June 5, 20253 min readNew Hires Will Still Leave the NWS Dangerously Understaffed, Meteorologists SayNearly 600 employees left the National Weather Service or were fired in recent months. Meteorologists say 125 expected new hires will still leave the agency dangerously understaffedBy Chelsea Harvey & E&E News A tornado struck communities in Somerset and London, Ky., on May 16, 2025, leaving 19 dead and more injured. Michael Swensen/Getty ImagesCLIMATEWIRE | New hiring efforts at the National Weather Service won’t be enough to overcome staffing shortages and potential risks to human lives this summer, meteorologists warned Wednesday at a panel hosted by Democratic Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell.NOAA will hire around 125 new employees at the NWS, the agency said in an announcement first reported Monday by CNN. But nearly 600 employees have departed the NWS over the last few months, after the Trump administration fired probationary federal employees and offered buyouts and early retirements.That means the new hires will account for less than 25 percent of the total losses.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.“A quarter of the staff are not going to do the job when, let’s just say, both hurricane and fire risks are increasing,” Cantwell said during Wednesday’s panel. “[The Trump administration’s] approach in response to this has been a flimsy Band-Aid over a very massive cut.”Cantwell added that the National Hurricane Center is not fully staffed, as NOAA officials suggested last month when announcing their predictions for the upcoming Atlantic hurricane season outlook. The NHC has at least five vacancies, she said, representing meteorologists and technicians who help build forecasts for tropical cyclones in both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.Meanwhile, NOAA is predicting above-average activity in the Atlantic this hurricane season. Updated fire maps also suggest that nearly all of Cantwell’s home state of Washington, along with Oregon and large swaths of California, will experience an above-average risk of wildfires by August.Kim Doster, NOAA’s director of communications, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on NOAA’s staffing shortages or the NHC’s vacancies.Three meteorologists speaking on the panel echoed Cantwell’s concerns, suggesting that staffing shortages at weather offices across the country risk forecasting errors and breakdowns in communication between meteorologists and emergency managers.At least eight local weather offices across the country are currently so short-staffed that they can no longer cover their overnight shifts, said Brian LaMarre, a former meteorologist-in-charge at the NWS office in Tampa Bay, Florida. Some of these offices may have to rely on “mutual aid,” or borrowed staff, from other NWS locations to cover their shifts during extreme weather events.But Cantwell and other panelists expressed concern that staff-sharing across the NWS could erode the accuracy of forecasts and warnings for local communities.Cantwell pointed to the meteorologists that specialize in fire weather forecasts. NOAA typically deploys those experts to provide forecasts and recommendations to firefighters on the ground when wildfires strike.“If you think you're gonna substitute somebody that’s gonna be somewhere else — I don’t know where, some other part of the state or some other state — and you think you're gonna give them accurate weather information? It just doesn't work that way,” she said.Washington state-based broadcast meteorologist Jeff Renner echoed her concerns.“The meteorologists that respond to [wildfires] have very specific training and very specific experience that can’t be easily duplicated, particularly from those outside the area,” he said.Meanwhile, LaMarre’s former position in Tampa is vacant, and around 30 other offices across the country are also operating without a permanent meteorologist-in-charge.“That person is the main point of contact when it comes to briefing elected officials, emergency management directors, state governors, city mayors, parish officials,” LaMarre said. “They are the individual that’s gonna be implementing any new change that is needed for hurricane season, blizzards, wildfires, inland flooding.”The NWS suffered from staffing shortages prior to the Trump administration. But LaMarre said he never saw such widespread vacancies, including offices unable to operate overnight, in his 30 years at the agency.He emphasized that NWS meteorologists will do whatever it takes to ensure accurate forecasts when extreme weather strikes. But too many gaps at local offices mean that some services will inevitably suffer, LaMarre added.“Whenever you look at an office that is short-staffed, that means a piece of that larger puzzle is taken away,” he said. “That means some outreach might not be able to occur. Some trainings might not be able to occur. Some briefings to officials might not be able to occur.”Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2025. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.

Remember that time when good ol’ Peter Parker called a drone strike on his classmates because another guy was flirting with MJ? Well, the artificial intelligence that made it happen is back, this time in snarky Canadian form! Deadline is reporting that Schitt’s Creek alum Emily Hampshire has been cast as E.D.I.T.H. in Vision Quest, the upcoming Disney+ series starring Paul Bettany as the synthezoid Avenger. E.D.I.T.H., of course, made her debut as a pair of ugly, gaudy sunglasses the late Tony Stark bequeathed to Peter in Spider-Man: Far From Home. Through E.D.I.T.H., Peter had access to vast technological resources, resources that Mysterio wanted to use for himself. At the end of Far From Home, Peter reclaimed the E.D.I.T.H. glasses and in Spider-Man: No Way Home, a screen readout assured us that they were inactive. Moreover, No Way Home ends with Peter having his secret identity wiped from everyone’s memory and a closing shot of him hand-stitching his own costume in a dingy New York apartment, suggeting that the MCU experiment of making working-class Peter Parker into the scion of a tech bro was done. That may still be true, in which case Vision Quest is a much better place for E.D.I.T.H. to exist. Created by Terry Matalas, showrunner of the Twelve Monkeys TV series and the third season of Star Trek: Picard, Vision Quest will follow the next phase in the life of the synthezoid Vision, who was killed in Avengers: Infinity War and resurrected as an initially evil clone in WandaVision. The title Vision Quest comes from a 1989-1990 arc of West Coast Avengers, written and penciled by John Byrne, in which the U.S. government dismantles Vision and recreates him into a mindless and easily controllable form, signified by his new bleach white look. Fans of the MCU will recognize that storyline from the last episodes of WandaVision, in which S.A.B.E.R. did the same thing to Bettany’s character. However, the Vision Quest comics continued to tell the story of Vision attempting to recover the humanity and personality he’d previously gained over the years, which will presumably be the plot of Vision Quest. However, E.D.I.T.H.’s casting is just the latest in a host of synthetic characters who will appear in the show. James Spader will return as Vision’s creator Ultron, and T’Nia Miller has joined the show as Jocasta, a female synthezoid originally created as Ultron’s bride. A few humans will show up as well, including the return of Faran Tahir as Raza, the leader of the Ten Rings terrorist cell, last seen in Iron Man, and frequent Matalas collaborator Todd Stashwick as a mystery man hunting Vision. That’s a packed cast, but as anyone who recalls the Picard season 3 episode in which androids Data and Lore merged, Matalas knows how to tell an interesting story about artificial intelligence. That episode also showed that Matalas knows how to add levity to heavy conversations about existence, making Hampshire’s casting as E.D.I.T.H. a wise choice. Just don’t let her anywhere near another school bus full of teenagers. Vision Quest is slated to appear on Disney+ in 2026.

An agency-wide LLM called Elsa was released weeks ahead of schedule.

5 June, 2025 In this series, Clare Dowdy speaks with design studios that are 30+ years old, to find out some of the secrets behind their longevity. Michael Johnson set up his London-based brand consultancy Johnson Banks in 1992. From Duolingo to Pink Floyd, Cancer Research UK to the Royal Astronomical Society, the studio works with “people who want to do big things.” He sat down with Clare Dowdy to discuss what he’s learned over the past 33 years. Michael Johnson How did Johnson Banks come about? My 20s were very turbulent: eight jobs in eight years, a lot of different countries, different cities, learning on the job. My last job – at Smith & Milton – was relatively settled, I was kind of running a corporate design department. I had a client there, Tom Banks. After I left, he also left his role at Legal & General with the projects I had been working on, and we used that as a basis for the company. That was 1992, the back end of a recession. For a couple of years, everything was fine. Then we started having “creative differences.” And the pressures of running a tiny design company are substantial. So we parted ways in 1995, but I kept the name. Johnson Banks’ symbol for the V&A’s William Morris show At that time, we weren’t really in the branding world. For a decade, we were very distracted by getting on the graphic design map, trying to win D&AD awards, doing lovely stamp projects. And then we started to get some cultural projects: the V&A and the British Council. I started to think, OK, now we’re beginning to show what we can do. When and why did you start thinking seriously about your strategy offering? When we started to get into the branding arena, I knew we were underpowered in terms of the strategic thinking. I may have thought that I could do it, but it takes a bit to persuade clients when you’re 35, with hair almost down to your knees. If you’re up against important-looking people who can field a few grey hairs, you’re going to lose that pitch. So we partnered with strategic companies like management consultancy Circus, and followed that model for much of the 2000s. That led to the Shelter rebrand, and a few other quite big branding projects followed. Johnson Banks’ visual identity for Shelter Eventually we realised that we could do the strategy ourselves. I had sometimes been a little frustrated by the work that my strategic partners – naming no names – were doing. It sounds a bit mean, but sometimes I would get this 90-page PowerPoint document from them, and I’d put it on my designers’ desks, and their faces would go blank. I think that 20 years ago, there was still a bit of the idea that you’ve paid £100,000, so here’s your huge document. We slowly realised that if we were in control of the process, and were involved all the way through, then that jump out of the verbal brand to the visual brand could be much better managed. How did you rethink your strategy offer? The penny dropped in the mid-2000s when we worked with Save The Children. At the time, and I don’t think they’d mind me saying this, Save The Children were a bit of a basket case. They were associated with WI fairs and cake baking, and they had a royal as their patron – they were nothing like what they are now. I realised we needed to work out what they stood for before we did any design. I did this huge chart, and stuck it on a wall at the client’s office. And I said, it strikes me that there are strategic choices that you have got to make as a comms team about where you want to take the Save the Children brand. Johnson Banks’ poster for Save the Children That was an incredibly productive meeting, and also it helped us realise that before we got anywhere near the design, we needed to sort this out. I know that sounds like really basic stuff now. I didn’t trust my instinct for a decade or so, but in that Save the Children meeting, a light bulb went on for me. Once you’d worked out how to do strategy in-house why didn’t you scale up? A lot of companies would have done that. That’s how companies grow, and can end up quite quickly at 60 people. We have nearly always been around six to eight people. Because I could bridge that gap between the verbal and the visual, it meant we didn’t need to add people. And I’ve discovered over the last 25 years, that with a really good account director, Katherine Heaton, and me, and a design team, there is a heck of a lot that we can do. So we stayed small and partnered with filmmakers, animators, cultural specialists. Post-pandemic, a lot of people have adopted that hub and spoke model – we did it 20 years ago. Probably twice a year we’ll lose a pitch because of our scale. But conversely, with some clients you can sell in the fact that they’ll always deal with Michael Johnson. They’re not going to be handed down the chain, because there is no chain. Johnson Banks’ logos for Jodrell Bank Alongside this direct contact with you, what’s your main selling point? It seems to be that we think pretty hard about stuff. We almost never jump into design. A lot of thought goes into what we do, sometimes way too much. Sometimes our projects are incredibly difficult, gargantuan, intertwined and really hard to unpick. That’s a slightly poisoned chalice, because then people go, gosh, well, if they could unpick that, then they could unpick our Gordian knot. For example, we’re working on a major London university brand at the moment that has over 60,000 staff and students, 11 faculties, and hundreds of centres and institutes and departments, and we’re trying to navigate a way through. How did you work out what you wanted to specialise in? Sometimes you can get sucked into something that you just don’t want to be doing. By the end of the 1990s, Johnson Banks had got a reputation for doing annual reports. Part of me quite liked doing them because there was an interplay between words and pictures. And we were getting senior level access to clients, which makes you feel a bit better, because you’re having an interface with chief executives. But then I was thinking, hang on, we’re in danger of getting stuck here, because of course, they’re cyclical. And the death of the annual report – and the death of print – was coming over the horizon, with the internet. Johnson Banks’ Annual Report for Polygram (1995) Since then, my interests have changed. I do not have any interest any more in doing awful blue chips or terrible fintechs. I want to apply all the comms and the branding that I’ve learned to people who could really use it – not-for-profit, culture, education, philanthropy. You know, doing good. How did you build up this not-for-profit work? You lean into the referrals you’ll inevitably get within silos where you want to be referred. I learned this from Mary Lewis of Lewis Moberly. We were pretty close in the 1990s and she always said that referral business is the best business. Over 85% of our clients are not-for-profit – most design companies have a 20-80 split between non-profits and commercial clients. I never liked that ratio, what you might cruelly call ‘the Robin Hood principle’ – we are going to steal from our luxury car account and give to the charity. We did do a bit of that for a while. We did an airline in 2009/10 at the same time we were doing charities. I would justify that with the Robin Hood principle, but I just felt more and more uncomfortable with that. Johnson Banks’ campaign visuals for Cancer Research UK As our percentages went up and up in not-for-profit, eventually I said, look, we should just tell people this is who we are, and this is what we do. It was obvious anyway, so let’s be explicit about it. A few people said we were crazy, that we’d never get any work. But the reverse has been the case. We’re on our sixth environmental project. If you say this is what we want to do, and this is what we will do for you, then I think, funnily enough, clients find that very helpful. How did you build up to bigger projects? Let’s take education. We’ve done three or four really interesting campaigns for universities and now we’re in the position where we can do university rebrands, and have won a top 10 global university. But it has taken 15 years of education work to get to that point. I may not have thought that it would take quite so long to persuade people that we could do their identity. But education is a very conservative sector, and moves slowly, like museums and galleries. If you’re small, you can afford for a sector to move slowly, whereas bigger agencies need a pipeline. I’ve watched dozens of companies get to this critical point where they’ve grown and grown and then they’ve just fallen off the cliff because they’ve been feeding the monster. To help with that, agencies often add a new business person. No-one ever talks about this, but a new business person costs around £50,000. The rule of thumb, in my world at least, is that you have to take that salary and triple it with turnover to pay that salary. So you need £150,000 worth of projects to pay for the new business person before you’ve made a penny. So to make a profit, the new business person has to bring in over £200,000 of work. And if this person can do it, which is not guaranteed, then the company has to scale. It’s so easy to get caught on a treadmill. What else has helped you stay in business so long? We’ve always led with the thought behind the idea, not the way it looked. Because I was always much more interested in the idea behind something, I think that has helped us not get sucked into the visual, to use the type face du jour, the colour that everyone else is using. And it’s understandable, because graphic designers want to do stuff that their peers really like. But paradoxically the trick, in my opinion, is to try and zag away from the trends. Create a new trend yourself. Johnson Banks’ globe symbol for the COP 26 climate conference Design disciplines in this article Industries in this article Brands in this article What to read next Neville Brody on clients, education, and his unexpected OBE Graphic Design 30 Jan, 2025

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

After detailing the VFX work on The Last of Us Season 1 in 2023, Alex Wang returns to reflect on how the scope and complexity have evolved in Season 2. With close to 30 years of experience in the visual effects industry, Fiona Campbell Westgate has contributed to major productions such as Ghost in the Shell, Avatar: The Way of Water, Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania, and Nyad. Her work on Nyad earned her a VES Award for Outstanding Supporting Visual Effects in a Photoreal Feature. Collaboration with Craig Mazin and Neil Druckmann is key to shaping the visual universe of The Last of Us. Can you share with us how you work with them and how they influence the visual direction of the series? Alex Wang // Craig visualizes the shot or scene before putting words on the page. His writing is always exceptionally detailed and descriptive, ultimately helping us to imagine the shot. Of course, no one understands The Last of Us better than Neil, who knows all aspects of the lore very well. He’s done much research and design work with the Naughty Dog team, so he gives us good guidance regarding creature and environment designs. I always try to begin with concept art to get the ball rolling with Craig and Neil’s ideas. This season, we collaborated with Chromatic Studios for concept art. They also contributed to the games, so I felt that continuity was beneficial for our show. Fiona Campbell Westgate // From the outset, it was clear that collaborating with Craig would be an exceptional experience. Early meetings revealed just how personable and invested Craig is. He works closely with every department to ensure that each episode is done to the highest level. Craig places unwavering trust in our VFX Supervisor, Alex Wang. They have an understanding between them that lends to an exceptional partnership. As the VFX Producer, I know how vital the dynamic between the Showrunner and VFX Supervisor is; working with these two has made for one of the best professional experiences of my career.  Photograph by Liane Hentscher/HBO How has your collaboration with Craig evolved between the first and second seasons? Were there any adjustments in the visual approach or narrative techniques you made this season? Alex Wang // Since everything was new in Season 1, we dedicated a lot of time and effort to exploring the show’s visual language, and we all learned a great deal about what worked and what didn’t for the show. In my initial conversations with Craig about Season 2, it was clear that he wanted to expand the show’s scope by utilizing what we established and learned in Season 1. He felt significantly more at ease fully committing to using VFX to help tell the story this season. The first season involved multiple VFX studios to handle the complexity of the effects. How did you divide the work among different studios for the second season? Alex Wang // Most of the vendors this season were also in Season 1, so we already had a shorthand. The VFX Producer, Fiona Campbell Westgate, and I work closely together to decide how to divide the work among our vendors. The type of work needs to be well-suited for the vendor and fit into our budget and schedule. We were extremely fortunate to have the vendors we did this season. I want to take this opportunity to thank Weta FX, DNEG, RISE, Distillery VFX, Storm Studios, Important Looking Pirates, Blackbird, Wylie Co., RVX, and VDK. We also had ILM for concept art and Digital Domain for previs. Fiona Campbell Westgate // Alex Wang and I were very aware of the tight delivery schedule, which added to the challenge of distributing the workload. We planned the work based on the individual studio’s capabilities, and tried not to burden them with back to back episodes wherever possible. Fortunately, there was shorthand with vendors from Season One, who were well-acquainted with the process and the quality of work the show required. The town of Jackson is a key location in The Last of Us. Could you explain how you approached creating and expanding this environment for the second season? Alex Wang // Since Season 1, this show has created incredible sets. However, the Jackson town set build is by far the most impressive in terms of scope. They constructed an 822 ft x 400 ft set in Minaty Bay that resembled a real town! I had early discussions with Production Designer Don MacAulay and his team about where they should concentrate their efforts and where VFX would make the most sense to take over. They focused on developing the town’s main street, where we believed most scenes would occur. There is a big reveal of Jackson in the first episode after Ellie comes out of the barn. Distillery VFX was responsible for the town’s extension, which appears seamless because the team took great pride in researching and ensuring the architecture aligned with the set while staying true to the tone of Jackson, Wyoming. Fiona Campbell Westgate // An impressive set was constructed in Minaty Bay, which served as the foundation for VFX to build upon. There is a beautiful establishing shot of Jackson in Episode 1 that was completed by Distillery, showing a safe and almost normal setting as Season Two starts. Across the episodes, Jackson set extensions were completed by our partners at RISE and Weta. Each had a different phase of Jackson to create, from almost idyllic to a town immersed in Battle.  What challenges did you face filming Jackson on both real and virtual sets? Was there a particular fusion between visual effects and live-action shots to make it feel realistic? Alex Wang // I always advocate for building exterior sets outdoors to take advantage of natural light. However, the drawback is that we cannot control the weather and lighting when filming over several days across two units. In Episode 2, there’s supposed to be a winter storm in Jackson, so maintaining consistency within the episode was essential. On sunny and rainy days, we used cranes to lift large 30x60ft screens to block the sun or rain. It was impossible to shield the entire set from the rain or sun, so we prioritized protecting the actors from sunlight or rain. Thus, you can imagine there was extensive weather cleanup for the episode to ensure consistency within the sequences. Fiona Campbell Westgate // We were fortunate that production built a large scale Jackson set. It provided a base for the full CG Jackson aerial shots and CG Set Extensions. The weather conditions at Minaty Bay presented a challenge during the filming of the end of the Battle sequence in Episode 2. While there were periods of bright sunshine, rainfall occurred during the filming of the end of the Battle sequence in Episode 2. In addition to the obvious visual effects work, it became necessary to replace the ground cover. Photograph by Liane Hentscher/HBO The attack on Jackson by the horde of infected in season 2 is a very intense moment. How did you approach the visual effects for this sequence? What techniques did you use to make the scale of the attack feel as impressive as it did? Alex Wang // We knew this would be a very complex sequence to shoot, and for it to be successful, we needed to start planning with the HODs from the very beginning. We began previs during prep with Weta FX and the episode’s director, Mark Mylod. The previs helped us understand Mark and the showrunner’s vision. This then served as a blueprint for all departments to follow, and in many instances, we filmed the previs. Fiona Campbell Westgate // The sheer size of the CG Infected Horde sets the tone for the scale of the Battle. It’s an intimidating moment when they are revealed through the blowing snow. The addition of CG explosions and atmospheric effects contributed in adding scale to the sequence.  Can you give us an insight into the technical challenges of capturing the infected horde? How much of the effect was done using CGI, and how much was achieved with practical effects? Alex Wang // Starting with a detailed previs that Mark and Craig approved was essential for planning the horde. We understood that we would never have enough stunt performers to fill a horde, nor could they carry out some stunts that would be too dangerous. I reviewed the previs with Stunt Coordinator Marny Eng numerous times to decide the best placements for her team’s stunt performers. We also collaborated with Barrie Gower from the Prosthetics team to determine the most effective allocation of his team’s efforts. Stunt performers positioned closest to the camera would receive the full prosthetic treatment, which can take hours. Weta FX was responsible for the incredible CG Infected horde work in the Jackson Battle. They have been a creative partner with HBO’s The Last of Us since Season 1, so they were brought on early for Season 2. I began discussions with Weta’s VFX supervisor, Nick Epstein, about how we could tackle these complex horde shots very early during the shoot. Typically, repetition in CG crowd scenes can be acceptable, such as armies with soldiers dressed in the same uniform or armour. However, for our Infected horde, Craig wanted to convey that the Infected didn’t come off an assembly line or all shop at the same clothing department store. Any repetition would feel artificial. These Infected were once civilians with families, or they were groups of raiders. We needed complex variations in height, body size, age, clothing, and hair. We built our base library of Infected, and then Nick and the Weta FX team developed a “mix and match” system, allowing the Infected to wear any costume and hair groom. A procedural texturing system was also developed for costumes, providing even greater variation. The most crucial aspect of the Infected horde was their motion. We had numerous shots cutting back-to-back with practical Infected, as well as shots where our CG Infected ran right alongside a stunt horde. It was incredibly unforgiving! Weta FX’s animation supervisor from Season 1, Dennis Yoo, returned for Season 2 to meet the challenge. Having been part of the first season, Dennis understood the expectations of Craig and Neil. Similar to issues of model repetition within a horde, it was relatively easy to perceive repetition, especially if they were running toward the same target. It was essential to enhance the details of their performances with nuances such as tripping and falling, getting back up, and trampling over each other. There also needed to be a difference in the Infected’s running speed. To ensure we had enough complexity within the horde, Dennis motion-captured almost 600 unique motion cycles. We had over a hundred shots in episode 2 that required CG Infected horde. Fiona Campbell Westgate // Nick Epstein, Weta VFX Supervisor, and Dennis Yoo, Weta Animation Supervisor, were faced with having to add hero, close-up Horde that had to integrate with practical Stunt performers. They achieved this through over 60 motion capture sessions and running it through a deformation system they developed. Every detail was applied to allow for a seamless blend with our practical Stunt performances. The Weta team created a custom costume and hair system that provided individual looks to the CG Infected Horde. We were able to avoid the repetitive look of a CG crowd due to these efforts. The movement of the infected horde is crucial for the intensity of the scene. How did you manage the animation and simulation of the infected to ensure smooth and realistic interaction with the environment? Fiona Campbell Westgate // We worked closely with the Stunt department to plan out positioning and where VFX would be adding the CG Horde. Craig Mazin wanted the Infected Horde to move in a way that humans cannot. The deformation system kept the body shape anatomically correct and allowed us to push the limits from how a human physically moves.  The Bloater makes a terrifying return this season. What were the key challenges in designing and animating this creature? How did you work on the Bloater’s interaction with the environment and other characters? Alex Wang // In Season 1, the Kansas City cul-de-sac sequence featured only a handful of Bloater shots. This season, however, nearly forty shots showcase the Bloater in broad daylight during the Battle of Jackson. We needed to redesign the Bloater asset to ensure it looked good in close-up shots from head to toe. Weta FX designed the Bloater for Season 1 and revamped the design for this season. Starting with the Bloater’s silhouette, it had to appear large, intimidating, and menacing. We explored enlarging the cordyceps head shape to make it feel almost like a crown, enhancing the Bloater’s impressive and strong presence. During filming, a stunt double stood in for the Bloater. This was mainly for scale reference and composition. It also helped the Infected stunt performers understand the Bloater’s spatial position, allowing them to avoid running through his space. Once we had an edit, Dennis mocapped the Bloater’s performances with his team. It is always challenging to get the motion right for a creature that weighs 600 pounds. We don’t want the mocap to be overly exaggerated, but it does break the character if the Bloater feels too “light.” The brilliant animation team at Weta FX brought the Bloater character to life and nailed it! When Tommy goes head-to-head with the Bloater, Craig was quite specific during the prep days about how the Bloater would bubble, melt, and burn as Tommy torches him with the flamethrower. Important Looking Pirates took on the “Burning Bloater” sequence, led by VFX Supervisor Philip Engstrom. They began with extensive R&D to ensure the Bloater’s skin would start to bubble and burn. ILP took the final Bloater asset from Weta FX and had to resculpt and texture the asset for the Bloater’s final burn state. Craig felt it was important for the Bloater to appear maimed at the end. The layers of FX were so complex that the R&D continued almost to the end of the delivery schedule. Fiona Campbell Westgate // This season the Bloater had to be bigger, more intimidating. The CG Asset was recreated to withstand the scrutiny of close ups and in daylight. Both Craig Mazin and Neil Druckmann worked closely with us during the process of the build. We referenced the game and applied elements of that version with ours. You’ll notice that his head is in the shape of crown, this is to convey he’s a powerful force.  During the Burning Bloater sequence in Episode 2, we brainstormed with Philip Engström, ILP VFX Supervisor, on how this creature would react to the flamethrower and how it would affect the ground as it burns. When the Bloater finally falls to the ground and dies, the extraordinary detail of the embers burning, fluid draining and melting the surrounding snow really sells that the CG creature was in the terrain.  Given the Bloater’s imposing size, how did you approach its integration into scenes with the actors? What techniques did you use to create such a realistic and menacing appearance? Fiona Campbell Westgate // For the Bloater, a stunt performer wearing a motion capture suit was filmed on set. This provided interaction with the actors and the environment. VFX enhanced the intensity of his movements, incorporating simulations to the CG Bloater’s skin and muscles that would reflect the weight and force as this terrifying creature moves.  Seattle in The Last of Us is a completely devastated city. Can you talk about how you recreated this destruction? What were the most difficult visual aspects to realize for this post-apocalyptic city? Fiona Campbell Westgate // We were meticulous in blending the CG destruction with the practical environment. The flora’s ability to overtake the environment had to be believable, and we adhered to the principle of form follows function. Due to the vastness of the CG devastation it was crucial to avoid repetitive effects. Consequently, our vendors were tasked with creating bespoke designs that evoked a sense of awe and beauty. Was Seattle’s architecture a key element in how you designed the visual effects? How did you adapt the city’s real-life urban landscape to meet the needs of the story while maintaining a coherent aesthetic? Alex Wang // It’s always important to Craig and Neil that we remain true to the cities our characters are in. DNEG was one of our primary vendors for Boston in Season 1, so it was natural for them to return for Season 2, this time focusing on Seattle. DNEG’s VFX Supervisor, Stephen James, who played a crucial role in developing the visual language of Boston for Season 1, also returns for this season. Stephen and Melaina Mace (DFX Supervisor) led a team to Seattle to shoot plates and perform lidar scans of parts of the city. We identified the buildings unique to Seattle that would have existed in 2003, so we ensured these buildings were always included in our establishing shots. Overgrowth and destruction have significantly influenced the environments in The Last of Us. The environment functions almost as a character in both Season 1 and Season 2. In the last season, the building destruction in Boston was primarily caused by military bombings. During this season, destruction mainly arises from dilapidation. Living in the Pacific Northwest, I understand how damp it can get for most of the year. I imagined that, over 20 years, the integrity of the buildings would be compromised by natural forces. This abundant moisture creates an exceptionally lush and vibrant landscape for much of the year. Therefore, when designing Seattle, we ensured that the destruction and overgrowth appeared intentional and aesthetically distinct from those of Boston. Fiona Campbell Westgate // Led by Stephen James, DNEG VFX Supervisor, and Melaina Mace, DNEG DFX Supervisor, the team captured photography, drone footage and the Clear Angle team captured LiDAR data over a three-day period in Seattle. It was crucial to include recognizable Seattle landmarks that would resonate with people familiar with the game.  The devastated city almost becomes a character in itself this season. What aspects of the visual effects did you have to enhance to increase the immersion of the viewer into this hostile and deteriorated environment? Fiona Campbell Westgate // It is indeed a character. Craig wanted it to be deteriorated but to have moments where it’s also beautiful in its devastation. For instance, in the Music Store in Episode 4 where Ellie is playing guitar for Dina, the deteriorated interior provides a beautiful backdrop to this intimate moment. The Set Decorating team dressed a specific section of the set, while VFX extended the destruction and overgrowth to encompass the entire environment, immersing the viewer in strange yet familiar surroundings. Photograph by Liane Hentscher/HBO The sequence where Ellie navigates a boat through a violent storm is stunning. What were the key challenges in creating this scene, especially with water simulation and the storm’s effects? Alex Wang // In the concluding episode of Season 2, Ellie is deep in Seattle, searching for Abby. The episode draws us closer to the Aquarium, where this area of Seattle is heavily flooded. Naturally, this brings challenges with CG water. In the scene where Ellie encounters Isaac and the W.L.F soldiers by the dock, we had a complex shoot involving multiple locations, including a water tank and a boat gimbal. There were also several full CG shots. For Isaac’s riverine boat, which was in a stormy ocean, I felt it was essential that the boat and the actors were given the appropriate motion. Weta FX assisted with tech-vis for all the boat gimbal work. We began with different ocean wave sizes caused by the storm, and once the filmmakers selected one, the boat’s motion in the tech-vis fed the special FX gimbal. When Ellie gets into the Jon boat, I didn’t want it on the same gimbal because I felt it would be too mechanical. Ellie’s weight needed to affect the boat as she got in, and that wouldn’t have happened with a mechanical gimbal. So, we opted to have her boat in a water tank for this scene. Special FX had wave makers that provided the boat with the appropriate movement. Instead of guessing what the ocean sim for the riverine boat should be, the tech- vis data enabled DNEG to get a head start on the water simulations in post-production. Craig wanted this sequence to appear convincingly dark, much like it looks out on the ocean at night. This allowed us to create dramatic visuals, using lightning strikes at moments to reveal depth. Were there any memorable moments or scenes from the series that you found particularly rewarding or challenging to work on from a visual effects standpoint? Alex Wang // The Last of Us tells the story of our characters’ journey. If you look at how season 2 begins in Jackson, it differs significantly from how we conclude the season in Seattle. We seldom return to the exact location in each episode, meaning every episode presents a unique challenge. The scope of work this season has been incredibly rewarding. We burned a Bloater, and we also introduced spores this season! Photograph by Liane Hentscher/HBO Looking back on the project, what aspects of the visual effects are you most proud of? Alex Wang // The Jackson Battle was incredibly complex, involving a grueling and lengthy shoot in quite challenging conditions, along with over 600 VFX shots in episode 2. It was truly inspiring to witness the determination of every department and vendor to give their all and create something remarkable. Fiona Campbell Westgate // I am immensely proud of the exceptional work accomplished by all of our vendors. During the VFX reviews, I found myself clapping with delight when the final shots were displayed; it was exciting to see remarkable results of the artists’ efforts come to light.  How long have you worked on this show? Alex Wang // I’ve been on this season for nearly two years. Fiona Campbell Westgate // A little over one year; I joined the show in April 2024. What’s the VFX shots count? Alex Wang // We had just over 2,500 shots this Season. Fiona Campbell Westgate // In Season 2, there were a total of 2656 visual effects shots. What is your next project? Fiona Campbell Westgate // Stay tuned… A big thanks for your time. WANT TO KNOW MORE?Blackbird: Dedicated page about The Last of Us – Season 2 website.DNEG: Dedicated page about The Last of Us – Season 2 on DNEG website.Important Looking Pirates: Dedicated page about The Last of Us – Season 2 website.RISE: Dedicated page about The Last of Us – Season 2 website.Weta FX: Dedicated page about The Last of Us – Season 2 website. © Vincent Frei – The Art of VFX – 2025

Debunking Generative AI myth #2: Its most pertinent risks  Marsh

In 2025, it’s very difficult not to see gambling advertised everywhere. It’s on billboards and sports broadcasts. It’s on podcasts and printed on the turnbuckle of AEW’s pay-per-view shows. And it’s on app stores, where you can find the FanDuel and DraftKings sportsbooks, alongside glitzy digital slot machines. These apps all have the highest age ratings possible on Apple’s App Store and Google Play. But earlier this year, a different kind of app nearly disappeared from the Play Store entirely.Luck Be A Landlord is a roguelite deckbuilder from solo developer Dan DiIorio. DiIorio got word from Google in January 2025 that Luck Be A Landlord was about to be pulled, globally, because DiIorio had not disclosed the game’s “gambling themes” in its rating.In Luck Be a Landlord, the player takes spins on a pixel art slot machine to earn coins to pay their ever-increasing rent — a nightmare gamification of our day-to-day grind to remain housed. On app stores, it’s a one-time purchase of $4.99, and it’s $9.99 on Steam. On the Play Store page, developer Dan DiIorio notes, “This game does not contain any real-world currency gambling or microtransactions.”And it doesn’t. But for Google, that didn’t matter. First, the game was removed from the storefront in a slew of countries that have strict gambling laws. Then, at the beginning of 2025, Google told Dilorio that Luck Be A Landlord would be pulled globally because of its rating discrepancy, as it “does not take into account references to gambling (including real or simulated gambling)”.DiIorio had gone through this song and dance before — previously, when the game was blocked, he would send back a message saying “hey, the game doesn’t have gambling,” and then Google would send back a screenshot of the game and assert that, in fact, it had.DiIorio didn’t agree, but this time they decided that the risk of Landlord getting taken down permanently was too great. They’re a solo developer, and Luck Be a Landlord had just had its highest 30-day revenue since release. So, they filled out the form confirming that Luck Be A Landlord has “gambling themes,” and are currently hoping that this will be the end of it.This is a situation that sucks for an indie dev to be in, and over email DiIorio told Polygon it was “very frustrating.”“I think it can negatively affect indie developers if they fall outside the norm, which indies often do,” they wrote. “It also makes me afraid to explore mechanics like this further. It stifles creativity, and that’s really upsetting.”In late 2024, the hit game Balatro was in a similar position. It had won numerous awards, and made $1,000,000 in its first week on mobile platforms. And then overnight, the PEGI ratings board declared that the game deserved an adult rating.The ESRB had already rated it E10+ in the US, noting it has gambling themes. And the game was already out in Europe, making its overnight ratings change a surprise. Publisher PlayStack said the rating was given because Balatro has “prominent gambling imagery and material that instructs about gambling.”Balatro is basically Luck Be A Landlord’s little cousin. Developer LocalThunk was inspired by watching streams of Luck Be A Landlord, and seeing the way DiIorio had implemented deck-building into his slot machine. And like Luck Be A Landlord, Balatro is a one-time purchase, with no microtransactions.But the PEGI board noted that because the game uses poker hands, the skills the player learns in Balatro could translate to real-world poker.In its write-up, GameSpot noted that the same thing happened to a game called Sunshine Shuffle. It was temporarily banned from the Nintendo eShop, and also from the entire country of South Korea. Unlike Balatro, Sunshine Shuffle actually is a poker game, except you’re playing Texas Hold ‘Em — again for no real money — with cute animals (who are bank robbers).It’s common sense that children shouldn’t be able to access apps that allow them to gamble. But none of these games contain actual gambling — or do they?Where do we draw the line? Is it gambling to play any game that is also played in casinos, like poker or blackjack? Is it gambling to play a game that evokes the aesthetics of a casino, like cards, chips, dice, or slot machines? Is it gambling to wager or earn fictional money?Gaming has always been a lightning rod for controversy. Sex, violence, misogyny, addiction — you name it, video games have been accused of perpetrating or encouraging it. But gambling is gaming’s original sin. And it’s the one we still can’t get a grip on.The original link between gambling and gamingGetty ImagesThe association between video games and gambling all goes back to pinball. Back in the ’30s and ’40s, politicians targeted pinball machines for promoting gambling. Early pinball machines were less skill-based (they didn’t have flippers), and some gave cash payouts, so the comparison wasn’t unfair. Famously, mob-hating New York City mayor Fiorello LaGuardia banned pinball in the city, and appeared in a newsreel dumping pinball and slot machines into the Long Island Sound. Pinball machines spent some time relegated to the back rooms of sex shops and dive bars. But after some lobbying, the laws relaxed.By the 1970s, pinball manufacturers were also making video games, and the machines were side-by-side in arcades. Arcade machines, like pinball, took small coin payments, repeatedly, for short rounds of play. The disreputable funk of pinball basically rubbed off onto video games.Ever since video games rocked onto the scene, concerned and sometimes uneducated parties have been asking if they’re dangerous. And in general, studies have shown that they’re not. The same can’t be said about gambling — the practice of putting real money down to bet on an outcome.It’s a golden age for gambling2025 in the USA is a great time for gambling, which has been really profitable for gambling companies — to the tune of $66.5 billion dollars of revenue in 2023.To put this number in perspective, the American Gaming Association, which is the casino industry’s trade group and has nothing to do with video games, reports that 2022’s gambling revenue was $60.5 billion. It went up $6 billion in a year.And this increase isn’t just because of sportsbooks, although sports betting is a huge part of it. Online casinos and brick-and-mortar casinos are both earning more, and as a lot of people have pointed out, gambling is being normalized to a pretty disturbing degree.Much like with alcohol, for a small percentage of people, gambling can tip from occasional leisure activity into addiction. The people who are most at risk are, by and large, already vulnerable: researchers at the Yale School of Medicine found that 96% of problem gamblers are also wrestling with other disorders, such as “substance use, impulse-control disorders, mood disorders, and anxiety disorders.”Even if you’re not in that group, there are still good reasons to be wary of gambling. People tend to underestimate their own vulnerability to things they know are dangerous for others. Someone else might bet beyond their means. But I would simply know when to stop.Maybe you do! But being blithely confident about it can make it hard to notice if you do develop a problem. Or if you already have one.Addiction changes the way your brain works. When you’re addicted to something, your participation in it becomes compulsive, at the expense of other interests and responsibilities. Someone might turn to their addiction to self-soothe when depressed or anxious. And speaking of those feelings, people who are depressed and anxious are already more vulnerable to addiction. Given the entire state of the world right now, this predisposition shines an ugly light on the numbers touted by the AGA. Is it good that the industry is reporting $6 billion in additional earnings, when the economy feels so frail, when the stock market is ping ponging through highs and lows daily, when daily expenses are rising? It doesn’t feel good. In 2024, the YouTuber Drew Gooden turned his critical eye to online gambling. One of the main points he makes in his excellent video is that gambling is more accessible than ever. It’s on all our phones, and betting companies are using decades of well-honed app design and behavioral studies to manipulate users to spend and spend.Meanwhile, advertising on podcasts, billboards, TV, radio, and websites – it’s literally everywhere — tells you that this is fun, and you don’t even need to know what you’re doing, and you’re probably one bet away from winning back those losses.Where does Luck Be a Landlord come into this?So, are there gambling themes in Luck Be A Landlord? The game’s slot machine is represented in simple pixel art. You pay one coin to use it, and among the more traditional slot machine symbols are silly ones like a snail that only pays out after 4 spins.When I started playing it, my primary emotion wasn’t necessarily elation at winning coins — it was stress and disbelief when, in the third round of the game, the landlord increased my rent by 100%. What the hell.I don’t doubt that getting better at it would produce dopamine thrills akin to gambling — or playing any video game. But it’s supposed to be difficult, because that’s the joke. If you beat the game you unlock more difficulty modes where, as you keep paying rent, your landlord gets furious, and starts throwing made-up rules at you: previously rare symbols will give you less of a payout, and the very mechanics of the slot machine change.It’s a manifestation of the golden rule of casinos, and all of capitalism writ large: the odds are stacked against you. The house always wins. There is luck involved, to be sure, but because Luck Be A Landlord is a deck-builder, knowing the different ways you can design your slot machine to maximize payouts is a skill! You have some influence over it, unlike a real slot machine. The synergies that I’ve seen high-level players create are completely nuts, and obviously based on a deep understanding of the strategies the game allows.IMAGE: TrampolineTales via PolygonBalatro and Luck Be a Landlord both distance themselves from casino gambling again in the way they treat money. In Landlord, the money you earn is gold coins, not any currency we recognize. And the payouts aren’t actually that big. By the end of the core game, the rent money you’re struggling and scraping to earn… is 777 coins. In the post-game endless mode, payouts can get massive. But the thing is, to get this far, you can’t rely on chance. You have to be very good at Luck Be a Landlord.And in Balatro, the numbers that get big are your points. The actual dollar payments in a round of Balatro are small. These aren’t games about earning wads and wads of cash. So, do these count as “gambling themes”?We’ll come back to that question later. First, I want to talk about a closer analog to what we colloquially consider gambling: loot boxes and gacha games.Random rewards: from Overwatch to the rise of gachaRecently, I did something that I haven’t done in a really long time: I thought about Overwatch. I used to play Overwatch with my friends, and I absolutely made a habit of dropping 20 bucks here or there for a bunch of seasonal loot boxes. This was never a problem behavior for me, but in hindsight, it does sting that over a couple of years, I dropped maybe $150 on cosmetics for a game that now I primarily associate with squandered potential.Loot boxes grew out of free-to-play mobile games, where they’re the primary method of monetization. In something like Overwatch, they functioned as a way to earn additional revenue in an ongoing game, once the player had already dropped 40 bucks to buy it.More often than not, loot boxes are a random selection of skins and other cosmetics, but games like Star Wars: Battlefront 2 were famously criticized for launching with loot crates that essentially made it pay-to-win – if you bought enough of them and got lucky.It’s not unprecedented to associate loot boxes with gambling. A 2021 study published in Addictive Behaviors showed that players who self-reported as problem gamblers also tended to spend more on loot boxes, and another study done in the UK found a similar correlation with young adults.While Overwatch certainly wasn’t the first game to feature cosmetic loot boxes or microtransactions, it’s a reference point for me, and it also got attention worldwide. In 2018, Overwatch was investigated by the Belgian Gaming Commission, which found it “in violation of gambling legislation” alongside FIFA 18 and Counter-Strike: Global Offensive. Belgium’s response was to ban the sale of loot boxes without a gambling license. Having a paid random rewards mechanic in a game is a criminal offense there. But not really. A 2023 study showed that 82% of iPhone games sold on the App Store in Belgium still use random paid monetization, as do around 80% of games that are rated 12+. The ban wasn’t effectively enforced, if at all, and the study recommends that a blanket ban wouldn’t actually be a practical solution anyway.Overwatch was rated T for Teen by the ESRB, and 12 by PEGI. When it first came out, its loot boxes were divisive. Since the mechanic came from F2P mobile games, which are often seen as predatory, people balked at seeing it in a big action game from a multi-million dollar publisher.At the time, the rebuttal was, “Well, at least it’s just cosmetics.” Nobody needs to buy loot boxes to be good at Overwatch.A lot has changed since 2016. Now we have a deeper understanding of how these mechanics are designed to manipulate players, even if they don’t affect gameplay. But also, they’ve been normalized. While there will always be people expressing disappointment when a AAA game has a paid random loot mechanic, it is no longer shocking.And if anything, these mechanics have only become more prevalent, thanks to the growth of gacha games. Gacha is short for “gachapon,” the Japanese capsule machines where you pay to receive one of a selection of random toys. Getty ImagesIn gacha games, players pay — not necessarily real money, but we’ll get to that — for a chance to get something. Maybe it’s a character, or a special weapon, or some gear — it depends on the game. Whatever it is, within that context, it’s desirable — and unlike the cosmetics of Overwatch, gacha pulls often do impact the gameplay.For example, in Infinity Nikki, you can pull for clothing items in these limited-time events. You have a chance to get pieces of a five-star outfit. But you also might pull one of a set of four-star items, or a permanent three-star piece. Of course, if you want all ten pieces of the five-star outfit, you have to do multiple pulls, each costing a handful of limited resources that you can earn in-game or purchase with money.Gacha was a fixture of mobile gaming for a long time, but in recent years, we’ve seen it go AAA, and global. MiHoYo’s Genshin Impact did a lot of that work when it came out worldwide on consoles and PC alongside its mobile release. Genshin and its successors are massive AAA games of a scale that, for your Nintendos and Ubisofts, would necessitate selling a bajillion copies to be a success. And they’re free.Genshin is an action game, whose playstyle changes depending on what character you’re playing — characters you get from gacha pulls, of course. In Zenless Zone Zero, the characters you can pull have different combo patterns, do different kinds of damage, and just feel different to play. And whereas in an early mobile gacha game like Love Nikki Dress UP! Queen the world was rudimentary, its modern descendant Infinity Nikki is, like Genshin, Breath of the Wild-esque. It is a massive open world, with collectibles and physics puzzles, platforming challenges, and a surprisingly involved storyline. Genshin Impact was the subject of an interesting study where researchers asked young adults in Hong Kong to self-report on their gacha spending habits. They found that, like with gambling, players who are not feeling good tend to spend more. “Young adult gacha gamers experiencing greater stress and anxiety tend to spend more on gacha purchases, have more motives for gacha purchases, and participate in more gambling activities,” they wrote. “This group is at a particularly higher risk of becoming problem gamblers.”One thing that is important to note is that Genshin Impact came out in 2020. The study was self-reported, and it was done during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. It was a time when people were experiencing a lot of stress, and also fewer options to relieve that stress. We were all stuck inside gaming.But the fact that stress can make people more likely to spend money on gacha shows that while the gacha model isn’t necessarily harmful to everyone, it is exploitative to everyone. Since I started writing this story, another self-reported study came out in Japan, where 18.8% of people in their 20s say they’ve spent money on gacha rather than on things like food or rent.Following Genshin Impact’s release, MiHoYo put out Honkai: Star Rail and Zenless Zone Zero. All are shiny, big-budget games that are free to play, but dangle the lure of making just one purchase in front of the player. Maybe you could drop five bucks on a handful of in-game currency to get one more pull. Or maybe just this month you’ll get the second tier of rewards on the game’s equivalent of a Battle Pass. The game is free, after all — but haven’t you enjoyed at least ten dollars’ worth of gameplay? Image: HoyoverseI spent most of my December throwing myself into Infinity Nikki. I had been so stressed, and the game was so soothing. I logged in daily to fulfill my daily wishes and earn my XP, diamonds, Threads of Purity, and bling. I accumulated massive amounts of resources. I haven’t spent money on the game. I’m trying not to, and so far, it’s been pretty easy. I’ve been super happy with how much stuff I can get for free, and how much I can do! I actually feel really good about that — which is what I said to my boyfriend, and he replied, “Yeah, that’s the point. That’s how they get you.”And he’s right. Currently, Infinity Nikki players are embroiled in a war with developer Infold, after Infold introduced yet another currency type with deep ties to Nikki’s gacha system. Every one of these gacha games has its own tangled system of overlapping currencies. Some can only be used on gacha pulls. Some can only be used to upgrade items. Many of them can be purchased with human money.Image: InFold Games/Papergames via PolygonAll of this adds up. According to Sensor Towers’ data, Genshin Impact earned over 36 million dollars on mobile alone in a single month of 2024. I don’t know what Dan DiIorio’s peak monthly revenue for Luck Be A Landlord was, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t that.A lot of the spending guardrails we see in games like these are actually the result of regulations in other territories, especially China, where gacha has been a big deal for a lot longer. For example, gacha games have a daily limit on loot boxes, with the number clearly displayed, and a system collectively called “pity,” where getting the banner item is guaranteed after a certain number of pulls. Lastly, developers have to be clear about what the odds are. When I log in to spend the Revelation Crystals I’ve spent weeks hoarding in my F2P Infinity Nikki experience, I know that I have a 1.5% chance of pulling a 5-star piece, and that the odds can go up to 6.06%, and that I am guaranteed to get one within 20 pulls, because of the pity system.So, these odds are awful. But it is not as merciless as sitting down at a Vegas slot machine, an experience best described as “oh… that’s it?”There’s not a huge philosophical difference between buying a pack of loot boxes in Overwatch, a pull in Genshin Impact, or even a booster of Pokémon cards. You put in money, you get back randomized stuff that may or may not be what you want. In the dictionary definition, it’s a gamble. But unlike the slot machine, it’s not like you’re trying to win money by doing it, unless you’re selling those Pokémon cards, which is a topic for another time.But since even a game where you don’t get anything, like Balatro or Luck Be A Landlord, can come under fire for promoting gambling to kids, it would seem appropriate for app stores and ratings boards to take a similarly hardline stance with gacha.Instead, all these games are rated T for Teen by the ESRB, and PEGI 12 in the EU.The ESRB ratings for these games note that they contain in-game purchases, including random items. Honkai: Star Rail’s rating specifically calls out a slot machine mechanic, where players spend tokens to win a prize. But other than calling out Honkai’s slot machine, app stores are not slapping Genshin or Nikki with an 18+ rating. Meanwhile, Balatro had a PEGI rating of 18 until a successful appeal in February 2025, and Luck Be a Landlord is still 17+ on Apple’s App Store.Nobody knows what they’re doingWhen I started researching this piece, I felt very strongly that it was absurd that Luck Be A Landlord and Balatro had age ratings this high.I still believe that the way both devs have been treated by ratings boards is bad. Threatening an indie dev with a significant loss of income by pulling their game is bad, not giving them a way to defend themself or help them understand why it’s happening is even worse. It’s an extension of the general way that too-big-to-fail companies like Google treat all their customers.DiIorio told me that while it felt like a human being had at least looked at Luck Be A Landlord to make the determination that it contained gambling themes, the emails he was getting were automatic, and he doesn’t have a contact at Google to ask why this happened or how he can avoid it in the future — an experience that will be familiar to anyone who has ever needed Google support. But what’s changed for me is that I’m not actually sure anymore that games that don’t have gambling should be completely let off the hook for evoking gambling.Exposing teens to simulated gambling without financial stakes could spark an interest in the real thing later on, according to a study in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. It’s the same reason you can’t mosey down to the drug store to buy candy cigarettes. Multiple studies were done that showed kids who ate candy cigarettes were more likely to take up smoking (of course, the candy is still available — just without the “cigarette” branding.)So while I still think rating something like Balatro 18+ is nuts, I also think that describing it appropriately might be reasonable. As a game, it’s completely divorced from literally any kind of play you would find in a casino — but I can see the concern that the thrill of flashy numbers and the shiny cards might encourage young players to try their hand at poker in a real casino, where a real house can take their money.Maybe what’s more important than doling out high age ratings is helping people think about how media can affect us. In the same way that, when I was 12 and obsessed with The Matrix, my parents gently made sure that I knew that none of the violence was real and you can’t actually cartwheel through a hail of bullets in real life. Thanks, mom and dad!But that’s an answer that’s a lot more abstract and difficult to implement than a big red 18+ banner. When it comes to gacha, I think we’re even less equipped to talk about these game mechanics, and I’m certain they’re not being age-rated appropriately. On the one hand, like I said earlier, gacha exploits the player’s desire for stuff that they are heavily manipulated to buy with real money. On the other hand, I think it’s worth acknowledging that there is a difference between gacha and casino gambling.Problem gamblers aren’t satisfied by winning — the thing they’re addicted to is playing, and the risk that comes with it. In gacha games, players do report satisfaction when they achieve the prize they set out to get. And yes, in the game’s next season, the developer will be dangling a shiny new prize in front of them with the goal of starting the cycle over. But I think it’s fair to make the distinction, while still being highly critical of the model.And right now, there is close to no incentive for app stores to crack down on gacha in any way. They get a cut of in-app purchases. Back in 2023, miHoYo tried a couple of times to set up payment systems that circumvented Apple’s 30% cut of in-app spending. Both times, it was thwarted by Apple, whose App Store generated $1.1 trillion in developer billings and sales in 2022.According to Apple itself, 90% of that money did not include any commission to Apple. Fortunately for Apple, ten percent of a trillion dollars is still one hundred billion dollars, which I would also like to have in my bank account. Apple has zero reason to curb spending on games that have been earning millions of dollars every month for years.And despite the popularity of Luck Be A Landlord and Balatro’s massive App Store success, these games will never be as lucrative. They’re one-time purchases, and they don’t have microtransactions. To add insult to injury, like most popular games, Luck Be A Landlord has a lot of clones. And from what I can tell, it doesn’t look like any of them have been made to indicate that their games contain the dreaded “gambling themes” that Google was so worried about in Landlord.In particular, a game called SpinCraft: Roguelike from Sneaky Panda Games raised $6 million in seed funding for “inventing the Luck-Puzzler genre,” which it introduced in 2022, while Luck Be A Landlord went into early access in 2021.It’s free-to-play, has ads and in-app purchases, looks like Fisher Price made a slot machine, and it’s rated E for everyone, with no mention of gambling imagery in its rating. I reached out to the developers to ask if they had also been contacted by the Play Store to disclose that their game has gambling themes, but I haven’t heard back.Borrowing mechanics in games is as old as time, and it’s something I in no way want to imply shouldn’t happen because copyright is the killer of invention — but I think we can all agree that the system is broken.There is no consistency in how games with random chance are treated. We still do not know how to talk about gambling, or gambling themes, and at the end of the day, the results of this are the same: the house always wins.See More:

Modern software engineering faces growing challenges in accurately retrieving and understanding code across diverse programming languages and large-scale codebases. Existing embedding models often struggle to capture the deep semantics of code, resulting in poor performance in tasks such as code search, RAG, and semantic analysis. These limitations hinder developers’ ability to efficiently locate relevant code snippets, reuse components, and manage large projects effectively. As software systems grow increasingly complex, there is a pressing need for more effective, language-agnostic representations of code that can power reliable and high-quality retrieval and reasoning across a wide range of development tasks.  Mistral AI has introduced Codestral Embed, a specialized embedding model built specifically for code-related tasks. Designed to handle real-world code more effectively than existing solutions, it enables powerful retrieval capabilities across large codebases. What sets it apart is its flexibility—users can adjust embedding dimensions and precision levels to balance performance with storage efficiency. Even at lower dimensions, such as 256 with int8 precision, Codestral Embed reportedly surpasses top models from competitors like OpenAI, Cohere, and Voyage, offering high retrieval quality at a reduced storage cost. Beyond basic retrieval, Codestral Embed supports a wide range of developer-focused applications. These include code completion, explanation, editing, semantic search, and duplicate detection. The model can also help organize and analyze repositories by clustering code based on functionality or structure, eliminating the need for manual supervision. This makes it particularly useful for tasks like understanding architectural patterns, categorizing code, or supporting automated documentation, ultimately helping developers work more efficiently with large and complex codebases.  Codestral Embed is tailored for understanding and retrieving code efficiently, especially in large-scale development environments. It powers retrieval-augmented generation by quickly fetching relevant context for tasks like code completion, editing, and explanation—ideal for use in coding assistants and agent-based tools. Developers can also perform semantic code searches using natural language or code queries to find relevant snippets. Its ability to detect similar or duplicated code helps with reuse, policy enforcement, and cleaning up redundancy. Additionally, it can cluster code by functionality or structure, making it useful for repository analysis, spotting architectural patterns, and enhancing documentation workflows.  Codestral Embed is a specialized embedding model designed to enhance code retrieval and semantic analysis tasks. It surpasses existing models, such as OpenAI’s and Cohere’s, in benchmarks like SWE-Bench Lite and CodeSearchNet. The model offers customizable embedding dimensions and precision levels, allowing users to effectively balance performance and storage needs. Key applications include retrieval-augmented generation, semantic code search, duplicate detection, and code clustering. Available via API at $0.15 per million tokens, with a 50% discount for batch processing, Codestral Embed supports various output formats and dimensions, catering to diverse development workflows. In conclusion, Codestral Embed offers customizable embedding dimensions and precisions, enabling developers to strike a balance between performance and storage efficiency. Benchmark evaluations indicate that Codestral Embed surpasses existing models like OpenAI’s and Cohere’s in various code-related tasks, including retrieval-augmented generation and semantic code search. Its applications span from identifying duplicate code segments to facilitating semantic clustering for code analytics. Available through Mistral’s API, Codestral Embed provides a flexible and efficient solution for developers seeking advanced code understanding capabilities.  vides valuable insights for the community. Check out the Technical details. All credit for this research goes to the researchers of this project. Also, feel free to follow us on Twitter and don’t forget to join our 95k+ ML SubReddit and Subscribe to our Newsletter. Sana HassanSana Hassan, a consulting intern at Marktechpost and dual-degree student at IIT Madras, is passionate about applying technology and AI to address real-world challenges. With a keen interest in solving practical problems, he brings a fresh perspective to the intersection of AI and real-life solutions.Sana Hassanhttps://www.marktechpost.com/author/sana-hassan/Off-Policy Reinforcement Learning RL with KL Divergence Yields Superior Reasoning in Large Language ModelsSana Hassanhttps://www.marktechpost.com/author/sana-hassan/This AI Paper from Microsoft Introduces WINA: A Training-Free Sparse Activation Framework for Efficient Large Language Model InferenceSana Hassanhttps://www.marktechpost.com/author/sana-hassan/Apple and Duke Researchers Present a Reinforcement Learning Approach That Enables LLMs to Provide Intermediate Answers, Enhancing Speed and AccuracySana Hassanhttps://www.marktechpost.com/author/sana-hassan/National University of Singapore Researchers Introduce Dimple: A Discrete Diffusion Multimodal Language Model for Efficient and Controllable Text Generation

The leisurely pace of Apple’s AI efforts has come under increasing fire, with the company accused of being behind the curve. But a new study on the dangers of AI chatbots suggests that other companies are not being cautious enough. OpenAI had to r