As machine learning systems become integral to various applications, from recommendation engines to autonomous systems, there’s a growing need to address their environmental sustainability. These systems require extensive computational resources, often running on custom-designed hardware accelerators. Their energy demands are substantial during training and inference phases, contributing to operational carbon emissions. Also, the hardware that powers these models carries its environmental burden, called embodied carbon, from manufacturing, materials, and life-cycle operations. Addressing these dual carbon sources is essential for reducing the ecological impact of machine learning technologies, especially as global adoption continues to accelerate across industries and use cases. Despite increasing awareness, current strategies for mitigating the carbon impact of machine learning systems remain fragmented. Most methods focus on operational efficiency, reducing energy consumption during training and inference, or improving hardware utilization. However, few approaches consider both sides of the equation: the carbon emitted during hardware operation and that embedded in the hardware’s design and manufacturing process. This split perspective overlooks how decisions made at the model design stage influence hardware efficiency and vice versa. Multi-modal models, which integrate visual and textual data, exacerbate this issue due to their inherently complex and heterogeneous computing requirements. Several techniques currently employed to enhance AI model efficiency, including pruning and distillation, aim to maintain accuracy while decreasing inference time or energy use. Hardware-aware neural architecture search (NAS) methods further explore architectural variants to fine-tune performance, typically favoring latency or energy minimization. Despite their sophistication, these methods often fail to account for embodied carbon, the emissions tied to the physical hardware’s construction and lifetime. Frameworks such as ACT, IMEC.netzero, and LLMCarbon have recently started modeling embodied carbon independently, but they lack the integration necessary for holistic optimization. Similarly, adaptations of CLIP for edge use cases, including TinyCLIP and ViT-based models, prioritize deployment feasibility and speed, overlooking total carbon output. These approaches provide partial solutions that are effective within their scope but insufficient for meaningful environmental mitigation. Researchers from FAIR at Meta and Georgia Institute of Technology developed CATransformers, a framework that introduces carbon as a primary design consideration. This innovation allows researchers to co-optimize model architectures and hardware accelerators by jointly evaluating their performance against carbon metrics. The solution targets devices for edge inference, where both embodied and operational emissions must be controlled due to hardware constraints. Unlike traditional methods, CATransformers enables early design space exploration using a multi-objective Bayesian optimization engine that evaluates trade-offs among latency, energy consumption, accuracy, and total carbon footprint. This dual consideration enables model configurations that reduce emissions without sacrificing the quality or responsiveness of the models, offering a meaningful step toward sustainable AI systems. The core functionality of CATransformers lies in its three-module architecture:  A multi-objective optimizer An ML model evaluator A hardware estimator The model evaluator generates model variants by pruning a large base CLIP model, altering dimensions such as the number of layers, feedforward network size, attention heads, and embedding width. These pruned versions are then passed to the hardware estimator, which uses profiling tools to estimate each configuration’s latency, energy usage, and total carbon emissions. The optimizer then selects the best-performing setups by balancing all metrics. This structure allows rapid evaluation of the interdependencies between model design and hardware deployment, offering precise insight into how architectural choices affect total emissions and performance outcomes. The practical output of CATransformers is the CarbonCLIP family of models, which delivers substantial gains over existing small-scale CLIP baselines. CarbonCLIP-S achieves the same accuracy as TinyCLIP-39M but reduces total carbon emissions by 17% and maintains latency under 15 milliseconds. CarbonCLIP-XS, a more compact version, offers 8% better accuracy than TinyCLIP-8M while reducing emissions by 3% and ensuring latency remains below 10 milliseconds. Notably, when comparing configurations optimized solely for latency, the hardware requirements often doubled, leading to significantly higher embodied carbon. In contrast, configurations optimized for carbon and latency achieved a 19-20% reduction in total emissions with minimal latency trade-offs. These findings underscore the importance of integrated carbon-aware design. Several Key Takeaways from the Research on CATransformers include: CATransformers introduces carbon-aware co-optimization for machine learning systems by evaluating operational and embodied carbon emissions. The framework applies multi-objective Bayesian optimization, integrating accuracy, latency, energy, and carbon footprint into the search process. A family of CLIP-based models, CarbonCLIP-S and CarbonCLIP-XS, was developed using this method. CarbonCLIP-S achieves a 17% reduction in emissions compared to TinyCLIP-39M, with similar accuracy and <15 ms latency. CarbonCLIP-XS offers 8% improved accuracy over TinyCLIP-8M while reducing carbon by 3% and achieving <10 ms latency. Designs optimized only for latency led to an increase of up to 2.4× in embodied carbon, showing the risk of ignoring sustainability. Combined optimization strategies provided 19-20% carbon reductions with minimal latency increases, demonstrating a practical trade-off path. The framework includes pruning strategies, hardware estimation, and architectural simulation based on real-world hardware templates. This research lays the groundwork for sustainable ML system design by embedding environmental metrics into the optimization pipeline. In conclusion, this research sheds light on a practical path toward building environmentally responsible AI systems. By aligning model design with hardware capabilities from the outset and factoring in carbon impact, the researchers demonstrate that it’s possible to make smarter choices that don’t just chase speed or energy savings but genuinely reduce emissions. The results highlight that conventional methods can unintentionally lead to higher carbon costs when optimized for narrow goals like latency. With CATransformers, developers have a tool to rethink how performance and sustainability can go hand in hand, especially as AI continues to scale across industries. Check out the Paper and GitHub Page. 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 90k+ ML SubReddit. The post Meta AI Introduces CATransformers: A Carbon-Aware Machine Learning Framework to Co-Optimize AI Models and Hardware for Sustainable Edge Deployment appeared first on MarkTechPost.

Environmental Protection Agency head Lee Zeldin has said he wants the federal agency to accelerate scientific safety evaluations of various chemicals, including pesticides. The EPA reportedly has more than 500 pending reviews of proposed new pesticides and more than 12,000 overdue reevaluations of pesticides currently in use. The agency is under pressure from the chemical and agricultural industries to catch up, while health and environmental advocates demand it maintain high safety standards. The review process is careful for a reason – and perhaps the only real method of speeding it up is the one Zeldin has proposed: reassigning staff so there are more people to share the work. As a faculty member at a land-grant university who has studied the effectiveness of commercial and experimental pesticides in the southern U.S., I have seen how the federal pesticide regulatory process identifies risks to humans and the environment and mitigates them with specific use instructions. Here’s how the process works. First, what is a pesticide? The EPA, which regulates pesticides in the U.S., defines a pesticide as any substance or mixture of substances intended to prevent, destroy, repel or mitigate any pest, such as weeds, insects and organisms, that attack plants. Pesticides are often referred to as toxins when found in food, water bodies or other places where they are not intended. But just because something is detected doesn’t mean it’s harmful to humans or wildlife. Toxicity depends on how much of the substance a person or animal is exposed to, how they are exposed to it – such as breathing it, or getting it on their skin – and for how long. The Department of Agriculture began regulating pesticides in 1947 with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Most of the department’s interest was whether a particular pesticide was effective against the target pests. In 1970, the newly formed EPA took over responsibility for pesticides. It shifted its focus to the safety of consumers, farmworkers and the environment after the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act took effect in 1972. Risk-benefit analysis Federal law requires the EPA to evaluate both the risks and the benefits of each pesticide – and to revisit that analysis at least every 15 years for every pesticide used in the U.S. The EPA determines whether the risks to people, animals or the environment are too high for the benefits the pesticide provides and whether any of those risks can be reduced. Sometimes a chemical’s risk can be lessened by recommending mitigation strategies such as wearing protective clothing, reducing environmental spread by barring the use of pesticides near the edges of a property, or decreasing the amount of a pesticide that’s legal to use. In its analysis of any given pesticide, the EPA requires a massive amount of data from the manufacturer about what ingredients the pesticide contains and how they work. The agency also reviews scientific research on the pesticide and uses its own scientists and independent experts to evaluate any studies that were submitted by the manufacturer. The EPA uses all the available data on a pesticide to evaluate the dose that would be toxic to a range of organisms, as well as what residues the pesticide may leave on plants, in the soil and in water. The data is incorporated into computer models that estimate the potential amount of the chemical that may come in contact with humans, animals and the environment. Those models’ results are then combined with toxicity data to determine risk. The models used by EPA scientists are very conservative. They often use significant overestimates of exposure, which means that when the models determine the risk of a pesticide is below a particular level, they are evaluating the risk posed by far higher quantities of the chemical than will ever actually be used. The risk from the amount actually used, therefore, is even less likely to cause harm. The EPA also provides opportunities for public comment on a pesticide and uses that information in its evaluations as well. Additional scrutiny The Endangered Species Act also requires the EPA to evaluate the effects of pesticides on threatened and endangered species. If a pesticide is found to potentially be dangerous to a protected species or its habitat, the EPA will discuss those findings with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, which enforce the Endangered Species Act, and determine what to do to ensure the species aren’t harmed. The law’s requirement to reevaluate each pesticide every 15 years is based on the fact that science evolves and information becomes more precise. New data can shed light on potential risks and benefits, and even lead to pesticides being banned or more closely restricted. Until recently, for instance, pesticide residues on plants, food and in the environment were measured in parts per million. Newer equipment can measure even smaller amounts, determining parts per billion, which is as precise as identifying one single second in 32 years. Some chemicals can even be measured in parts per trillion, equivalent to one drop of water in 20 Olympic-size swimming pools. That means exposures can be more accurately measured. While some chemicals can be toxic in very small concentrations, most pesticides can be detected at levels that do not pose a biological risk. Allowing a pesticide to be used If the EPA determines that a pesticide’s risks outweigh its benefits, then its staff will conduct additional analyses to determine how to mitigate the risks enough to justify using it. If that’s not possible, the EPA will reject the application and not allow the pesticide to be used in the U.S. If the agency determines that the benefits outweigh the risks, the EPA approves the pesticide for sale and use in the U.S. The law requires the pesticide come with a label providing a strict set of guidelines for how, when and where to use the pesticide. The guidelines define amounts and timing for applying the pesticide safely, and specific restrictions or protection strategies to control the target pests while eliminating or minimizing harm to the environment, workers and the public. The EPA also makes information on pesticides available to the public, so anyone can find out how to use them safely. Using the pesticide without following those directions is a violation of federal law. Jeffrey Gore is a professor of agricultural science and plant protection at Mississippi State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Department of Commerce (DOC) has slammed the brakes on the sweeping “AI Diffusion Rule,” yanking it just a day before it was due to bite. Meanwhile, officials have laid down the gauntlet with stricter measures to control semiconductor exports.The AI Diffusion Rule, a piece of regulation cooked up under the Biden administration, was staring down a compliance deadline of May 15th. According to the folks at the DOC, letting this rule roll out would have been like throwing a spanner in the works of American innovation.DOC officials argue the rule would have saddled tech firms with “burdensome new regulatory requirements” and, perhaps more surprisingly, risked souring America’s relationships on the world stage by effectively “downgrading” dozens of countries “to second-tier status.”The nuts and bolts of this reversal will see the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), part of the DOC, publishing a notice in the Federal Register to make the rescission official. While this particular rule is heading for the shredder, the official line is that a replacement isn’t off the table; one will be cooked up and served “in the future.”Jeffery Kessler, the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security, has told BIS enforcement teams to stand down on anything concerning the now-canned AI Diffusion Rule.“The Trump Administration will pursue a bold, inclusive strategy to American AI technology with trusted foreign countries around the world, while keeping the technology out of the hands of our adversaries,” said Kessler.“At the same time, we reject the Biden Administration’s attempt to impose its own ill-conceived and counterproductive AI policies on the American people.”What was this ‘AI Diffusion Rule’ anyway?You might be wondering what this “AI Diffusion Rule” actually was, and why it’s causing such a stir. The rule wasn’t just a minor tweak; it was the Biden administration’s bid to get a tight grip on how advanced American tech – everything from the AI chips themselves to cloud computing access and even the crucial AI ‘model weights’ – flowed out of the US to the rest of the world.The idea, at least on paper, was to walk a tightrope: keep the US at the front of the AI pack, protect national security, and still champion American tech exports.But how did it plan to do this? The rule laid out a fairly complex playbook:A tiered system for nations: Imagine a global league table for AI access. Countries were split into three groups. Tier 1 nations, America’s closest allies like Japan and South Korea, would have seen hardly any new restrictions. Tier 3, unsurprisingly, included countries already under arms embargoes – like China and Russia – who were already largely banned from getting US chips and would face the toughest controls imaginable.The squeezed middle: This is where things got sticky. A large swathe of countries, including nations like Mexico, Portugal, India, and even Switzerland, found themselves in Tier 2. For them, the rule meant new limits on how many advanced AI chips they could import, especially if they were looking to build those super-powerful, large computing clusters essential for AI development.Caps and close scrutiny: Beyond the tiers, the rule introduced actual caps on the quantity of high-performance AI chips most countries could get their hands on. If anyone wanted to bring in chips above certain levels, particularly for building massive AI data centres, they’d have faced incredibly strict security checks and reporting duties.Controlling the ‘brains’: It wasn’t just about the hardware. The rule also aimed to regulate the storage and export of advanced AI model weights – essentially the core programming and learned knowledge of an AI system. There were strict rules about not storing these in arms-embargoed countries and only allowing their export to favoured allies, and even then, only under tight conditions.Tech as a bargaining chip: Underneath it all, the framework was also a bit of a power play. The US aimed to use access to its coveted AI technology as a carrot, encouraging other nations to sign up to American standards and safeguards if they wanted to keep the American chips and software flowing.The Biden administration had a clear rationale for these moves. They wanted to stop adversaries, with China being the primary concern, from getting their hands on advanced AI that could be turned against US interests or used for military purposes. It was also about cementing US leadership in AI, making sure the most potent AI systems and the infrastructure to run them stayed within the US and its closest circle of allies, all while trying to keep US tech exports competitive.However, the AI Diffusion Rule and broader plan didn’t exactly get a standing ovation. Far from it.Major US tech players – including giants like Nvidia, Microsoft, and Oracle – voiced strong concerns. They argued that the rule, instead of protecting US interests, would stifle innovation, bog businesses down in red tape, and ultimately hurt the competitiveness of American companies on the global stage. Crucially, they also doubted it would effectively stop China from accessing advanced AI chips through other means.And it wasn’t just industry. Many countries weren’t thrilled about being labelled “second-tier,” a status they felt was not only insulting but also risked undermining diplomatic ties. There was a real fear it could push them to look for AI technology elsewhere, potentially even from China, which was hardly the intended outcome.This widespread pushback and the concerns about hampering innovation and international relations are exactly what the current Department of Commerce is pointing to as reasons for today’s decisive action to scrap the rule.Fresh clampdown on AI chip exportsIt wasn’t just about scrapping old rules, though. The BIS also rolled out a new playbook to tighten America’s grip on AI chip exports, showing they’re serious about guarding the nation’s tech crown jewels. The latest clampdown includes:A spotlight on Huawei Ascend chips: New guidance makes it crystal clear: using Huawei Ascend chips anywhere on the planet is now a no-go under US export controls. This takes direct aim at one of China’s big players in the AI hardware game.Heads-up on Chinese AI model training: A stark warning has gone out to the public and the industry about the serious consequences if US AI chips are used to train or run Chinese AI models. The worry? That American tech could inadvertently supercharge AI systems that might not have US interests at heart.Guidance on shoring up supply chains: US firms are getting a fresh batch of advice on how to batten down the hatches on their supply chains to stop controlled tech from being siphoned off to unapproved destinations or users.The Department of Commerce is selling today’s double-whammy – axing the rule and beefing up export controls – as essential to “ensure that the United States will remain at the forefront of AI innovation and maintain global AI dominance.” It’s a strategy that looks to clear the runway for domestic tech growth while building higher fences around critical AI technologies, especially advanced semiconductors.This policy pivot will likely get a thumbs-up from some quarters in the US tech scene, particularly those who were getting sweaty palms about the AI Diffusion Rule and the red tape it threatened. On the flip side, the even tougher export controls – especially those zeroing in on China and firms like Huawei – show that trade policy is still very much a frontline tool in the high-stakes global chess game over who leads in tech.The whisper of a “replacement rule” down the line means this isn’t the final chapter in the saga of how to manage the AI revolution. For now, it seems the game plan is to clear the path for homegrown innovation and be much more careful about who gets to play with America’s latest breakthroughs.Want to learn more about AI and big data from industry leaders? Check out AI & Big Data Expo taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London. The comprehensive event is co-located with other leading events including Intelligent Automation Conference, BlockX, Digital Transformation Week, and Cyber Security & Cloud Expo.Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars powered by TechForge here.

Archaeopteryx lived about 150 million years ago during the Jurassic Period. Although the first Archaeopteryx fossil was discovered more than 160 years ago and the prehistoric bird has been well studied, an excellent specimen has yielded new information about the species, including why it could fly so well, according to a report in the journal Nature. Painstaking preparation made the “Chicago Archaeopteryx” (named because it resides in the city’s Field Museum) the best-preserved example of the species. That amount of care meant that CT scans and imaging via UV light have yielded the most vivid Archaeopteryx pictures yet. Scientists visualized its smallest bones as well as soft tissue, including some feathers.New Archaeopteryx Flight Details EmergeIllustration showing Archaeopteryx in life, including its tertial feathers that would have helped it fly. (Image Credit: Michael Rothman)Seeing Archaeopteryx in such detail revealed a long set of feathers called tertials on the its upper arm. Those feathers also place the species more accurately on the evolutionary tree among winged dinosaurs as well as a predecessor to contemporary birds, which also have tertials. “Archaeopteryx isn’t the first dinosaur to have feathers, or the first dinosaur to have ‘wings,’" Jingmai O’Connor a curator at the museum and an author of the paper, said in a press release. “But we think it’s the earliest known dinosaur that was able to use its feathers to fly.”Ancient FlightThe scientists now think they know why Archaeopteryx was such a good flier. Archaeopteryx’s upper arm bone is much longer than those of contemporary birds. That length creates a gap between the long primary feathers and others, as well as between the wings and the body. Air passing through that gap generates lift. Contemporary birds don’t need such long arms, because evolution solved their need to create lift another way: a set of tertial feathers between the bird’s body and the rest of its wing.“Our specimen is the first Archaeopteryx that was preserved and prepared in such a way that we can see its long tertial feathers,” O’Connor said in the release. “These feathers are missing in feathered dinosaurs that are closely related to birds but aren’t quite birds. Their wing feathers stop at the elbow. That tells us that these non-avian dinosaurs couldn’t fly, but Archaeopteryx could. This also adds to evidence that suggests dinosaurs evolved flight more than once — which I think is super exciting.”Other Bird Evolutionary FeaturesImaging also revealed some other key evolutionary features. For instance, seeing details of the tiny bones in the roof of its mouth are helping scientists understand how modern birds eventually developed the ability to move their beaks independent of the part of the skull that holds their brain.“That might not sound exciting, but to people who study bird evolution, it’s really important, because it’s been hypothesized that being able to evolve specialized skulls for different ecological niches might have helped birds evolve into more than 11,000 species today,” O’Connor said in the release.Also, because the scientists got a detailed look at some of the Archaeopteryx’s soft tissues they hypothesize that it may have spent a lot of time walking on the ground, and may even have climbed trees.The Chicago Archaeopteryx fossil went on display at the Field Museum in 2024. Its tiny hollow bones are embedded in a slab of limestone. At about the size of a pigeon, it is among the smallest known fossils of the species.Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Before joining Discover Magazine, Paul Smaglik spent over 20 years as a science journalist, specializing in U.S. life science policy and global scientific career issues. He began his career in newspapers, but switched to scientific magazines. His work has appeared in publications including Science News, Science, Nature, and Scientific American.

Hearing aids, like canes or orthopedic shoes, are something you don’t think about a lot when you’re young. But maybe you should.You probably either know someone who needs hearing aids, or you’ll need them some day yourself. About 30 million people in the United States, aged 12 and older, have hearing loss in both ears, and about two-thirds of people end up with hearing loss, which can range from mild to severe, by their 70s. But talking to your parents or grandparents about getting hearing aids can be tough — I’ve done it. They might not like the idea of sticking things in their ear canals or confronting the difficult realities of aging and health. They surely shy away from the price tag of hearing aids, which can cost thousands of dollars and are not covered by insurance or Medicare. But plugging tiny and exorbitantly expensive speakers into your ears isn’t the only way. Your mom might already own hearing aids without even knowing it.Hearing aids have never been more accessible — or futuristic. In April, a company called Nuance started selling glasses that double as hearing aids thanks to microphones and beam-forming speakers built into the frame. Although at $1,200, they’re not cheap, they cost far less than a pair of prescription hearing aids, which tend to range from $2,000 to $7,000.The Nuance glasses joined an increasingly crowded market of FDA-regulated over-the-counter hearing aids that includes everything from the latest Apple AirPods Pro, which gained the capability through a software update, to bean-sized buds from Sony. Prices for these devices start as low as $100, and you don’t need an audiologist to help set them up. Hearing aids have never been more accessible — or futuristic.You can also buy something that’s legally considered a personal sound amplification product (PSAP), which is not designed to treat hearing loss but does make things louder. Some of them can play music and handle phone calls too. In the age when earbuds are ubiquitous, these devices appeal to all ages.“It’s good that we’re seeing people in their 30s, 40s, and 50s, talking about it, because it’s totally changing the paradigm for them of engaging in hearing care earlier,” Nicholas Reed, a faculty member at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, told me.I’m a millennial, but I’ve also dealt with hearing loss my entire life. A bad stretch of childhood ear infections left me mostly deaf in one ear and pretty spotty in the other. I learned to read lips as a teenager and avoid conversations at loud parties in college. Some surgery in my 20s brought me closer to normal, but I could still use a little help. I’ve spent the past few weeks trying out the Nuance glasses in various settings. They’re remarkable, not only because they feel almost indistinguishable from my regular glasses but also because I forget they’re hearing aids. Made by EssilorLuxottica, the company behind Ray-Ban and dozens of other glasses brands, the Nuance glasses employ some of the same technology that the Ray-Ban Meta glasses use to play music and help you talk to AI. And while the Nuance glasses don’t currently offer the option to stream audio, they do help you hear what your friend is saying in a loud bar.The AirPods Pro 2, which retail for $250, work equally as well. After Apple announced last fall that a software update would unlock an accessibility setting — it’s appropriately called Hearing Aid — I started using it all the time, toggling between listening to podcasts to ordering cold brew in a crowded coffee shop. In instances where I may have needed to ask people to repeat themselves in the past, I hear them fine the first time. I just have to wear AirPods all the time, which makes the glasses solution even more appealing. For most people, hearing loss typically starts in your 50s and gains momentum in your early retirement years. If you’ve ever been to a busy restaurant with your parents or grandparents, you know this can be alienating for the person left out and frustrating for the hearing person, too. The social isolation can lead to loneliness and anxiety, which can hasten cognitive decline and lower life expectancy.Nevertheless, neither traditional clinical hearing aids or the newer category of devices are easy fixes. Once you start wearing any sort of hearing aid, it takes time to adjust, and you might need help tweaking the sound as you get used to it. That’s one reason why so many people avoid it — only one in five who need hearing aids actually have them. You can’t put them in your ears and immediately have perfect hearing. Your brain adjusts over time, and so it may take weeks or months to adapt to the new frequencies hearing aids help you hear.Still, it’s a worthwhile project.“Sensory input is so key to our existence, but we just sort of overlooked it for so long,” Reed said. “It’s something that’s vital to your existence and how you connect with other people.”It’s not clear how the latest hearing aid innovation will move the needle on adoption. Even though over-the-counter hearing aids have been available since 2022, when the FDA implemented new regulations for the devices, it’s still an uphill battle to get people to wear them. “Sensory input is so key to our existence, but we just sort of overlooked it for so long.”— Nicholas Reed, faculty member at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine“We are not seeing large increases in hearing aid uptake since over-the-counter hearing aids have become available,” said Tricia Ashby, senior director of audiology practices at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). “And I have to say that mimics other countries who had over-the-counter hearing aids before the US did.”Given the fact that the older people who need them most are potentially less likely to try the latest technology, it might still take a few years for over-the-counter hearing aids to go mainstream. Given the precedent set by companies like Apple and Nuance, though, it’s possible that more devices will add hearing assistive features to existing products. You can imagine a future where you wear earbuds that are the interface for your voice assistant as well as your lifeline on a loud plane. You might have glasses that project walking directions onto your field of view and help you hear which direction traffic’s coming from when you have to cross the street. These kinds of features together only get more important as you get older and need a little more help.“We are in an age now where you’re thinking about optimizing aging, and how do you do it?” Reed said. “And it’s things like this.”A version of this story was also published in the User Friendly newsletter. Sign up here so you don’t miss the next one!See More:

Holy snooterpoots, Papa Smurf must be saved! Will his rescue come out of the BLUE? And what exactly is a snooterpoot? Find out as Paramount Pictures has just dropped a new trailer for its upcoming live-action / 3DCG hybrid musical feature, Smurfs. The Smurfs are headed to the real Earth – what could go wrong? - when Papa Smurf (John Goodman) is mysteriously taken by evil wizards, Razamel and Gargamel. Smurfette (Rihanna) leads the Smurfs on a mission save him. With the help of new friends – and lots of singing and dancing and doing all manner of blue-type things - the Smurfs must discover what defines their destiny to save the universe. The live-action / 3DCG hybrid film features an all-star voice cast including Rihanna, James Corden, Nick Offerman, JP Karliak, Daniel Levy, Amy Sedaris, Natasha Lyonne, Sandra Oh, Octavia Spencer, Nick Kroll, Hannah Waddingham, Alex Winter, Maya Erskine, Billie Lourd, Xolo Maridueña with Kurt Russell and John Goodman. Chris Miller (Puss in Boots and Shrek the Third) directs from a script written by Pam Brady (South Park), based on the characters and works of Peyo. Jay Brown, Ty Ty Smith, Robyn “Rihanna” Fenty, and Ryan Harris, p.g.a. produce. Cinesite is producing the animation and VFX. The Smurfs Movie hits theaters July 18. Check out the trailer now: Source: Paramount Pictures Dan Sarto is Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of Animation World Network.

Welsh startup Space Forge has raised $30mn to advance its first commercial in-orbit manufacturing satellite, ForgeStar-2. The NATO Innovation Fund led the funding round, the largest Series A financing in UK space tech history. Space Forge’s demonstrator — the ForgeStar-1 — is set to launch from the US on a SpaceX rocket this year. The oven-sized satellite will then harness the conditions of space to produce “supermaterials” that are impossible to make on Earth. Joshua Western, Space Forge’s CEO and co-founder, compared the technology to a sourdough starter — a small but potent base for growing something much bigger. “Our satellites utilise the zero-gravity, ultra-cold, vacuum environment of space to produce tiny crystals of a higher quality than could ever be made otherwise,” Western explained.  View all speakers Once returned to Earth, the crystal “seeds” can be used to grow larger crystals that form the basis of ultra-efficient computer chips, which could power everything from data centres to telecoms networks. Space Forge says these semiconductors could halve the time it takes to charge an EV. The technology could also be used to make new metal alloys or pharmaceutical drugs.   At least, that’s the long-term vision — but Space Forge hasn’t yet made its materials in space, and ForgeStar-1 won’t be coming back to Earth. Instead, the satellite will be intentionally burned up in the atmosphere.   Sensors on board, however, will enable the team to measure whether the crystal-forming process was a success. The first mission aims to validate the startup’s key technologies in preparation for the launch of ForgeStar-2.   Designed to be reusable, ForgeStar-2 will be equipped with a heat shield called Pridwen that will protect its precious payload from the intense heat and pressure of re-entry. That could enable it to make regular trips to space and deliver new seeds back to labs on Earth.    Space Forge predicts its crystal seeds could be worth up to £45mn ($60mn) per kg, which would easily cover the costs of launch. The company also claims that the power-saving gains of its semiconductors in technologies like EVs will offset the carbon emitted when launching the satellite.  Space Forge will use the fresh funding to accelerate the development of ForgeStar-2. As hinted by NATO’s participation in the round, the company’s technology could also have potential applications in security and defence. It may enhance European security by enabling the production of advanced materials for defence systems and reducing reliance on foreign suppliers for critical components. Chris O’Connor, partner at NATO Innovation Fund, said Space Forge would advance Europe’s access to space, supply chain independence, and long-term resiliency.  “We look forward to working with the Space Forge team to leverage their technological breakthroughs in order to secure the future of NATO nations,” he said. Update (11:10AM CET, May 14, 2025): This article previously stated that ForgeStar-1 was Space Forge’s first demonstrator. However, the first was actually ForgeStar-0, which was destroyed following the failed launch of Virgin Orbit from Spaceport Cornwall in 2023.

Welsh startup Space Forge has raised $30mn to advance its first commercial in-orbit manufacturing satellite, ForgeStar-2. The NATO Innovation Fund led the funding round, the largest Series A financing in UK space tech history. Space Forge’s demonstrator — the ForgeStar-1 — is set to launch from the US on a SpaceX rocket this year. The oven-sized satellite will then harness the conditions of space to produce “supermaterials” that are impossible to make on Earth. Joshua Western, Space Forge’s CEO and co-founder, compared the technology to a sourdough starter — a small but potent base for growing something much bigger. “Our satellites utilise the zero-gravity, ultra-cold, vacuum environment of space to produce tiny crystals of a higher quality than could ever be made otherwise,” Western explained.  View all speakers Once returned to Earth, the crystal “seeds” can be used to grow larger crystals that form the basis of ultra-efficient computer chips, which could power everything from data centres to telecoms networks. Space Forge says these semiconductors could halve the time it takes to charge an EV. The technology could also be used to make new metal alloys or pharmaceutical drugs.   At least, that’s the long-term vision — but Space Forge hasn’t yet made its materials in space, and ForgeStar-1 won’t be coming back to Earth. Instead, the satellite will be intentionally burned up in the atmosphere.   Sensors on board, however, will enable the team to measure whether the crystal-forming process was a success. The first mission aims to validate the startup’s key technologies in preparation for the launch of ForgeStar-2.   Designed to be reusable, ForgeStar-2 will be equipped with a heat shield called Pridwen that will protect its precious payload from the intense heat and pressure of re-entry. That could enable it to make regular trips to space and deliver new seeds back to labs on Earth.    Space Forge predicts its crystal seeds could be worth up to £45mn ($60mn) per kg, which would easily cover the costs of launch. The company also claims that the power-saving gains of its semiconductors in technologies like EVs will offset the carbon emitted when launching the satellite.  Space Forge will use the fresh funding to accelerate the development of ForgeStar-2. As hinted by NATO’s participation in the round, the company’s technology could also have potential applications in security and defence. It may enhance European security by enabling the production of advanced materials for defence systems and reducing reliance on foreign suppliers for critical components. Chris O’Connor, partner at NATO Innovation Fund, said Space Forge would advance Europe’s access to space, supply chain independence, and long-term resiliency.  “We look forward to working with the Space Forge team to leverage their technological breakthroughs in order to secure the future of NATO nations,” he said. Update (11:10AM CET, May 14, 2025): This article previously stated that ForgeStar-1 was Space Forge’s first demonstrator. However, the first was actually ForgeStar-0, which was destroyed following the failed launch of Virgin Orbit from Spaceport Cornwall in 2023.

A bill that allows medical clinics to sell unproven treatments has been passed in Montana.  Under the legislation, doctors can apply for a license to open an experimental treatment clinic and recommend and sell therapies not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to their patients. Once it’s signed by the governor, the law will be the most expansive in the country in allowing access to drugs that have not been fully tested.  The bill allows for any drug produced in the state to be sold in it, providing it has been through phase I clinical trials—the initial, generally small, first-in-human studies that are designed to check that a new treatment is not harmful. These trials do not determine if the drug is effective. The bill, which was passed by the state legislature on April 29 and is expected to be signed by Governor Greg Gianforte, essentially expands on existing Right to Try legislation in the state. But while that law was originally designed to allow terminally ill people to access experimental drugs, the new bill was drafted and lobbied for by people interested in extending human lifespans—a group of longevity enthusiasts that includes scientists, libertarians, and influencers.   These longevity enthusiasts are hoping Montana will serve as a test bed for opening up access to experimental drugs. “I see no reason why it couldn’t be adopted by most of the other states,” said Todd White, speaking to an audience of policymakers and others interested in longevity at an event late last month in Washington, DC. White, who helped develop the bill and directs a research organization focused on aging, added that “there are some things that can be done at the federal level to allow Right to Try laws to proliferate more readily.”  Supporters of the bill say it gives individuals the freedom to make choices about their own bodies. At the same event, bioethicist Jessica Flanigan of the University of Richmond said she was “optimistic” about the measure, because “it’s great any time anybody is trying to give people back their medical autonomy.”  Ultimately, they hope that the new law will enable people to try unproven drugs that might help them live longer, make it easier for Americans to try experimental treatments without having to travel abroad, and potentially turn Montana into a medical tourism hub. But ethicists and legal scholars aren’t as optimistic. “I hate it,” bioethicist Alison Bateman-House of New York University says of the bill. She and others are worried about the ethics of promoting and selling unproven treatments—and the risks of harm should something go wrong. Easy access? No drugs have been approved to treat human aging. Some in the longevity field believe that regulation has held back the development of such drugs. In the US, federal law requires that drugs be shown to be both safe and effective before they can be sold. That requirement was made law in the 1960s following the thalidomide tragedy, in which women who took the drug for morning sickness had babies with sometimes severe disabilities. Since then, the FDA has been responsible for the approval of new drugs.   Typically, new drugs are put through a series of human trials. Phase I trials generally involve between 20 and 100 volunteers and are designed to check that the drug is safe for humans. If it is, the drug is then tested in larger groups of hundreds, and then thousands, of volunteers to assess the dose and whether it actually works. Once a drug is approved, people who are prescribed it are monitored for side effects. The entire process is slow, and it can last more than a decade—a particular pain point for people who are acutely aware of their own aging.  But some exceptions have been made for people who are terminally ill under Right to Try laws. Those laws allow certain individuals to apply for access to experimental treatments that have been through phase I clinical trials but have not received FDA approval. Montana first passed a Right to Try law in 2015 (a federal law was passed around three years later). Then in 2023, the state expanded the law to include all patients there, not just those with terminal illnesses—meaning that any person in Montana could, in theory, take a drug that had been through only a phase I trial. At the time, this was cheered by many longevity enthusiasts—some of whom had helped craft the expanded measure. But practically, the change hasn’t worked out as they envisioned. “There was no licensing, no processing, no registration” for clinics that might want to offer those drugs, says White. “There needed to be another bill that provided regulatory clarity for service providers.”  So the new legislation addresses “how clinics can set up shop in Montana,” says Dylan Livingston, founder and CEO of the Alliance for Longevity Initiatives, which hosted the DC event. Livingston built A4LI, as it’s known, a few years ago, as a lobbying group for the science of human aging and longevity. Livingston, who is exploring multiple approaches to improve both funding for scientific research and to change drug regulation, helped develop and push the 2023 bill in Montana with the support of State Senator Kenneth Bogner, he says. “I gave [Bogner] a menu of things that could be done at the state level … and he loved the idea” of turning Montana into a medical tourism hub, he says.  After all, as things stand, plenty of Americans travel abroad to receive experimental treatments that cannot legally be sold in the US, including expensive, unproven stem cell and gene therapies, says Livingston.  “If you’re going to go and get an experimental gene therapy, you might as well keep it in the country,” he says. Livingston has suggested that others might be interested in trying a novel drug designed to clear aged “senescent” cells from the body, which is currently entering phase II trials for an eye condition caused by diabetes. “One: let’s keep the money in the country, and two: if I was a millionaire getting an experimental gene therapy, I’d rather be in Montana than Honduras.” “Los Alamos for longevity” Honduras, in particular, has become something of a home base for longevity experiments. The island of Roatán is home to the Global Alliance for Regenerative Medicine clinic, which, along with various stem cell products, sells a controversial unproven “anti-aging” gene therapy for around $20,000 to customers including wealthy longevity influencer Bryan Johnson.  Tech entrepreneur and longevity enthusiast Niklas Anzinger has also founded the city of Infinita in the region’s special economic zone of Próspera, a private city where residents are able to make their own suggestions for medical regulations. It’s the second time he’s built a community there as part of his effort to build a “Los Alamos for longevity” on the island, a place where biotech companies can develop therapies that slow or reverse human aging “at warp speed,” and where individuals are free to take those experimental treatments. (The first community, Vitalia, featured a biohacking lab, but came to an end following a disagreement between the two founders.)  Anzinger collaborated with White, the longevity enthusiast who spoke at the A4LI event (and is an advisor to Infinita VC, Anzinger’s investment company), to help put together the new Montana bill. “He asked if I would help him try to advance the new bill, so that’s what we did for the last few months,” says White, who trained as an electrical engineer but left his career in telecommunications to work with an organization that uses blockchain to fund research into extending human lifespans.  “Right to Try has always been this thing [for people] who are terminal[ly ill] and trying a Hail Mary approach to solving these things; now Right to Try laws are being used to allow you to access treatments earlier,” White told the audience at the A4LI event. “Making it so that people can use longevity medicines earlier is, I think, a very important thing.” The new bill largely sets out the “infrastructure” for clinics that want to sell experimental treatments, says White. It states that clinics will need to have a license, for example, and that this must be renewed on an annual basis.  “Now somebody who actually wants to deliver drugs under the Right to Try law will be able to do so,” he says. The new legislation also protects prescribing doctors from disciplinary action. And it sets out requirements for informed consent that go further than those of existing Right to Try laws. Before a person takes an experimental drug under the new law, they will be required to provide a written consent that includes a list of approved alternative drugs and a description of the worst potential outcome. On the safe side “In the Montana law, we explicitly enhanced the requirements for informed consent,” Anzinger told an audience at the same A4LI event. This, along with the fact that the treatments will have been through phase I clinical trials, will help to keep people safe, he argued. “We have to treat this with a very large degree of responsibility,” he added. “We obviously don’t want to be killing people,” says Livingston.  But he also adds that he, personally, won’t be signing up for any experimental treatments. “I want to be the 10 millionth, or even the 50 millionth, person to get the gene therapy,” he says. “I’m not that adventurous … I’ll let other people go first.” Others are indeed concerned that, for the “adventurous” people, these experimental treatments won’t necessarily be safe. Phase I trials are typically tiny, and they often involve less than 50 people, all of whom are typically in good health. A trial like that won’t tell you much about side effects that only show up in 5% of people, for example, or about interactions the drug might have with other medicines. Around 90% of drug candidates in clinical trials fail. And around 17% of drugs fail late-stage clinical trials because of safety concerns. Even those that make it all the way through clinical trials and get approved by the FDA can still end up being withdrawn from the market when rare but serious side effects show up. Between 1992 and 2023, 23 drugs that were given accelerated approval for cancer indications were later withdrawn from the market. And between 1950 and 2013, the reason for the withdrawal of 95 drugs was “death.” “It’s disturbing that they want to make drugs available after phase I testing,” says Sharona Hoffman, professor of law and bioethics at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. “This could endanger patients.” “Famously, the doctor’s first obligation is to first do no harm,” says Bateman-House. “If [a drug] has not been through clinical trials, how do you have any standing on which to think it isn’t going to do any harm?” But supporters of the bill argue that individuals can make their own decisions about risk. When speaking at the A4LI event, Flanigan introduced herself as a bioethicist before adding “but don’t hold it against me; we’re not all so bad.” She argued that current drug regulations impose a “massive amount of restrictions on your bodily rights and your medical freedom.” Why should public officials be the ones making decisions about what’s safe for people? Individuals, she argued, should be empowered to make those judgments themselves. Other ethicists counter that this isn’t an issue of people’s rights. There are lots of generally accepted laws about when we can access drugs, says Hoffman; people aren’t allowed to drink and drive because they might kill someone. “So, no, you don’t have a right to ingest everything you want if there are risks associated with it.” The idea that individuals have a right to access experimental treatments has in fact failed in US courts in the past, says Carl Coleman, a bioethicist and legal scholar at Seton Hall in New Jersey.  He points to a case from 20 years ago: In the early 2000s, Frank Burroughs founded the Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs. His daughter, Abigail Burroughs, had head and neck cancer, and she had tried and failed to access experimental drugs. In 2003, about two years after Abigail’s death, the group sued the FDA, arguing that people with terminal cancer have a constitutionally protected right to access experimental, unapproved treatments, once those treatments have been through phase I trials. In 2007, however, a court rejected that argument, determining  that terminally ill individuals do not have a constitutional right to experimental drugs. Bateman-House also questions a provision in the Montana bill that claims to make treatments more equitable. It states that “experimental treatment centers” should allocate 2% of their net annual profits “to support access to experimental treatments and healthcare for qualifying Montana residents.” Bateman-House says she’s never seen that kind of language in a bill before. It may sound positive, but it could in practice introduce even more risk to the local community. “On the one hand, I like equity,” she says. “On the other hand, I don’t like equity to snake oil.” After all, the doctors prescribing these drugs won’t know if they will work. It is never ethical to make somebody pay for a treatment when you don’t have any idea whether it will work, Bateman-House adds. “That’s how the US system has been structured: There’s no profit without evidence of safety and efficacy.” The clinics are coming Any clinics that offer experimental treatments in Montana will only be allowed to sell drugs that have been made within the state, says Coleman. “Federal law requires any drug that is going to be distributed in interstate commerce to have FDA approval,” he says. White isn’t too worried about that. Montana already has manufacturing facilities for biotech and pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer. “That was one of the specific advantages [of focusing] on Montana, because everything can be done in state,” he says. He also believes that the current administration is “predisposed” to change federal laws around interstate drug manufacturing. (FDA commissioner Marty Makary has been a vocal critic of the agency and the pace at which it approves new drugs.) At any rate, the clinics are coming to Montana, says Livingston. “We have half a dozen that are interested, and maybe two or three that are definitively going to set up shop out there.” He won’t name names, but he says some of the interested clinicians already have clinics in the US, while others are abroad.  Mac Davis—founder and CEO of Minicircle, the company that developed the controversial “anti-aging” gene therapy—told MIT Technology Review he was “looking into it.” “I think this can be an opportunity for America and Montana to really kind of corner the market when it comes to medical tourism,” says Livingston. “There is no other place in the world with this sort of regulatory environment.”

Remedy hopes FBC: Firebreak can defeat the "predatory" live-service trap - with help from small budgets, Game Pass, and PS Plus "It's very much about spreading the risk." Image credit: Remedy News by Chris Tapsell Deputy Editor Published on May 14, 2025 I am quietly optimistic about FBC: Firebreak, Remedy's upcoming co-op, PvE Control spin-off. Having played a couple of hours of it, particularly towards the end of my time, as the systemic complexity began to compound, its coming together at the last minute almost feels like a strength, as I wrote in our big FBC: Firebreak preview. But naturally at a time when live-service, multiplayer-only games - particularly ones from studios known for the purely single-player output - are hardly the most popular pitches in the world, there is plenty of scepticism out there. Speaking to game director Mike Kayatta, lead designer Anssi Hyytiäinen, and PR director Thomas Puha, however, the sense was - maybe predictably - that the studio remained bullish. They gave a few reasons. "For me, at least one element there in that conversation is always the predatory practices in player retention," Hyytiäinen explains. Instead of battle passes, daily objectives and the like, for instance, Firebreak has a somewhat old-school approach of a set of upgrades to your weapons and kits, and a set of unlockable perks, both earned through the main loop of playing rounds of the game, collecting resources and spending them on said unlocks. FBC: Firebreak gameplay trailer.Watch on YouTube As Hyytiäinen puts it, Remedy has intentionally aimed to make it something you can dip in and out of, "the session lengths are short - we're almost thinking: we don't have time to play games ourselves, what kind of game would we like to play that doesn't need to be sucking us in? You know when you lock in, you have 12 phases of stuff that has happened, that just reading through that is already your time gone for the night?" Kayatta makes similar noises, describing the studio's inspiration in Left 4 Dead (along with many others), as a case of looking back and saying, "Wow, wasn't that game great - but also from the perspective of nostalgia, like: wasn't it great when you could kind of buy a game, and it might be supported over time, but ultimately, I can pick it up and put it down? And I can enjoy that game on my own terms, and not on the game's terms. Because it feels like so many things that tried to come for Left 4 Dead went in the opposite direction, where they're like, "Oh here's the fun gameplay - oh yeah but: battle passes and seasons!"" "I'm not saying all those things are always evil..." "I'm not saying all those things are always evil," he adds, "it's not true. But ultimately, it is something that starts to try to tell you how to engage, and not just like, when you're in the game, but actually when you're out of the game, when do you come back to the game? How often do you need to play the game? Check in, do this, do that." The inspiration instead, he says, "is more of a meta inspiration to say: what if we came back and we said, let's just focus on making a game that people like, and if they only play it for an hour a week and then they need to step away for six months, what if that was okay? What if it's okay that they go play other stuff? What if we built a game and a mandate - and a product, even, on the business level - around this idea that that's actually okay for a multiplayer game, and just get it in people's hands?" The natural follow-on there is Remedy's decision to put Firebreak immediately onto Xbox Game Pass and PlayStation Plus. I asked Kayatta whether that helped take the pressure off a little, amongst the wider, tougher context of similar multiplayer games - most notably the high-profile failure and ultimately pulling from sale of Sony's Concord - having some difficult launches. "From a wider industry perspective, obviously, there's always the question of: is it cannibalising sales? But of course, it's not like people put things on Game Pass for free either," Kayatta says. "I wouldn't call it a safety net for us," he adds, in that "games can't just survive exclusively by trying to be available in one service or another service." Still, he notes that Game Pass and PS Plus were both "a very welcome partnership". "We never used 'games-as-a-service', 'live-service' with this game, very consciously," adds PR director Thomas Puha, during a separate conversation. "The connotation of those games is, you know, it's gonna be 'battle pass' this, Call of Duty, Destiny, all these things that were so far from that." "[It's] a very contested market - but then everything is contested..." Puha adds, too, that the studio is aware it's "a very contested market - but then everything is contested. There's tons of games. It's not like there isn't a contest with single-player games, I mean we're up against, you know, Sony heavy-hitters... there's no point in trying to build something where you've got to be playing every day, because then the machinery we've got to build here is not something we could even afford - so what's the point?" According to Puha, the studio's other backstop here, meanwhile, is its shift in approach towards making multiple games at once, which Remedy's been doing since 2016. "It's very much about spreading the risk," he says, "you can see it's near impossible to survive with making a single game and then hoping that it, against all odds, does phenomenally well, and you get some money out of it. Part of our business model is that we work on multiple things, and we've said we try to ship something every year." The last point the team is keen to make is that FBC: Firebreak has been made with a significantly tighter budget than what you might consider some of its multiplayer competitors. "Of course, not just taking crazy risks by doing massive budgets and so on" is also a factor, as Puha puts it. "Of course we need this game to do well, but then we have realistic expectations." The team is still only around 50 developers strong, for instance - Control's team, by comparison, was in the low hundreds. "It's not like a 200-person, five-year dev cycle." To Kayatta, FBC: Firebreak's director, it also just comes back to the reasons why it exists in the first place. "I think there's a lot of cynicism around multiplayer games," he says. "And I think there's double cynicism about multiplayer games that come from, traditionally, single-player studios. And obviously I feel that - I mean I'm also a gamer. "But at the end of the day, one thing that is quite nice about working on this project here is that I know - because I live it every day - that this did not come from any amount of cynicism. It has just come from passion and creative people have been given a license to say, you know, what is fun? What do we just want to do? What's interesting?" This article is based on a press event at Remedy's headquarters, for which it assisted with travel and accommodation.