepen our awareness and consciousness and everything will be amazing. In many ways, it’s a fantastical vision of a perfect technological utopia. We’re all going to live as long as we want in an eternal paradise, watched over by machines of loving grace, and everything will just get exponentially better forever. The end. The other isms I talk about in the book have a little more … heft isn’t the right word—they just have more stuff going on. There’s more to them, right? The rationalists and the effective altruists and the longtermists—they think that something like a singularity will happen, or could happen, but that there’s this really big danger between where we are now and that potential event. We have to address the fact that an all-powerful AI might destroy humanity—the so-called alignment problem—before any singularity can happen.  Then you’ve got the effective accelerationists, who are more like Kurzweil, but they’ve got more of a tech-bro spin on things. They’ve taken some of the older transhumanist ideas from the Singularity and updated them for startup culture. Marc Andreessen’s “Techno-Optimist Manifesto”is a good example. You could argue that all of these other philosophies that have gained purchase in Silicon Valley are just twists on Kurzweil’s Singularity, each one building on top of the core ideas of transcendence, techno­-optimism, and exponential growth.  Early on in the book you take aim at that idea of exponential growth—specifically, Kurzweil’s “Law of Accelerating Returns.” Could you explain what that is and why you think it’s flawed? Kurzweil thinks there’s this immutable “Law of Accelerating Returns” at work in the affairs of the universe, especially when it comes to technology. It’s the idea that technological progress isn’t linear but exponential. Advancements in one technology fuel even more rapid advancements in the future, which in turn lead to greater complexity and greater technological power, and on and on. This is just a mistake. Kurzweil uses the Law of Accelerating Returns to explain why the Singularity is inevitable, but to be clear, he’s far from the only one who believes in this so-called law. “I really believe that when you get as rich as some of these guys are, you can just do things that seem like thinking and no one is really going to correct you or tell you things you don’t want to hear.” My sense is that it’s an idea that comes from staring at Moore’s Law for too long. Moore’s Law is of course the famous prediction that the number of transistors on a chip will double roughly every two years, with a minimal increase in cost. Now, that has in fact happened for the last 50 years or so, but not because of some fundamental law in the universe. It’s because the tech industry made a choice and some very sizable investments to make it happen. Moore’s Law was ultimately this really interesting observation or projection of a historical trend, but even Gordon Mooreknew that it wouldn’t and couldn’t last forever. In fact, some think it’s already over.  These ideologies take inspiration from some pretty unsavory characters. Transhumanism, you say, was first popularized by the eugenicist Julian Huxley in a speech in 1951. Marc Andreessen’s “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” name-checks the noted fascist Filippo Tommaso Marinetti and his futurist manifesto. Did you get the sense while researching the book that the tech titans who champion these ideas understand their dangerous origins? You’re assuming in the framing of that question that there’s any rigorous thought going on here at all. As I say in the book, Andreessen’s manifesto runs almost entirely on vibes, not logic. I think someone may have told him about the futurist manifesto at some point, and he just sort of liked the general vibe, which is why he paraphrases a part of it. Maybe he learned something about Marinetti and forgot it. Maybe he didn’t care.  I really believe that when you get as rich as some of these guys are, you can just do things that seem like thinking and no one is really going to correct you or tell you things you don’t want to hear. For many of these billionaires, the vibes of fascism, authoritarianism, and colonialism are attractive because they’re fundamentally about creating a fantasy of control.  You argue that these visions of the future are being used to hasten environmental destruction, increase authoritarianism, and exacerbate inequalities. You also admit that they appeal to lots of people who aren’t billionaires. Why do you think that is?  I think a lot of us are also attracted to these ideas for the same reasons the tech billionaires are—they offer this fantasy of knowing what the future holds, of transcending death, and a sense that someone or something out there is in control. It’s hard to overstate how comforting a simple, coherent narrative can be in an increasingly complex and fast-moving world. This is of course what religion offers for many of us, and I don’t think it’s an accident that a sizable number of people in the rationalist and effective altruist communities are actually ex-evangelicals. More than any one specific technology, it seems like the most consequential thing these billionaires have invented is a sense of inevitability—that their visions for the future are somehow predestined. How does one fight against that? It’s a difficult question. For me, the answer was to write this book. I guess I’d also say this: Silicon Valley enjoyed well over a decade with little to no pushback on anything. That’s definitely a big part of how we ended up in this mess. There was no regulation, very little critical coverage in the press, and a lot of self-mythologizing going on. Things have started to change, especially as the social and environmental damage that tech companies and industry leaders have helped facilitate has become more clear. That understanding is an essential part of deflating the power of these tech billionaires and breaking free of their visions. When we understand that these dreams of the future are actually nightmares for the rest of us, I think you’ll see that senseof inevitability vanish pretty fast.  This interview was edited for length and clarity. Bryan Gardiner is a writer based in Oakland, California.  #tech #billionaires #are #making #risky
    WWW.TECHNOLOGYREVIEW.COM
    Tech billionaires are making a risky bet with humanity’s future
    “The best way to predict the future is to invent it,” the famed computer scientist Alan Kay once said. Uttered more out of exasperation than as inspiration, his remark has nevertheless attained gospel-like status among Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, in particular a handful of tech billionaires who fancy themselves the chief architects of humanity’s future.  Sam Altman, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and others may have slightly different goals and ambitions in the near term, but their grand visions for the next decade and beyond are remarkably similar. Framed less as technological objectives and more as existential imperatives, they include aligning AI with the interests of humanity; creating an artificial superintelligence that will solve all the world’s most pressing problems; merging with that superintelligence to achieve immortality (or something close to it); establishing a permanent, self-­sustaining colony on Mars; and, ultimately, spreading out across the cosmos. While there’s a sprawling patchwork of ideas and philosophies powering these visions, three features play a central role, says Adam Becker, a science writer and astrophysicist: an unshakable certainty that technology can solve any problem, a belief in the necessity of perpetual growth, and a quasi-religious obsession with transcending our physical and biological limits. In his timely new book, More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity, Becker calls this triumvirate of beliefs the “ideology of technological salvation” and warns that tech titans are using it to steer humanity in a dangerous direction.  “In most of these isms you’ll find the idea of escape and transcendence, as well as the promise of an amazing future, full of unimaginable wonders—so long as we don’t get in the way of technological progress.” “The credence that tech billionaires give to these specific science-fictional futures validates their pursuit of more—to portray the growth of their businesses as a moral imperative, to reduce the complex problems of the world to simple questions of technology, [and] to justify nearly any action they might want to take,” he writes. Becker argues that the only way to break free of these visions is to see them for what they are: a convenient excuse to continue destroying the environment, skirt regulations, amass more power and control, and dismiss the very real problems of today to focus on the imagined ones of tomorrow.  A lot of critics, academics, and journalists have tried to define or distill the Silicon Valley ethos over the years. There was the “Californian Ideology” in the mid-’90s, the “Move fast and break things” era of the early 2000s, and more recently the “Libertarianism for me, feudalism for thee”  or “techno-­authoritarian” views. How do you see the “ideology of technological salvation” fitting in?  I’d say it’s very much of a piece with those earlier attempts to describe the Silicon Valley mindset. I mean, you can draw a pretty straight line from Max More’s principles of transhumanism in the ’90s to the Californian Ideology [a mashup of countercultural, libertarian, and neoliberal values] and through to what I call the ideology of technological salvation. The fact is, many of the ideas that define or animate Silicon Valley thinking have never been much of a ­mystery—libertarianism, an antipathy toward the government and regulation, the boundless faith in technology, the obsession with optimization.  What can be difficult is to parse where all these ideas come from and how they fit together—or if they fit together at all. I came up with the ideology of technological salvation as a way to name and give shape to a group of interrelated concepts and philosophies that can seem sprawling and ill-defined at first, but that actually sit at the center of a worldview shared by venture capitalists, executives, and other thought leaders in the tech industry.  Readers will likely be familiar with the tech billionaires featured in your book and at least some of their ambitions. I’m guessing they’ll be less familiar with the various “isms” that you argue have influenced or guided their thinking. Effective altruism, rationalism, long­termism, extropianism, effective accelerationism, futurism, singularitarianism, ­transhumanism—there are a lot of them. Is there something that they all share?  They’re definitely connected. In a sense, you could say they’re all versions or instantiations of the ideology of technological salvation, but there are also some very deep historical connections between the people in these groups and their aims and beliefs. The Extropians in the late ’80s believed in self-­transformation through technology and freedom from limitations of any kind—ideas that Ray Kurzweil eventually helped popularize and legitimize for a larger audience with the Singularity.  In most of these isms you’ll find the idea of escape and transcendence, as well as the promise of an amazing future, full of unimaginable wonders—so long as we don’t get in the way of technological progress. I should say that AI researcher Timnit Gebru and philosopher Émile Torres have also done a lot of great work linking these ideologies to one another and showing how they all have ties to racism, misogyny, and eugenics. You argue that the Singularity is the purest expression of the ideology of technological salvation. How so? Well, for one thing, it’s just this very simple, straightforward idea—the Singularity is coming and will occur when we merge our brains with the cloud and expand our intelligence a millionfold. This will then deepen our awareness and consciousness and everything will be amazing. In many ways, it’s a fantastical vision of a perfect technological utopia. We’re all going to live as long as we want in an eternal paradise, watched over by machines of loving grace, and everything will just get exponentially better forever. The end. The other isms I talk about in the book have a little more … heft isn’t the right word—they just have more stuff going on. There’s more to them, right? The rationalists and the effective altruists and the longtermists—they think that something like a singularity will happen, or could happen, but that there’s this really big danger between where we are now and that potential event. We have to address the fact that an all-powerful AI might destroy humanity—the so-called alignment problem—before any singularity can happen.  Then you’ve got the effective accelerationists, who are more like Kurzweil, but they’ve got more of a tech-bro spin on things. They’ve taken some of the older transhumanist ideas from the Singularity and updated them for startup culture. Marc Andreessen’s “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” [from 2023] is a good example. You could argue that all of these other philosophies that have gained purchase in Silicon Valley are just twists on Kurzweil’s Singularity, each one building on top of the core ideas of transcendence, techno­-optimism, and exponential growth.  Early on in the book you take aim at that idea of exponential growth—specifically, Kurzweil’s “Law of Accelerating Returns.” Could you explain what that is and why you think it’s flawed? Kurzweil thinks there’s this immutable “Law of Accelerating Returns” at work in the affairs of the universe, especially when it comes to technology. It’s the idea that technological progress isn’t linear but exponential. Advancements in one technology fuel even more rapid advancements in the future, which in turn lead to greater complexity and greater technological power, and on and on. This is just a mistake. Kurzweil uses the Law of Accelerating Returns to explain why the Singularity is inevitable, but to be clear, he’s far from the only one who believes in this so-called law. “I really believe that when you get as rich as some of these guys are, you can just do things that seem like thinking and no one is really going to correct you or tell you things you don’t want to hear.” My sense is that it’s an idea that comes from staring at Moore’s Law for too long. Moore’s Law is of course the famous prediction that the number of transistors on a chip will double roughly every two years, with a minimal increase in cost. Now, that has in fact happened for the last 50 years or so, but not because of some fundamental law in the universe. It’s because the tech industry made a choice and some very sizable investments to make it happen. Moore’s Law was ultimately this really interesting observation or projection of a historical trend, but even Gordon Moore [who first articulated it] knew that it wouldn’t and couldn’t last forever. In fact, some think it’s already over.  These ideologies take inspiration from some pretty unsavory characters. Transhumanism, you say, was first popularized by the eugenicist Julian Huxley in a speech in 1951. Marc Andreessen’s “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” name-checks the noted fascist Filippo Tommaso Marinetti and his futurist manifesto. Did you get the sense while researching the book that the tech titans who champion these ideas understand their dangerous origins? You’re assuming in the framing of that question that there’s any rigorous thought going on here at all. As I say in the book, Andreessen’s manifesto runs almost entirely on vibes, not logic. I think someone may have told him about the futurist manifesto at some point, and he just sort of liked the general vibe, which is why he paraphrases a part of it. Maybe he learned something about Marinetti and forgot it. Maybe he didn’t care.  I really believe that when you get as rich as some of these guys are, you can just do things that seem like thinking and no one is really going to correct you or tell you things you don’t want to hear. For many of these billionaires, the vibes of fascism, authoritarianism, and colonialism are attractive because they’re fundamentally about creating a fantasy of control.  You argue that these visions of the future are being used to hasten environmental destruction, increase authoritarianism, and exacerbate inequalities. You also admit that they appeal to lots of people who aren’t billionaires. Why do you think that is?  I think a lot of us are also attracted to these ideas for the same reasons the tech billionaires are—they offer this fantasy of knowing what the future holds, of transcending death, and a sense that someone or something out there is in control. It’s hard to overstate how comforting a simple, coherent narrative can be in an increasingly complex and fast-moving world. This is of course what religion offers for many of us, and I don’t think it’s an accident that a sizable number of people in the rationalist and effective altruist communities are actually ex-evangelicals. More than any one specific technology, it seems like the most consequential thing these billionaires have invented is a sense of inevitability—that their visions for the future are somehow predestined. How does one fight against that? It’s a difficult question. For me, the answer was to write this book. I guess I’d also say this: Silicon Valley enjoyed well over a decade with little to no pushback on anything. That’s definitely a big part of how we ended up in this mess. There was no regulation, very little critical coverage in the press, and a lot of self-mythologizing going on. Things have started to change, especially as the social and environmental damage that tech companies and industry leaders have helped facilitate has become more clear. That understanding is an essential part of deflating the power of these tech billionaires and breaking free of their visions. When we understand that these dreams of the future are actually nightmares for the rest of us, I think you’ll see that senseof inevitability vanish pretty fast.  This interview was edited for length and clarity. Bryan Gardiner is a writer based in Oakland, California. 
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    535
    2 Σχόλια 0 Μοιράστηκε
  • Those Investment Ads on Facebook Are Scams

    Investment scams aren't anything new: Bad actors have long used pump-and-dump tactics to hype stocks or cryptocurrencies, preying on emotions like fear and greed. And who wouldn't want big—or even steady—returns on their money, especially amidst tariffs and other economic turmoil? Scammers are currently capitalizing on this with fraudulent Facebook ads to lure users into handing over large sums of money. Here's how to spot these schemes and avoid falling victim. Investment scams on Meta platformsAccording to a group of 42 state attorneys general, the current fraudulent investment campaigns also happen to have elements of impersonation scams. The scheme begins with ads on Facebook that feature prominent investors, including ARK Investment Management's Cathie Wood, CNBC's Joe Kernan, and Fundstrat's Tom Lee, along with other wealthy individuals like Warren Buffet and Elon Musk. If you click the ad, you'll be prompted to download or open WhatsApp to join an investment group. This is where the pump-and-dump kicks off. "Experts" in the group advise members to purchase specific stocks, inflating the price, which they in turn sell and profit from. The AG letter to Meta detailing the scam includes reports of individuals losing anywhere from to or more after clicking on a fraudulent ad on Facebook. Other investment scams originating on Facebook involve cyber criminals harvesting sensitive personal information via fraudulent investing platforms. Investment scam red flags to watch forFor many people, it seems obvious that you shouldn't get your investment advice from a Facebook ad or WhatsApp group. But fear and greed are powerful emotions, and scammers are counting on these social engineering tactics working at least some of the time. That's why you should be wary of any advice that promises an unrealistic rate of return in a short period of time with no risk of loss as well as endorsements from celebrities, political figures, and well-known investors. It's also just good practice not to click ads on Facebook, which are easy vectors for spreading scams and malware. Another sign of a scam is content or communication that appears to be generated by AI. After joining a WhatsApp group, an investigator from the New York Office of the Attorney General was called by a scammer who used AI to translate her speech into English. Unfortunately, emotions can cloud our ability to identify AI-generated content if we want to believe what we're seeing.
    #those #investment #ads #facebook #are
    Those Investment Ads on Facebook Are Scams
    Investment scams aren't anything new: Bad actors have long used pump-and-dump tactics to hype stocks or cryptocurrencies, preying on emotions like fear and greed. And who wouldn't want big—or even steady—returns on their money, especially amidst tariffs and other economic turmoil? Scammers are currently capitalizing on this with fraudulent Facebook ads to lure users into handing over large sums of money. Here's how to spot these schemes and avoid falling victim. Investment scams on Meta platformsAccording to a group of 42 state attorneys general, the current fraudulent investment campaigns also happen to have elements of impersonation scams. The scheme begins with ads on Facebook that feature prominent investors, including ARK Investment Management's Cathie Wood, CNBC's Joe Kernan, and Fundstrat's Tom Lee, along with other wealthy individuals like Warren Buffet and Elon Musk. If you click the ad, you'll be prompted to download or open WhatsApp to join an investment group. This is where the pump-and-dump kicks off. "Experts" in the group advise members to purchase specific stocks, inflating the price, which they in turn sell and profit from. The AG letter to Meta detailing the scam includes reports of individuals losing anywhere from to or more after clicking on a fraudulent ad on Facebook. Other investment scams originating on Facebook involve cyber criminals harvesting sensitive personal information via fraudulent investing platforms. Investment scam red flags to watch forFor many people, it seems obvious that you shouldn't get your investment advice from a Facebook ad or WhatsApp group. But fear and greed are powerful emotions, and scammers are counting on these social engineering tactics working at least some of the time. That's why you should be wary of any advice that promises an unrealistic rate of return in a short period of time with no risk of loss as well as endorsements from celebrities, political figures, and well-known investors. It's also just good practice not to click ads on Facebook, which are easy vectors for spreading scams and malware. Another sign of a scam is content or communication that appears to be generated by AI. After joining a WhatsApp group, an investigator from the New York Office of the Attorney General was called by a scammer who used AI to translate her speech into English. Unfortunately, emotions can cloud our ability to identify AI-generated content if we want to believe what we're seeing. #those #investment #ads #facebook #are
    LIFEHACKER.COM
    Those Investment Ads on Facebook Are Scams
    Investment scams aren't anything new: Bad actors have long used pump-and-dump tactics to hype stocks or cryptocurrencies, preying on emotions like fear and greed. And who wouldn't want big—or even steady—returns on their money, especially amidst tariffs and other economic turmoil? Scammers are currently capitalizing on this with fraudulent Facebook ads to lure users into handing over large sums of money. Here's how to spot these schemes and avoid falling victim. Investment scams on Meta platformsAccording to a group of 42 state attorneys general, the current fraudulent investment campaigns also happen to have elements of impersonation scams. The scheme begins with ads on Facebook that feature prominent investors, including ARK Investment Management's Cathie Wood, CNBC's Joe Kernan, and Fundstrat's Tom Lee, along with other wealthy individuals like Warren Buffet and Elon Musk (none of whom have any actual affiliation with the ad). If you click the ad, you'll be prompted to download or open WhatsApp to join an investment group. This is where the pump-and-dump kicks off. "Experts" in the group advise members to purchase specific stocks, inflating the price, which they in turn sell and profit from. The AG letter to Meta detailing the scam includes reports of individuals losing anywhere from $40,000 to $100,000 or more after clicking on a fraudulent ad on Facebook. Other investment scams originating on Facebook involve cyber criminals harvesting sensitive personal information via fraudulent investing platforms (also by spoofing celebrity endorsements). Investment scam red flags to watch forFor many people, it seems obvious that you shouldn't get your investment advice from a Facebook ad or WhatsApp group. But fear and greed are powerful emotions, and scammers are counting on these social engineering tactics working at least some of the time. That's why you should be wary of any advice that promises an unrealistic rate of return in a short period of time with no risk of loss as well as endorsements from celebrities, political figures, and well-known investors (who are almost certainly not endorsing anything). It's also just good practice not to click ads on Facebook, which are easy vectors for spreading scams and malware. Another sign of a scam is content or communication that appears to be generated by AI. After joining a WhatsApp group, an investigator from the New York Office of the Attorney General was called by a scammer who used AI to translate her speech into English. Unfortunately, emotions can cloud our ability to identify AI-generated content if we want to believe what we're seeing.
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    445
    2 Σχόλια 0 Μοιράστηκε
  • How a US agriculture agency became key in the fight against bird flu

    A dangerous strain of bird flu is spreading in US livestockMediaMedium/Alamy
    Since Donald Trump assumed office in January, the leading US public health agency has pulled back preparations for a potential bird flu pandemic. But as it steps back, another government agency is stepping up.

    While the US Department of Health and Human Servicespreviously held regular briefings on its efforts to prevent a wider outbreak of a deadly bird flu virus called H5N1 in people, it largely stopped once Trump took office. It has also cancelled funding for a vaccine that would have targeted the virus. In contrast, the US Department of Agriculturehas escalated its fight against H5N1’s spread in poultry flocks and dairy herds, including by funding the development of livestock vaccines.
    This particular virus – a strain of avian influenza called H5N1 – poses a significant threat to humans, having killed about half of the roughly 1000 people worldwide who tested positive for it since 2003. While the pathogen spreads rapidly in birds, it is poorly adapted to infecting humans and isn’t known to transmit between people. But that could change if it acquires mutations that allow it to spread more easily among mammals – a risk that increases with each mammalian infection.
    The possibility of H5N1 evolving to become more dangerous to people has grown significantly since March 2024, when the virus jumped from migratory birds to dairy cows in Texas. More than 1,070 herds across 17 states have been affected since then.
    H5N1 also infects poultry, placing the virus in closer proximity to people. Since 2022, nearly 175 million domestic birds have been culled in the US due to H5N1, and almost all of the 71 people who have tested positive for it had direct contact with livestock.

    Get the most essential health and fitness news in your inbox every Saturday.

    Sign up to newsletter

    “We need to take this seriously because whenconstantly is spreading, it’s constantly spilling over into humans,” says Seema Lakdawala at Emory University in Georgia. The virus has already killed a person in the US and a child in Mexico this year.
    Still, cases have declined under Trump. The last recorded human case was in February, and the number of affected poultry flocks fell 95 per cent between then and June. Outbreaks in dairy herds have also stabilised.
    It isn’t clear what is behind the decline. Lakdawala believes it is partly due to a lull in bird migration, which reduces opportunities for the virus to spread from wild birds to livestock. It may also reflect efforts by the USDA to contain outbreaks on farms. In February, the USDA unveiled a billion plan for tackling H5N1, including strengthening farmers’ defences against the virus, such as through free biosecurity assessments. Of the 150 facilities that have undergone assessment, only one has experienced an H5N1 outbreak.
    Under Trump, the USDA also continued its National Milk Testing Strategy, which mandates farms provide raw milk samples for influenza testing. If a farm is positive for H5N1, it must allow the USDA to monitor livestock and implement measures to contain the virus. The USDA launched the programme in December and has since ramped up participation to 45 states.
    “The National Milk Testing Strategy is a fantastic system,” says Erin Sorrell at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland. Along with the USDA’s efforts to improve biosecurity measures on farms, milk testing is crucial for containing the outbreak, says Sorrell.

    But while the USDA has bolstered its efforts against H5N1, the HHS doesn’t appear to have followed suit. In fact, the recent drop in human cases may reflect decreased surveillance due to workforce cuts, says Sorrell. In April, the HHS laid off about 10,000 employees, including 90 per cent of staff at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, an office that helps investigate H5N1 outbreaks in farm workers.
    “There is an old saying that if you don’t test for something, you can’t find it,” says Sorrell. Yet a spokesperson for the US Centers for Disease Control and Preventionsays its guidance and surveillance efforts have not changed. “State and local health departments continue to monitor for illness in persons exposed to sick animals,” they told New Scientist. “CDC remains committed to rapidly communicating information as needed about H5N1.”
    The USDA and HHS also diverge on vaccination. While the USDA has allocated million toward developing vaccines and other solutions for preventing H5N1’s spread in livestock, the HHS cancelled million in contracts for influenza vaccine development. The contracts – terminated on 28 May – were with the pharmaceutical company Moderna to develop vaccines targeting flu subtypes, including H5N1, that could cause future pandemics. The news came the same day Moderna reported nearly 98 per cent of the roughly 300 participants who received two doses of the H5 vaccine in a clinical trial had antibody levels believed to be protective against the virus.
    The US has about five million H5N1 vaccine doses stockpiled, but these are made using eggs and cultured cells, which take longer to produce than mRNA-based vaccines like Moderna’s. The Moderna vaccine would have modernised the stockpile and enabled the government to rapidly produce vaccines in the event of a pandemic, says Sorrell. “It seems like a very effective platform and would have positioned the US and others to be on good footing if and when we needed a vaccine for our general public,” she says.

    The HHS cancelled the contracts due to concerns about mRNA vaccines, which Robert F Kennedy Jr – the country’s highest-ranking public health official – has previously cast doubt on. “The reality is that mRNA technology remains under-tested, and we are not going to spend taxpayer dollars repeating the mistakes of the last administration,” said HHS communications director Andrew Nixon in a statement to New Scientist.
    However, mRNA technology isn’t new. It has been in development for more than half a century and numerous clinical trials have shown mRNA vaccines are safe. While they do carry the risk of side effects – the majority of which are mild – this is true of almost every medical treatment. In a press release, Moderna said it would explore alternative funding paths for the programme.
    “My stance is that we should not be looking to take anything off the table, and that includes any type of vaccine regimen,” says Lakdawala.
    “Vaccines are the most effective way to counter an infectious disease,” says Sorrell. “And so having that in your arsenal and ready to go just give you more options.”
    Topics:
    #how #agriculture #agency #became #key
    How a US agriculture agency became key in the fight against bird flu
    A dangerous strain of bird flu is spreading in US livestockMediaMedium/Alamy Since Donald Trump assumed office in January, the leading US public health agency has pulled back preparations for a potential bird flu pandemic. But as it steps back, another government agency is stepping up. While the US Department of Health and Human Servicespreviously held regular briefings on its efforts to prevent a wider outbreak of a deadly bird flu virus called H5N1 in people, it largely stopped once Trump took office. It has also cancelled funding for a vaccine that would have targeted the virus. In contrast, the US Department of Agriculturehas escalated its fight against H5N1’s spread in poultry flocks and dairy herds, including by funding the development of livestock vaccines. This particular virus – a strain of avian influenza called H5N1 – poses a significant threat to humans, having killed about half of the roughly 1000 people worldwide who tested positive for it since 2003. While the pathogen spreads rapidly in birds, it is poorly adapted to infecting humans and isn’t known to transmit between people. But that could change if it acquires mutations that allow it to spread more easily among mammals – a risk that increases with each mammalian infection. The possibility of H5N1 evolving to become more dangerous to people has grown significantly since March 2024, when the virus jumped from migratory birds to dairy cows in Texas. More than 1,070 herds across 17 states have been affected since then. H5N1 also infects poultry, placing the virus in closer proximity to people. Since 2022, nearly 175 million domestic birds have been culled in the US due to H5N1, and almost all of the 71 people who have tested positive for it had direct contact with livestock. Get the most essential health and fitness news in your inbox every Saturday. Sign up to newsletter “We need to take this seriously because whenconstantly is spreading, it’s constantly spilling over into humans,” says Seema Lakdawala at Emory University in Georgia. The virus has already killed a person in the US and a child in Mexico this year. Still, cases have declined under Trump. The last recorded human case was in February, and the number of affected poultry flocks fell 95 per cent between then and June. Outbreaks in dairy herds have also stabilised. It isn’t clear what is behind the decline. Lakdawala believes it is partly due to a lull in bird migration, which reduces opportunities for the virus to spread from wild birds to livestock. It may also reflect efforts by the USDA to contain outbreaks on farms. In February, the USDA unveiled a billion plan for tackling H5N1, including strengthening farmers’ defences against the virus, such as through free biosecurity assessments. Of the 150 facilities that have undergone assessment, only one has experienced an H5N1 outbreak. Under Trump, the USDA also continued its National Milk Testing Strategy, which mandates farms provide raw milk samples for influenza testing. If a farm is positive for H5N1, it must allow the USDA to monitor livestock and implement measures to contain the virus. The USDA launched the programme in December and has since ramped up participation to 45 states. “The National Milk Testing Strategy is a fantastic system,” says Erin Sorrell at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland. Along with the USDA’s efforts to improve biosecurity measures on farms, milk testing is crucial for containing the outbreak, says Sorrell. But while the USDA has bolstered its efforts against H5N1, the HHS doesn’t appear to have followed suit. In fact, the recent drop in human cases may reflect decreased surveillance due to workforce cuts, says Sorrell. In April, the HHS laid off about 10,000 employees, including 90 per cent of staff at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, an office that helps investigate H5N1 outbreaks in farm workers. “There is an old saying that if you don’t test for something, you can’t find it,” says Sorrell. Yet a spokesperson for the US Centers for Disease Control and Preventionsays its guidance and surveillance efforts have not changed. “State and local health departments continue to monitor for illness in persons exposed to sick animals,” they told New Scientist. “CDC remains committed to rapidly communicating information as needed about H5N1.” The USDA and HHS also diverge on vaccination. While the USDA has allocated million toward developing vaccines and other solutions for preventing H5N1’s spread in livestock, the HHS cancelled million in contracts for influenza vaccine development. The contracts – terminated on 28 May – were with the pharmaceutical company Moderna to develop vaccines targeting flu subtypes, including H5N1, that could cause future pandemics. The news came the same day Moderna reported nearly 98 per cent of the roughly 300 participants who received two doses of the H5 vaccine in a clinical trial had antibody levels believed to be protective against the virus. The US has about five million H5N1 vaccine doses stockpiled, but these are made using eggs and cultured cells, which take longer to produce than mRNA-based vaccines like Moderna’s. The Moderna vaccine would have modernised the stockpile and enabled the government to rapidly produce vaccines in the event of a pandemic, says Sorrell. “It seems like a very effective platform and would have positioned the US and others to be on good footing if and when we needed a vaccine for our general public,” she says. The HHS cancelled the contracts due to concerns about mRNA vaccines, which Robert F Kennedy Jr – the country’s highest-ranking public health official – has previously cast doubt on. “The reality is that mRNA technology remains under-tested, and we are not going to spend taxpayer dollars repeating the mistakes of the last administration,” said HHS communications director Andrew Nixon in a statement to New Scientist. However, mRNA technology isn’t new. It has been in development for more than half a century and numerous clinical trials have shown mRNA vaccines are safe. While they do carry the risk of side effects – the majority of which are mild – this is true of almost every medical treatment. In a press release, Moderna said it would explore alternative funding paths for the programme. “My stance is that we should not be looking to take anything off the table, and that includes any type of vaccine regimen,” says Lakdawala. “Vaccines are the most effective way to counter an infectious disease,” says Sorrell. “And so having that in your arsenal and ready to go just give you more options.” Topics: #how #agriculture #agency #became #key
    WWW.NEWSCIENTIST.COM
    How a US agriculture agency became key in the fight against bird flu
    A dangerous strain of bird flu is spreading in US livestockMediaMedium/Alamy Since Donald Trump assumed office in January, the leading US public health agency has pulled back preparations for a potential bird flu pandemic. But as it steps back, another government agency is stepping up. While the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) previously held regular briefings on its efforts to prevent a wider outbreak of a deadly bird flu virus called H5N1 in people, it largely stopped once Trump took office. It has also cancelled funding for a vaccine that would have targeted the virus. In contrast, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has escalated its fight against H5N1’s spread in poultry flocks and dairy herds, including by funding the development of livestock vaccines. This particular virus – a strain of avian influenza called H5N1 – poses a significant threat to humans, having killed about half of the roughly 1000 people worldwide who tested positive for it since 2003. While the pathogen spreads rapidly in birds, it is poorly adapted to infecting humans and isn’t known to transmit between people. But that could change if it acquires mutations that allow it to spread more easily among mammals – a risk that increases with each mammalian infection. The possibility of H5N1 evolving to become more dangerous to people has grown significantly since March 2024, when the virus jumped from migratory birds to dairy cows in Texas. More than 1,070 herds across 17 states have been affected since then. H5N1 also infects poultry, placing the virus in closer proximity to people. Since 2022, nearly 175 million domestic birds have been culled in the US due to H5N1, and almost all of the 71 people who have tested positive for it had direct contact with livestock. Get the most essential health and fitness news in your inbox every Saturday. Sign up to newsletter “We need to take this seriously because when [H5N1] constantly is spreading, it’s constantly spilling over into humans,” says Seema Lakdawala at Emory University in Georgia. The virus has already killed a person in the US and a child in Mexico this year. Still, cases have declined under Trump. The last recorded human case was in February, and the number of affected poultry flocks fell 95 per cent between then and June. Outbreaks in dairy herds have also stabilised. It isn’t clear what is behind the decline. Lakdawala believes it is partly due to a lull in bird migration, which reduces opportunities for the virus to spread from wild birds to livestock. It may also reflect efforts by the USDA to contain outbreaks on farms. In February, the USDA unveiled a $1 billion plan for tackling H5N1, including strengthening farmers’ defences against the virus, such as through free biosecurity assessments. Of the 150 facilities that have undergone assessment, only one has experienced an H5N1 outbreak. Under Trump, the USDA also continued its National Milk Testing Strategy, which mandates farms provide raw milk samples for influenza testing. If a farm is positive for H5N1, it must allow the USDA to monitor livestock and implement measures to contain the virus. The USDA launched the programme in December and has since ramped up participation to 45 states. “The National Milk Testing Strategy is a fantastic system,” says Erin Sorrell at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland. Along with the USDA’s efforts to improve biosecurity measures on farms, milk testing is crucial for containing the outbreak, says Sorrell. But while the USDA has bolstered its efforts against H5N1, the HHS doesn’t appear to have followed suit. In fact, the recent drop in human cases may reflect decreased surveillance due to workforce cuts, says Sorrell. In April, the HHS laid off about 10,000 employees, including 90 per cent of staff at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, an office that helps investigate H5N1 outbreaks in farm workers. “There is an old saying that if you don’t test for something, you can’t find it,” says Sorrell. Yet a spokesperson for the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says its guidance and surveillance efforts have not changed. “State and local health departments continue to monitor for illness in persons exposed to sick animals,” they told New Scientist. “CDC remains committed to rapidly communicating information as needed about H5N1.” The USDA and HHS also diverge on vaccination. While the USDA has allocated $100 million toward developing vaccines and other solutions for preventing H5N1’s spread in livestock, the HHS cancelled $776 million in contracts for influenza vaccine development. The contracts – terminated on 28 May – were with the pharmaceutical company Moderna to develop vaccines targeting flu subtypes, including H5N1, that could cause future pandemics. The news came the same day Moderna reported nearly 98 per cent of the roughly 300 participants who received two doses of the H5 vaccine in a clinical trial had antibody levels believed to be protective against the virus. The US has about five million H5N1 vaccine doses stockpiled, but these are made using eggs and cultured cells, which take longer to produce than mRNA-based vaccines like Moderna’s. The Moderna vaccine would have modernised the stockpile and enabled the government to rapidly produce vaccines in the event of a pandemic, says Sorrell. “It seems like a very effective platform and would have positioned the US and others to be on good footing if and when we needed a vaccine for our general public,” she says. The HHS cancelled the contracts due to concerns about mRNA vaccines, which Robert F Kennedy Jr – the country’s highest-ranking public health official – has previously cast doubt on. “The reality is that mRNA technology remains under-tested, and we are not going to spend taxpayer dollars repeating the mistakes of the last administration,” said HHS communications director Andrew Nixon in a statement to New Scientist. However, mRNA technology isn’t new. It has been in development for more than half a century and numerous clinical trials have shown mRNA vaccines are safe. While they do carry the risk of side effects – the majority of which are mild – this is true of almost every medical treatment. In a press release, Moderna said it would explore alternative funding paths for the programme. “My stance is that we should not be looking to take anything off the table, and that includes any type of vaccine regimen,” says Lakdawala. “Vaccines are the most effective way to counter an infectious disease,” says Sorrell. “And so having that in your arsenal and ready to go just give you more options.” Topics:
    0 Σχόλια 0 Μοιράστηκε
  • The Download: gambling with humanity’s future, and the FDA under Trump

    This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.Tech billionaires are making a risky bet with humanity’s future

    Sam Altman, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and others may have slightly different goals, but their grand visions for the next decade and beyond are remarkably similar.They include aligning AI with the interests of humanity; creating an artificial superintelligence that will solve all the world’s most pressing problems; merging with that superintelligence to achieve immortality; establishing a permanent, self-­sustaining colony on Mars; and, ultimately, spreading out across the cosmos.Three features play a central role with powering these visions, says Adam Becker, a science writer and astrophysicist: an unshakable certainty that technology can solve any problem, a belief in the necessity of perpetual growth, and a quasi-religious obsession with transcending our physical and biological limits.In his timely new book, More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity, Becker reveals how these fantastical visions conceal a darker agenda. Read the full story.

    —Bryan Gardiner

    This story is from the next print edition of MIT Technology Review, which explores power—who has it, and who wants it. It’s set to go live on Wednesday June 25, so subscribe & save 25% to read it and get a copy of the issue when it lands!

    Here’s what food and drug regulation might look like under the Trump administration

    Earlier this week, two new leaders of the US Food and Drug Administration published a list of priorities for the agency. Both Marty Makary and Vinay Prasad are controversial figures in the science community. They were generally highly respected academics until the covid pandemic, when their contrarian opinions on masking, vaccines, and lockdowns turned many of their colleagues off them.

    Given all this, along with recent mass firings of FDA employees, lots of people were pretty anxious to see what this list might include—and what we might expect the future of food and drug regulation in the US to look like. So let’s dive into the pair’s plans for new investigations, speedy approvals, and the “unleashing” of AI.

    —Jessica Hamzelou

    This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here.

    The must-reads

    I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.

    1 NASA is investigating leaks on the ISSIt’s postponed launching private astronauts to the station while it evaluates.+ Its core component has been springing small air leaks for months.+ Meanwhile, this Chinese probe is en route to a near-Earth asteroid.2 Undocumented migrants are using social media to warn of ICE raidsThe DIY networks are anonymously reporting police presences across LA.+ Platforms’ relationships with protest activism has changed drastically. 

    3 Google’s AI Overviews is hallucinating about the fatal Air India crashIt incorrectly stated that it involved an Airbus plane, not a Boeing 787.+ Why Google’s AI Overviews gets things wrong.4 Chinese engineers are sneaking suitcases of hard drives into the countryTo covertly train advanced AI models.+ The US is cracking down on Huawei’s ability to produce chips.+ What the US-China AI race overlooks.5 The National Hurricane Center is joining forces with DeepMindIt’s the first time the center has used AI to predict nature’s worst storms.+ Here’s what we know about hurricanes and climate change.6 OpenAI is working on a product with toymaker MattelAI-powered Barbies?!+ Nothing is safe from the creep of AI, not even playtime.+ OpenAI has ambitions to reach billions of users.7 Chatbots posing as licensed therapists may be breaking the lawDigital rights organizations have filed a complaint to the FTC.+ How do you teach an AI model to give therapy?8 Major companies are abandoning their climate commitmentsBut some experts argue this may not be entirely bad.+ Google, Amazon and the problem with Big Tech’s climate claims.9 Vibe coding is shaking up software engineeringEven though AI-generated code is inherently unreliable.+ What is vibe coding, exactly?10 TikTok really loves hotdogs And who can blame it?Quote of the day

    “It kind of jams two years of work into two months.”

    —Andrew Butcher, president of the Maine Connectivity Authority, tells Ars Technica why it’s so difficult to meet the Trump administration’s new plans to increase broadband access in certain states.

    One more thing

    The surprising barrier that keeps us from building the housing we needIt’s a tough time to try and buy a home in America. From the beginning of the pandemic to early 2024, US home prices rose by 47%. In large swaths of the country, buying a home is no longer a possibility even for those with middle-class incomes. For many, that marks the end of an American dream built around owning a house. Over the same time, rents have gone up 26%.The reason for the current rise in the cost of housing is clear to most economists: a lack of supply. Simply put, we don’t build enough houses and apartments, and we haven’t for years.

    But the reality is that even if we ease the endless permitting delays and begin cutting red tape, we will still be faced with a distressing fact: The construction industry is not very efficient when it comes to building stuff. Read the full story.

    —David Rotman

    We can still have nice things

    A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day.+ If you’re one of the unlucky people who has triskaidekaphobia, look away now.+ 15-year old Nicholas is preparing to head from his home in the UK to Japan to become a professional sumo wrestler.+ Earlier this week, London played host to 20,000 women in bald caps. But why?+ Why do dads watch TV standing up? I need to know.
    #download #gambling #with #humanitys #future
    The Download: gambling with humanity’s future, and the FDA under Trump
    This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.Tech billionaires are making a risky bet with humanity’s future Sam Altman, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and others may have slightly different goals, but their grand visions for the next decade and beyond are remarkably similar.They include aligning AI with the interests of humanity; creating an artificial superintelligence that will solve all the world’s most pressing problems; merging with that superintelligence to achieve immortality; establishing a permanent, self-­sustaining colony on Mars; and, ultimately, spreading out across the cosmos.Three features play a central role with powering these visions, says Adam Becker, a science writer and astrophysicist: an unshakable certainty that technology can solve any problem, a belief in the necessity of perpetual growth, and a quasi-religious obsession with transcending our physical and biological limits.In his timely new book, More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity, Becker reveals how these fantastical visions conceal a darker agenda. Read the full story. —Bryan Gardiner This story is from the next print edition of MIT Technology Review, which explores power—who has it, and who wants it. It’s set to go live on Wednesday June 25, so subscribe & save 25% to read it and get a copy of the issue when it lands! Here’s what food and drug regulation might look like under the Trump administration Earlier this week, two new leaders of the US Food and Drug Administration published a list of priorities for the agency. Both Marty Makary and Vinay Prasad are controversial figures in the science community. They were generally highly respected academics until the covid pandemic, when their contrarian opinions on masking, vaccines, and lockdowns turned many of their colleagues off them. Given all this, along with recent mass firings of FDA employees, lots of people were pretty anxious to see what this list might include—and what we might expect the future of food and drug regulation in the US to look like. So let’s dive into the pair’s plans for new investigations, speedy approvals, and the “unleashing” of AI. —Jessica Hamzelou This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here. The must-reads I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology. 1 NASA is investigating leaks on the ISSIt’s postponed launching private astronauts to the station while it evaluates.+ Its core component has been springing small air leaks for months.+ Meanwhile, this Chinese probe is en route to a near-Earth asteroid.2 Undocumented migrants are using social media to warn of ICE raidsThe DIY networks are anonymously reporting police presences across LA.+ Platforms’ relationships with protest activism has changed drastically.  3 Google’s AI Overviews is hallucinating about the fatal Air India crashIt incorrectly stated that it involved an Airbus plane, not a Boeing 787.+ Why Google’s AI Overviews gets things wrong.4 Chinese engineers are sneaking suitcases of hard drives into the countryTo covertly train advanced AI models.+ The US is cracking down on Huawei’s ability to produce chips.+ What the US-China AI race overlooks.5 The National Hurricane Center is joining forces with DeepMindIt’s the first time the center has used AI to predict nature’s worst storms.+ Here’s what we know about hurricanes and climate change.6 OpenAI is working on a product with toymaker MattelAI-powered Barbies?!+ Nothing is safe from the creep of AI, not even playtime.+ OpenAI has ambitions to reach billions of users.7 Chatbots posing as licensed therapists may be breaking the lawDigital rights organizations have filed a complaint to the FTC.+ How do you teach an AI model to give therapy?8 Major companies are abandoning their climate commitmentsBut some experts argue this may not be entirely bad.+ Google, Amazon and the problem with Big Tech’s climate claims.9 Vibe coding is shaking up software engineeringEven though AI-generated code is inherently unreliable.+ What is vibe coding, exactly?10 TikTok really loves hotdogs And who can blame it?Quote of the day “It kind of jams two years of work into two months.” —Andrew Butcher, president of the Maine Connectivity Authority, tells Ars Technica why it’s so difficult to meet the Trump administration’s new plans to increase broadband access in certain states. One more thing The surprising barrier that keeps us from building the housing we needIt’s a tough time to try and buy a home in America. From the beginning of the pandemic to early 2024, US home prices rose by 47%. In large swaths of the country, buying a home is no longer a possibility even for those with middle-class incomes. For many, that marks the end of an American dream built around owning a house. Over the same time, rents have gone up 26%.The reason for the current rise in the cost of housing is clear to most economists: a lack of supply. Simply put, we don’t build enough houses and apartments, and we haven’t for years. But the reality is that even if we ease the endless permitting delays and begin cutting red tape, we will still be faced with a distressing fact: The construction industry is not very efficient when it comes to building stuff. Read the full story. —David Rotman We can still have nice things A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day.+ If you’re one of the unlucky people who has triskaidekaphobia, look away now.+ 15-year old Nicholas is preparing to head from his home in the UK to Japan to become a professional sumo wrestler.+ Earlier this week, London played host to 20,000 women in bald caps. But why?+ Why do dads watch TV standing up? I need to know. #download #gambling #with #humanitys #future
    WWW.TECHNOLOGYREVIEW.COM
    The Download: gambling with humanity’s future, and the FDA under Trump
    This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.Tech billionaires are making a risky bet with humanity’s future Sam Altman, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and others may have slightly different goals, but their grand visions for the next decade and beyond are remarkably similar.They include aligning AI with the interests of humanity; creating an artificial superintelligence that will solve all the world’s most pressing problems; merging with that superintelligence to achieve immortality (or something close to it); establishing a permanent, self-­sustaining colony on Mars; and, ultimately, spreading out across the cosmos.Three features play a central role with powering these visions, says Adam Becker, a science writer and astrophysicist: an unshakable certainty that technology can solve any problem, a belief in the necessity of perpetual growth, and a quasi-religious obsession with transcending our physical and biological limits.In his timely new book, More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity, Becker reveals how these fantastical visions conceal a darker agenda. Read the full story. —Bryan Gardiner This story is from the next print edition of MIT Technology Review, which explores power—who has it, and who wants it. It’s set to go live on Wednesday June 25, so subscribe & save 25% to read it and get a copy of the issue when it lands! Here’s what food and drug regulation might look like under the Trump administration Earlier this week, two new leaders of the US Food and Drug Administration published a list of priorities for the agency. Both Marty Makary and Vinay Prasad are controversial figures in the science community. They were generally highly respected academics until the covid pandemic, when their contrarian opinions on masking, vaccines, and lockdowns turned many of their colleagues off them. Given all this, along with recent mass firings of FDA employees, lots of people were pretty anxious to see what this list might include—and what we might expect the future of food and drug regulation in the US to look like. So let’s dive into the pair’s plans for new investigations, speedy approvals, and the “unleashing” of AI. —Jessica Hamzelou This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here. The must-reads I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology. 1 NASA is investigating leaks on the ISSIt’s postponed launching private astronauts to the station while it evaluates. (WP $)+ Its core component has been springing small air leaks for months. (Reuters)+ Meanwhile, this Chinese probe is en route to a near-Earth asteroid. (Wired $) 2 Undocumented migrants are using social media to warn of ICE raidsThe DIY networks are anonymously reporting police presences across LA. (Wired $)+ Platforms’ relationships with protest activism has changed drastically. (NY Mag $)  3 Google’s AI Overviews is hallucinating about the fatal Air India crashIt incorrectly stated that it involved an Airbus plane, not a Boeing 787. (Ars Technica)+ Why Google’s AI Overviews gets things wrong. (MIT Technology Review) 4 Chinese engineers are sneaking suitcases of hard drives into the countryTo covertly train advanced AI models. (WSJ $)+ The US is cracking down on Huawei’s ability to produce chips. (Bloomberg $)+ What the US-China AI race overlooks. (Rest of World) 5 The National Hurricane Center is joining forces with DeepMindIt’s the first time the center has used AI to predict nature’s worst storms. (NYT $)+ Here’s what we know about hurricanes and climate change. (MIT Technology Review) 6 OpenAI is working on a product with toymaker MattelAI-powered Barbies?! (FT $)+ Nothing is safe from the creep of AI, not even playtime. (LA Times $)+ OpenAI has ambitions to reach billions of users. (Bloomberg $) 7 Chatbots posing as licensed therapists may be breaking the lawDigital rights organizations have filed a complaint to the FTC. (404 Media)+ How do you teach an AI model to give therapy? (MIT Technology Review) 8 Major companies are abandoning their climate commitmentsBut some experts argue this may not be entirely bad. (Bloomberg $)+ Google, Amazon and the problem with Big Tech’s climate claims. (MIT Technology Review) 9 Vibe coding is shaking up software engineeringEven though AI-generated code is inherently unreliable. (Wired $)+ What is vibe coding, exactly? (MIT Technology Review) 10 TikTok really loves hotdogs And who can blame it? (Insider $) Quote of the day “It kind of jams two years of work into two months.” —Andrew Butcher, president of the Maine Connectivity Authority, tells Ars Technica why it’s so difficult to meet the Trump administration’s new plans to increase broadband access in certain states. One more thing The surprising barrier that keeps us from building the housing we needIt’s a tough time to try and buy a home in America. From the beginning of the pandemic to early 2024, US home prices rose by 47%. In large swaths of the country, buying a home is no longer a possibility even for those with middle-class incomes. For many, that marks the end of an American dream built around owning a house. Over the same time, rents have gone up 26%.The reason for the current rise in the cost of housing is clear to most economists: a lack of supply. Simply put, we don’t build enough houses and apartments, and we haven’t for years. But the reality is that even if we ease the endless permitting delays and begin cutting red tape, we will still be faced with a distressing fact: The construction industry is not very efficient when it comes to building stuff. Read the full story. —David Rotman We can still have nice things A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line or skeet ’em at me.) + If you’re one of the unlucky people who has triskaidekaphobia, look away now.+ 15-year old Nicholas is preparing to head from his home in the UK to Japan to become a professional sumo wrestler.+ Earlier this week, London played host to 20,000 women in bald caps. But why? ($)+ Why do dads watch TV standing up? I need to know.
    0 Σχόλια 0 Μοιράστηκε
  • FBC: Firebreak developers discuss the inspiration and challenges creating their first multiplayer title

    Things are warming up as Remedy’s FBC: Firebreak approaches its June 17 launch on PlayStation 5 as part of the PlayStation Plus Game Catalog. We chatted with Communications Director Thomas Puha, Lead Level Designer Teemu Huhtiniemi, Lead Designer/Lead Technical Designer Anssi Hyytiainen, and Game Director/Lead Writer Mike Kayatta about some of the fascinating and often hilarious development secrets behind the first-person shooter.

    PlayStation Blog: First, what PS5 and PS5 Pro features did you utilize?

    Thomas Puha: We’ll support 3D Audio, and we’re prioritising 60 FPS on both formats. We’re aiming for FSR2 with an output resolution of 2560 x 1440on PS, and PSSR with an output resolution of 3840×2160on PS5 Pro.

    Some of the DualSense wireless controller’s features are still a work in progress, but we’re looking to use haptic feedback in a similar way to our previous titles, such as Control and Alan Wake 2. For example, we want to differentiate the weapons to feel unique from each other using the adaptive triggers.

    Going into the game itself, were there any other influences on its creation outside of Control?

    Mike Kayatta: We looked at different TV shows that had lots of tools for going into a place and dealing with a crisis. One was a reality show called Dirty Jobs, where the host Mike Rowe finds these terrible, dangerous, or unexpected jobs that you don’t know exist, like cleaning out the inside of a water tower.

    We also looked at PowerWash Simulator. Cleaning dirt is oddly meditative and really fulfilling. It made me wish a zombie attacked me to break the Zen, and then I’d go right back to cleaning. And we were like, that would be pretty fun in the game.

    Play Video

    Were there specific challenges you faced given it’s your first multiplayer game and first-person shooter?

    Anssi Hyytiainen: It’s radically different from a workflow point of view. You can’t really test it alone, necessarily, which is quite a different experience. And then there are times when one player is missing things on their screen that others are seeing. It was like, “What are you shooting at?”

    What’s been your favorite moments developing the game so far?

    Teemu Huhtiniemi: There were so many. But I like when we started seeing all of these overlapping systems kind of click, because there’s a long time in the development where you talk about things on paper and have some prototypes, but you don’t really see it all come together until a point. Then you start seeing the interaction between the systems and all the fun that comes out of that.

    Kayatta: I imagine there’s a lot of people who probably are a little skeptical about Remedy making something so different. Even internally, when the project was starting. And once we got the trailer out there, everyone was so nervous, but it got a pretty positive reaction. Exposing it to the public is very motivating, because with games, for a very long time, there is nothing, or it is janky and it’s ugly and you don’t find the fun immediately.

    Were there any specific ideals you followed while you worked on the game?

    Kayatta: Early on we were constantly asking ourselves, “Could this only happen in Control or at Remedy?” Because the first thing you hear is, “Okay, this is just another co-op multiplayer shooter” – there’s thousands of them, and they’re all good. So what can we do to make it worth playing our game? We were always saying we’ve got this super weird universe and really interesting studio, so we’re always looking at what we could do that nobody else can.

    Huhtiniemi: I think for me it was when we chose to just embrace the chaos. Like, that’s the whole point of the game. It’s supposed to feel overwhelming and busy at times, so that was great to say it out loud.

    Kayatta: Yeah, originally we had a prototype where there were only two Hiss in the level, but it just didn’t work, it wasn’t fun. Then everything just accidentally went in the opposite direction, where it was super chaos. At some point we actually started looking at Overcooked quite a bit, and saying, “Look, just embrace it. It’s gonna be nuts.”

    How did you finally decide on the name FBC: Firebreak, and were there any rejected, alternate, or working titles?

    Kayatta: So Firebreak is named after real world firebreaks, where you deforest an area to prevent a fire from spreading, but firebreaks are also topographical features of the Oldest House. And so we leaned into the term being a first responder who stops fires from spreading. The FBC part came from not wanting to put ‘Control’ in the title, so Control players wouldn’t feel like they had to detour to this before Control 2, but we didn’t want to totally detach from it either as that felt insincere.

    An external partner pitched a title. They were very serious about talking up the game being in the Oldest House, and then dramatically revealed the name: Housekeepers. I got what they were going for, but I was like, we cannot call it this. It was like you were playing as a maid!  

    FBC: Firebreak launches on PS5 June 17 as a day on PlayStation Plus Game Catalog title.
    #fbc #firebreak #developers #discuss #inspiration
    FBC: Firebreak developers discuss the inspiration and challenges creating their first multiplayer title
    Things are warming up as Remedy’s FBC: Firebreak approaches its June 17 launch on PlayStation 5 as part of the PlayStation Plus Game Catalog. We chatted with Communications Director Thomas Puha, Lead Level Designer Teemu Huhtiniemi, Lead Designer/Lead Technical Designer Anssi Hyytiainen, and Game Director/Lead Writer Mike Kayatta about some of the fascinating and often hilarious development secrets behind the first-person shooter. PlayStation Blog: First, what PS5 and PS5 Pro features did you utilize? Thomas Puha: We’ll support 3D Audio, and we’re prioritising 60 FPS on both formats. We’re aiming for FSR2 with an output resolution of 2560 x 1440on PS, and PSSR with an output resolution of 3840×2160on PS5 Pro. Some of the DualSense wireless controller’s features are still a work in progress, but we’re looking to use haptic feedback in a similar way to our previous titles, such as Control and Alan Wake 2. For example, we want to differentiate the weapons to feel unique from each other using the adaptive triggers. Going into the game itself, were there any other influences on its creation outside of Control? Mike Kayatta: We looked at different TV shows that had lots of tools for going into a place and dealing with a crisis. One was a reality show called Dirty Jobs, where the host Mike Rowe finds these terrible, dangerous, or unexpected jobs that you don’t know exist, like cleaning out the inside of a water tower. We also looked at PowerWash Simulator. Cleaning dirt is oddly meditative and really fulfilling. It made me wish a zombie attacked me to break the Zen, and then I’d go right back to cleaning. And we were like, that would be pretty fun in the game. Play Video Were there specific challenges you faced given it’s your first multiplayer game and first-person shooter? Anssi Hyytiainen: It’s radically different from a workflow point of view. You can’t really test it alone, necessarily, which is quite a different experience. And then there are times when one player is missing things on their screen that others are seeing. It was like, “What are you shooting at?” What’s been your favorite moments developing the game so far? Teemu Huhtiniemi: There were so many. But I like when we started seeing all of these overlapping systems kind of click, because there’s a long time in the development where you talk about things on paper and have some prototypes, but you don’t really see it all come together until a point. Then you start seeing the interaction between the systems and all the fun that comes out of that. Kayatta: I imagine there’s a lot of people who probably are a little skeptical about Remedy making something so different. Even internally, when the project was starting. And once we got the trailer out there, everyone was so nervous, but it got a pretty positive reaction. Exposing it to the public is very motivating, because with games, for a very long time, there is nothing, or it is janky and it’s ugly and you don’t find the fun immediately. Were there any specific ideals you followed while you worked on the game? Kayatta: Early on we were constantly asking ourselves, “Could this only happen in Control or at Remedy?” Because the first thing you hear is, “Okay, this is just another co-op multiplayer shooter” – there’s thousands of them, and they’re all good. So what can we do to make it worth playing our game? We were always saying we’ve got this super weird universe and really interesting studio, so we’re always looking at what we could do that nobody else can. Huhtiniemi: I think for me it was when we chose to just embrace the chaos. Like, that’s the whole point of the game. It’s supposed to feel overwhelming and busy at times, so that was great to say it out loud. Kayatta: Yeah, originally we had a prototype where there were only two Hiss in the level, but it just didn’t work, it wasn’t fun. Then everything just accidentally went in the opposite direction, where it was super chaos. At some point we actually started looking at Overcooked quite a bit, and saying, “Look, just embrace it. It’s gonna be nuts.” How did you finally decide on the name FBC: Firebreak, and were there any rejected, alternate, or working titles? Kayatta: So Firebreak is named after real world firebreaks, where you deforest an area to prevent a fire from spreading, but firebreaks are also topographical features of the Oldest House. And so we leaned into the term being a first responder who stops fires from spreading. The FBC part came from not wanting to put ‘Control’ in the title, so Control players wouldn’t feel like they had to detour to this before Control 2, but we didn’t want to totally detach from it either as that felt insincere. An external partner pitched a title. They were very serious about talking up the game being in the Oldest House, and then dramatically revealed the name: Housekeepers. I got what they were going for, but I was like, we cannot call it this. It was like you were playing as a maid!   FBC: Firebreak launches on PS5 June 17 as a day on PlayStation Plus Game Catalog title. #fbc #firebreak #developers #discuss #inspiration
    BLOG.PLAYSTATION.COM
    FBC: Firebreak developers discuss the inspiration and challenges creating their first multiplayer title
    Things are warming up as Remedy’s FBC: Firebreak approaches its June 17 launch on PlayStation 5 as part of the PlayStation Plus Game Catalog. We chatted with Communications Director Thomas Puha, Lead Level Designer Teemu Huhtiniemi, Lead Designer/Lead Technical Designer Anssi Hyytiainen, and Game Director/Lead Writer Mike Kayatta about some of the fascinating and often hilarious development secrets behind the first-person shooter. PlayStation Blog: First, what PS5 and PS5 Pro features did you utilize? Thomas Puha: We’ll support 3D Audio, and we’re prioritising 60 FPS on both formats. We’re aiming for FSR2 with an output resolution of 2560 x 1440 (1440p) on PS, and PSSR with an output resolution of 3840×2160 (4K) on PS5 Pro. Some of the DualSense wireless controller’s features are still a work in progress, but we’re looking to use haptic feedback in a similar way to our previous titles, such as Control and Alan Wake 2. For example, we want to differentiate the weapons to feel unique from each other using the adaptive triggers. Going into the game itself, were there any other influences on its creation outside of Control? Mike Kayatta: We looked at different TV shows that had lots of tools for going into a place and dealing with a crisis. One was a reality show called Dirty Jobs, where the host Mike Rowe finds these terrible, dangerous, or unexpected jobs that you don’t know exist, like cleaning out the inside of a water tower. We also looked at PowerWash Simulator. Cleaning dirt is oddly meditative and really fulfilling. It made me wish a zombie attacked me to break the Zen, and then I’d go right back to cleaning. And we were like, that would be pretty fun in the game. Play Video Were there specific challenges you faced given it’s your first multiplayer game and first-person shooter? Anssi Hyytiainen: It’s radically different from a workflow point of view. You can’t really test it alone, necessarily, which is quite a different experience. And then there are times when one player is missing things on their screen that others are seeing. It was like, “What are you shooting at?” What’s been your favorite moments developing the game so far? Teemu Huhtiniemi: There were so many. But I like when we started seeing all of these overlapping systems kind of click, because there’s a long time in the development where you talk about things on paper and have some prototypes, but you don’t really see it all come together until a point. Then you start seeing the interaction between the systems and all the fun that comes out of that. Kayatta: I imagine there’s a lot of people who probably are a little skeptical about Remedy making something so different. Even internally, when the project was starting. And once we got the trailer out there, everyone was so nervous, but it got a pretty positive reaction. Exposing it to the public is very motivating, because with games, for a very long time, there is nothing, or it is janky and it’s ugly and you don’t find the fun immediately. Were there any specific ideals you followed while you worked on the game? Kayatta: Early on we were constantly asking ourselves, “Could this only happen in Control or at Remedy?” Because the first thing you hear is, “Okay, this is just another co-op multiplayer shooter” – there’s thousands of them, and they’re all good. So what can we do to make it worth playing our game? We were always saying we’ve got this super weird universe and really interesting studio, so we’re always looking at what we could do that nobody else can. Huhtiniemi: I think for me it was when we chose to just embrace the chaos. Like, that’s the whole point of the game. It’s supposed to feel overwhelming and busy at times, so that was great to say it out loud. Kayatta: Yeah, originally we had a prototype where there were only two Hiss in the level, but it just didn’t work, it wasn’t fun. Then everything just accidentally went in the opposite direction, where it was super chaos. At some point we actually started looking at Overcooked quite a bit, and saying, “Look, just embrace it. It’s gonna be nuts.” How did you finally decide on the name FBC: Firebreak, and were there any rejected, alternate, or working titles? Kayatta: So Firebreak is named after real world firebreaks, where you deforest an area to prevent a fire from spreading, but firebreaks are also topographical features of the Oldest House. And so we leaned into the term being a first responder who stops fires from spreading. The FBC part came from not wanting to put ‘Control’ in the title, so Control players wouldn’t feel like they had to detour to this before Control 2, but we didn’t want to totally detach from it either as that felt insincere. An external partner pitched a title. They were very serious about talking up the game being in the Oldest House, and then dramatically revealed the name: Housekeepers. I got what they were going for, but I was like, we cannot call it this. It was like you were playing as a maid!   FBC: Firebreak launches on PS5 June 17 as a day on PlayStation Plus Game Catalog title.
    0 Σχόλια 0 Μοιράστηκε