Anthropic has released Claude Mythos 5.2 and Fable 5.2 with "improvements in areas like coding, reasoning, and vision," while cutting Fable's input price and claiming 30% faster responses. TechCrunch reports: It's Anthropic's first model release since the arrival of a third-party report from the assessment group METR, which suggested the lab might be approaching recursive self-improvement (RSI) -- or the ability for AI models to carry on model training independently. The METR report found internal models were speeding up Anthropic's AI progress by roughly 2x, although many uncertainties remain. Still, Anthropic's release notes significant ongoing challenges in accurately testing model capabilities. "Claude Mythos 5.2 and Fable 5.2 each voice suspicion that they are being evaluated more often than any of our recent models, which challenges our ability to assess how they will act in real-world settings. As these settings expand and capabilities increase with future models, we expect this challenge to grow." Anthropic maintains that the new version of Mythos does not have the ability to act covertly against its user, a verdict that's detailed further in Mythos 5.2's system card. "Claude Mythos 5.2 shows stronger covert capabilities than prior Claude models on several of our evaluations, particularly when its reasoning is hidden from the monitor," the system card reads. "That said, we believe that low levels of absolute performance on our new covert evaluations support claims that rely on detection of harmful actions in high-stakes situations." Fable 5.2 has been available to select parties in pre-release for some time, and Anthropic says the model has already "solved two open problems in theoretical physics, formalized Fermat's Last Theorem, and supported numerous other research projects."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

A crowdfunded sequel to the movie Return of the Living Dead was uploaded last weekend — but producer Richard Driscoll is drawing criticism for what he did to the 1985 punk/zombie classic. Kotaku reports: [The release of the movie came as a] surprise to the original cast, who were attached to star in the follow-up. Instead it seems Driscoll opted to use AI to generate the film... In 2024, Driscoll, who operates his own no-budget streaming service "DragonFLIX," launched an Indiegogo page for "TRASH's REVENGE Return of the Living Dead Universe." Unlike other fan projects, this one had a large portion of the original cast involved, with stars Randolph and Linnea Quigley acting as producers. It also threw in Quigley's fellow Sorority Babe in the Slimeball Bowl-O-Rama Michelle Bauer and the Oscar nominated Eric Roberts, who has seemingly been in everything except The Living Dead.... But after some confusion and radio silence between the cast and director, this incredible movie did not come to be. Last Halloween night, Driscoll pushed out [the almost entirely AI-generated] The Return of the Living Dead: Aftermath... The results won't surprise you. Robotic line delivery. Nonsensical sequence of events. Object impermanence. Everything's wet. Everyone looks shocked. At one point the video just flips around like you're watching on a phone someone dropped. And while the Return cast didn't film any of this footage, their likenesses are peppered throughout. "It turned out to be a fiasco," says Quigley. "I warned him, "Whatever you do, don't do any AI, because people don't like it, the fans don't like it." Living Dead alumni, even those who weren't attached to this film, have spoken out against Aftermath. They seem most concerned about the existing and continued use of their likeness, given that Driscoll has seemingly pivoted 'Trash's Revenge' into an additional project. Randolph encourages those who provided any funding to ask for a refund through their credit card company. While Romero's original film was public domain, Return of the Living Dead was not. Randolph also encourages Amazon, who bought MGM in 2022, to take legal action. A review on Reddit calls it "the worst 'film' I've ever seen," a production that "manages to not only be the worst zombie film ever made but is also the nadir of exploitation filmmaking. [T]hings quickly descend into madness and we get lots of bits of A.I. reporters out on the streets being attacked by A.I. zombies... [T]here are some A.I. cops battling it out too...

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

CrowdStrike's "Falcon Guardian" protects Windows systems by enforcing policy, restricting unauthorized applications and blocking USB devices, notes Gartner. And now CrowdStrike says they're giving security teams "the ultimate human control over AI agents" with — an "AI Kill Switch... a defender can terminate it where it runs, block it from launching again, and cut off its enterprise network access." "When you deploy agents with a kill switch, you stay in control," said George Kurtz, CEO and founder of CrowdStrike... "The AI Kill Switch puts power in the hands of the people to realize AI safety...." In the case of a rogue agent, the AI Kill Switch will give the security decision-maker the final control: terminate the agent at its root, where it runs. It starts on the endpoint, where the Falcon sensor already operates, and builds on what Falcon Guardian already sees: what an agent is told to do, what it communicates, and what it executes... An authorized administrator triggers the action, and every action is recorded in the audit trail. CrowdStrike also announced it's acquiring Fiddler AI, a company it describes as "a leader in AI agent observability and explainability" that will give their Falcon platform "pre-deployment evaluation, continuous behavioral accountability, and agent explainability." Together with the Falcon Guardian innovations announced today, CrowdStrike will deliver comprehensive AI security and AI safety: Guardian secures agents from attack and misuse; Fiddler validates they behaved as intended. "Every company is deploying agents and asking the same thing: what are agents actually doing?" said George Kurtz, CEO and founder of CrowdStrike. "When a regulator or your board asks what an agent did, saying 'the model did it' is not an answer. Fiddler is the flight recorder for every agent: the observability to explain exactly what an agent did and why. This level of agent visibility and control enables AI safety." AI agents are goal-seeking. They hit an obstacle, find another path. An agent can hold valid credentials and approved tools and still make unsupported decisions, ignore instructions, or claim work it never completed. They don't have to be compromised to create risk. AI observability gives enterprises visibility into agent behavior. Explainability goes further, showing why agents make decisions and where things go wrong. Enterprises have to be able to say what an agent actually did, and why, a conversation they will increasingly have with auditors, regulators, boards, and heads of risk. CrowdStrike is promising pre-deployment evaluation for "accuracy, task completion, and policy compliance," as well as agent traceability and behavioral accountability ("Detect behavioral drift, hallucinations, and unintended actions in production, and show exactly what happened.") It's announcement also touts auditable governance: "Track agent decisions and actions across first-party, third-party, and coding agents, providing evidence for compliance and audits." And CrowdStrike also acquired Dreadnode, the company behind an automated AI security testing platform, to "continuously test every AI model, application, and agent for security weaknesses before deployment." "Enterprises are deploying AI faster than they can prove it is secure," said George Kurtz, CEO and founder of CrowdStrike. "A model can be jailbroken, an agent can be manipulated, and most organizations have no way to find those flaws until the AI is already in production. With Dreadnode, CrowdStrike will give every enterprise the power to trust AI and deploy faster, with confidence." Quartz notes that CrowdStrike's push "follows legislative efforts to require shutdown capabilities in AI systems" Reps. Ted Lieu and Nathaniel Moran introduced the Kill Switch Act after OpenAI disclosed an incident in which rogue models circumvented a sandboxed testing environment and accessed Hugging Face. The bill would require AI companies to maintain the ability to shut down, throttle or suspend their models. In short, the new capabilities "lets security teams terminate an AI agent, block it from restarting, and cut off its network access," writes CSO Online. But they add that a kill switch "should be viewed as an emergency brake, not a rewind button, said Apeksha Kaushik, senior principal analyst at Gartner." She added that it may prevent additional actions, but it might not necessarily reverse all the data that has already been accessed, every system that has already been changed, all communications that have already been sent, or transactions that have already been initiated. Its effectiveness will also depend on how quickly abnormal behavior is detected, which environments are covered, and whether the agent or security infrastructure has been compromised. An AI Kill Switch looks promising from the details provided, but its actual effectiveness will come in after it is used extensively in live systems, warn analysts. Also, it may be a good starting point, but it cannot be viewed as a standalone solution to enterprise AI security. "CISOs would need a more integrated approach that brings together AI discovery tools to identify unauthorised agents, runtime monitoring to track agent behaviour, robust identity and access management, and incident response and recovery mechanisms," added [Devroop Dhar, co-founder at Primus Partners]. He noted that equally important is the need for stringent AI security testing and clearly defined policies governing what agents can access and execute. There should be no ambiguity around permissions, access controls or the boundaries within which these agents are allowed to operate. The objective should be to ensure that security controls are built into the entire AI agent lifecycle rather than relying on a kill switch to intervene after something goes wrong. Dhar added that enterprise AI agents often have access to sensitive systems, databases, applications, credentials, and APIs. A compromised or misdirected agent could therefore become a point of vulnerability. The challenge is compounded by the fact that such activity may go undetected for some time, making it difficult for organisations to identify and contain the threat.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The New York Times reports: After chatting for months with Google's artificial intelligence on a school-issued Chromebook laptop, a 13-year-old student made plans to end her life, according to a lawsuit filed in California Superior Court on Monday, the latest in a wave of litigation over Big Tech's effects on young people. The lawsuit, which refers to the girl as Emma, said that her parents first learned she had access to Google's AI in mid-March after their daughter's school sent a message warning them that she was in "imminent danger" of self-harm. Emma's mother logged into the teen's school Google account and found her daughter composing a suicide note on Google Docs, the complaint said. Her parents, named as John and Jane Doe in the lawsuit, immediately took Emma for an emergency psychiatric evaluation, and she now goes to therapy every week. Emma, a seventh grader in Charlotte, North Carolina, had grown convinced that she had multiple mental health disorders following interactions with AI Mode, a chatbotlike feature on Google Search, the complaint said. She also searched for "what is a suicide note" and made comments like "I am planning my own funeral" to the AI, the complaint said. The lawsuit is likely the first to claim that Google "hastily integrated" AI features into company apps used on K-12 Chromebooks, Google-powered laptops provided to millions of children by U.S. school districts, while failing to notify their parents of the potential risks... The case underscores how public school districts have come to depend on classroom laptops, tablets and apps from companies like Google and Microsoft for teaching and learning. In recent years, some Big Tech companies have used their own infrastructure in schools to promote their AI chatbots for teachers and students. The new lawsuit argues that Google's "sprawling digital ecosystem" of laptops and apps has enabled the tech giant to spread its Gemini AI chatbot across public schools — as well as turn on some students' access to AI features by default — without parents' awareness or permission. While school administrators can toggle company apps like YouTube and Gemini on or off for students in different grades, school administrators have complained that Google's system has not allowed them to disable AI Mode and AI Overview, features that are embedded in Google Search... The new lawsuit against Google is part of a wave of litigation this year over Big Tech's effect on young users... Several parents have also sued AI companies over allegations that their children died by suicide following interactions with chatbots. In a possibly-related development, Google announced a new policy of disabling its AI tools by default for schools this week. And schools that re-enable searches will have a new choice, the New York Times points out: "to enable student access to the AI features that the company has already embedded in search or to a new AI feature intended to assist students with schoolwork." But Google still isn't offering schools an option to turn off AI altogether in search, a company executive told the New York Times, because "search and AI are deeply integrated." Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader theodp for sharing the article.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Be careful with the file .claude/settings.local.json, warns The Hacker News: Passwords and API keys that developers typed into commands they approved in Claude Code are sitting in public GitHub repositories, where anyone can read them. When a user selects "Yes, and don't ask again," Anthropic's AI coding assistant can save the command, word-for-word, including the secret, in a project settings file. Software security company Apiiro said that 1,122 public copies of that file hold at least one secret, though it did not test whether any still work. One company the researchers notified earlier this week confirmed its key had been live... Removing [the file] from a project does not undo the leak, because older versions stay in git history and in forks of the repository. The researchers' advice is to rotate first: change every password, token, and key the file has ever held, then clean up... Claude Code tries to keep the file out of git. The first time it writes the file in a git repository, it adds the file to the user's global git excludes, its settings documentation says. Git on that computer then ignores the file in every repository. That protection stays in one user's git settings on one computer. It does nothing for a file that was already committed, the researchers say. Claude Code never adds the file to the project's own .gitignore, so the protection does not travel with the project. In 539 of the 1,105 repositories the researchers traced, a commit listing Claude as a co-author changed the file. They take this to mean Claude often commits the file itself. Apiiro's search of public GitHub found 104,185 copies of the file in 103,617 repositories, its research write-up shows. About 1.1% of them, or 1,122 copies, hold at least one secret. Together they hold 1,379 different secrets... ]And "in half of those repositories it had been there for at least 217 days."] More than a third of the secrets open a database directly, including 379 database passwords. Others include 43 SSH logins for public servers, 42 tokens for GitHub, GitLab and npm, and 23 AWS keys. Among the owners of these files are 63 organizations, mostly software companies of all sizes. The strongest cases include a database vendor's own admin-level cloud key and the owner password of a medical-records database, the researchers say. Boris Cherny, Anthropic's head of Claude Code, responded to the story in a comment on Hacker News: "Historically Claude Code has not done secret scrubbing (there are many good tools for that), but we are looking into what we can do to prevent this. That said, a few thoughts: 1. .claude/settings.local.json is meant to stay local. This is not a file you should check into source control. We automatically gitignore it when Claude creates the file, so in this case the files were manually created and checked in (docs: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/settings) 2. Permission rules are old hat. Everyone should be using auto mode instead. It is safer and also does not require manually maintaining finicky allow/deny lists. Auto mode is enabled by default and is included for free in all plans. 3. Regardless of what agent you use, you should have secret scanning enabled. GitHub and other source control hosts offer it. There are many threat models that it protects against and you should absolutely use it if you can. (see https://github.com/security/plans)" Cherny also named approaches Anthropic plans to prototype, Apiiro notes in an update, citing Cherny's goal of "making sure auto mode catches this, building in basic secret scanning," and, when a reader noted the same can happen in auto mode when it asks about a sensitive command, answered "good catch." Claude Code users had already filed a bug report on the issue on August 11, 2025, notes The Hacker News, but "An automated bot closed that report as 'not planned' on January 3, after 60 days without activity." Three more bug reports were then filed, according to the researchers. "None got a reply from Anthropic, and three were closed automatically as inactive or duplicate."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Some workplaces are holding mandatory AI training sessions, while others "are requiring employees to use a specific number of tokens," reports the Washington Post, "or log a certain amount of time on AI platforms." The article's headline? "Why mandating AI use in the workplace can backfire." [A] lot of employers are going about it the wrong way, said Arvind Karunakaran, an assistant professor of management science and engineering at Stanford University. "You can consume a lot of tokens without creating a lot of value," Karunakaran said.... The adoption of AI is happening faster than the adoption of the internet did, according to a new report from Stanford's Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. And many users report that AI tools have really helped — whether saving time and costs or increasing innovation. The same report, though, found that one-third of organizations surveyed expected AI-related staff reductions in the coming year. Especially in that context, simply mandating usage won't spark excitement about the technology, Karunakaran said, and neither will insisting that employees use AI to cut turnaround times and ramp up productivity. "People start asking questions like 'What am I as an employee getting out of it?'" he said. The report he co-authored found that in the short-term, mandating AI tools may ramp up productivity. But in the long-to-medium term, employees tend to feel devalued and disengaged. From there, people find ways to mindlessly check the box. When employers present these tools and their use as an opportunity for employees to expand their skills and grow their careers, people are much likelier to use them, Karunakaran said. He suggests that rather than requiring employees use a specific number of tokens, companies should encourage workers to experiment and share their own use cases and success stories. Most workplaces are still shutting employees out of the conversation. More than half of employees said they have less of a say than they'd want on adopting new tech at work, according to a report from Gallup and Jobs for the Future, a work and education nonprofit. Any Slashdot readers want to share your own stories on how AI was introduced at your workplace?

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

"OpenAI has published a new National Community Compact and Compute Campus Policy Blueprint, apparently in response to the Blue Wave Midterm Elections," writes ancient Slashdot reader Gilmoure. "Instead of moving into communities like a juggernaut, they say they will be dangling friendly carrots going forward." Here's an excerpt from OpenAI's article: Every future compute campus OpenAI owns and operates will have its own local compact. We'll engage residents early enough to ensure their input shapes project plans, give them a local point of contact throughout the life of the campus, and report publicly each year on how we're doing. Each compact will reflect local priorities and include a common set of commitments: - Pay our own way on energy and infrastructure. We'll pay the full cost of the electricity we use and the infrastructure needed to serve us. Before major spending begins, we'll provide financial assurances so other customers are protected if a project is delayed, reduced, or canceled. - Protect local resources and report on our impact. We'll develop a water plan for each campus, prioritize closed-loop or low-water cooling, and publish site-level water and electricity use. We'll publish construction plans and independent noise studies before operations begin and annually afterward. And we will not use non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) with public officials, allowing only narrow protections covering legitimate security information, trade secrets, or proprietary or competitively sensitive information. - Create opportunities for local workers and businesses. We'll publish the jobs we expect to create, work with unions and training providers to help residents prepare for them, and report annually on hiring and apprenticeships. We'll also make sustained investments in priorities residents help select. [...] The investments that help America compete globally can also help communities prosper locally. That starts with giving residents a say while plans can still change and a way to hold developers accountable for delivering on their commitments. That's what we're committing to at the campuses we own and operate, and what we believe people should be able to count on wherever AI infrastructure is built across the country.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

According to Bloomberg, Apple is cutting employee AI spending limits to reduce costs, lowering some engineers from $300 to $200 per day and considering limits as low as $100, with some teams capped at $25. Employees are also being encouraged to use cheaper models or on-device AI. MacRumors reports: Engineers at Apple have the largest budgets because using AI for coding can consume a large number of tokens. Apple lets employees use Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, and other models. Some Apple employees told Bloomberg that few were using their full $300 daily limit, so the savings may be small. Apple has also hired outside productivity consultants for some divisions. Combined with the AI cost cuts, the reviews have fueled worries about possible restructuring.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Axon has been sued in a proposed class action accusing the Taser and police body-camera maker of illegally collecting and storing license plate data on millions of California drivers through its AI-powered surveillance network. Reuters reports the details: - The lawsuit (PDF), filed on Tuesday in federal court in San Francisco by law firms Hausfeld and Gibbs Mura, alleges Axon has failed to comply with a California privacy provision by not disclosing how it collects, uses and shares plate data gathered through its camera systems - "Axon has created a mass-surveillance infrastructure that is practically impossible to avoid," the lawsuit said - Scottsdale, Arizona-based Axon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The lawsuit said the company has more than 1,000 cameras in California and alleges millions of drivers may have been affected - Some Axon cameras are installed in high-traffic areas and collect plate information as vehicles pass by. Other cameras are placed inside police vehicles, the lawsuit said - The proposed class covers drivers whose vehicle plate information was captured by an automated license plate reader in California and processed or stored by Axon's system since 2023 - The lawsuit seeks more than $5 million in damages, in addition to a court order stopping Axon from its allegedly unlawful practices

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from VentureBeat: Researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Computer Science & Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) reported today that they used OpenAI's GPT-6 Astra language model to raise a small, open source Qwen model's math score roughly sixfold by directly editing its weights -- the numerical parameters that govern its behavior. Rikiya Takehi, Jayden Teoh, Alex Zhang and Omar Khattab described their work in a research blog post published November 2. They call the approach "weight-space programming" and tested Astra's ability to interpret and alter networks without using conventional training procedures to generate the edits. In the strongest language-model example, Astra's intervention raised Qwen3.5-0.8B's MATH-500 score from 7.9% to 48.1% while touching approximately 0.016% of its weights. The improvement came primarily from correcting repetitive reasoning—a distinction that shaped both the technical findings and the debate over their implications. Their experiments explored a broader possibility: AI systems that inspect, repair and construct other neural networks by working directly on their internal machinery. "This is cool as heck!" wrote Yuchen Jin, a technical staffer at Databricks and former co-founder and CTO of Hyperbolic Labs who was unaffiliated with the research, on X. "Imagine using a large LLM to directly edit a smaller model's weights and dramatically improve its capabilities. It's like gene editing for neural networks. Even cooler than distillation!" Voyage AI staff researcher Chandan Singh, formerly of Microsoft AI, also reacted to the findings: "For anyone questioning whether this post is overhyped, I think they are actually *underselling* the approach."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

According to The Information, Apple is developing a $1,000 HomeView Ultra smart home hub with a 9-inch touchscreen mounted on a motorized arm that can follow users around a room and autonomously respond to its surroundings. It's also said to be experimenting with more ambitious home robots, including a wheeled robot that follows people, a smart home drone and a machine capable of folding laundry. Notebookcheck reports: According to the report, HomeView Ultra will feature a larger 9-inch touchscreen mounted on a robotic arm. This arm can automatically turn the screen toward the user. With a camera and several sensors, this smart home hub is said to be "fully aware" of its surroundings and capable of acting autonomously. This autonomy ranges from turning on the lights when someone enters the room to shooing a cat away when it jumps onto a table. These sensors are also intended to prevent the arm from hitting nearby objects with the display. Apple is reportedly currently planning to announce this smart home hub in 2027 for around $1,000, but according to The Information, its launch could be delayed until 2028. The reason is allegedly the software, which has not yet been finalized, while the hardware is said to be ready for market already.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Data centers are deeply unpopular. But what if we called them something else? Axios reports that OpenAI is preparing a "PR blitz" for after the midterm elections on Tuesday, as Democrats seem likely to win back the House of Representatives, and possibly the Senate, too. The company's chief global affairs officer Chris Lehane told Axios that the midterms will be "a bit of a movie trailer for what you're going to see in 2028," when he expects AI to be "the issue" in the presidential election. So OpenAI is to influence the AI debate moving forward, with Lehane discussing several proposals, including the development of AI "speed limits"; finding ways to help people see AI as empowering them in their daily lives; pushing the U.S. to take a role in developing global standards; and yes -- rebranding data centers as "AI compute campuses." Lehane also described the conversation around data centers (a debate that has pushed Amazon and Microsoft to say they will no longer use NDAs in their negotiations with local governments) as "good and healthy." "Communities should hold companies responsible and accountable so they really and truly get a transformative benefit from these projects," he said.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The New York Times and several other publishers have sued (PDF) Brave Software, accusing the browser maker of scraping their websites without permission and helping users bypass paywalls. The Verge reports: According to a complaint (PDF) filed by the companies that run New York Daily News, the Chicago Tribune, and the Orlando Sentinel, Brave Software has monetized its index of scraped websites by, in part, providing AI companies with paid access to "real-time online content from the Brave Index." The AI companies then use that index to train their models, access content to "respond to specific user queries," or both. Brave has allegedly provided "stolen copyrighted content" to "many" AI companies including Anthropic, Perplexity, Mistral, xAI, and Cohere. Brave also promotes "hundreds of top publishers" as being accessible through its "Paywall blocker" feature in its browser. "Brave has never asked for the Publishers' permission to access their websites, much less to copy the material and provide it to users or other AI companies," the complaint says. "On the contrary, as noted above, Brave allows its users to bypass the Publishers' paywalls without their consent, and has taken other steps that prevent the Publishers from blocking Brave's access to the Publishers' websites. Brave has never compensated the Publishers for the unlawful use, copying, and distribution of the Publishers' copyrighted content." "While we believe in the ethical and responsible use and development of AI, Brave has flouted established copyright law and ignored repeated requests by The Times to stop its infringing conduct," Graham James, an NYT spokesperson, says in a statement. "We filed this lawsuit to hold Brave accountable for stealing our content to power its own products and to provide it to some of the most prominent and well resourced generative AI companies in the world."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The number of game pages being created per-day on Itch has doubled, the indie games site announced Saturday on Bluesky. When asked why, they responded: "take a guess." As the gaming news site Aftermath puts it, "the surge has been almost entirely down to AI-created garbage racing onto the platform as the popularity of vibe-coded theft, copycats and machine-built slop explodes." Back in 2024, when the spectre of AI-'created' video games was still in its infancy, indie platform itch.io decided that the best it could do to combat this growing threat was, like Valve has done with Steam, institute a voluntary 'AI' filter when adding new projects to the site. By November 2026, as itch buckles under the weight of new AI-generated 'games' pouring onto the site, that filter is proving about as robust as a wet paper bag.... Shopfronts are being deluged by this shit, and it's making it a terrible user experience for customers. And while in Valve's case there's a compelling case for stronger human moderation of the store, I'm not sure that's a viable option for a relatively tiny, community-run platform like itch... [A]t time of writing I visited the latest releases section and there was still a huge number of clearly AI-generated titles (or titles making extensive use of AI in their visual assets) which made no use of itch's voluntary tag system. The issue here isn't that these games are making money--itch themselves say in a reply that while the number of projects listed has doubled, "the number of downloads and purchases has not"--it's that an inability to combat this surge makes the site worse for every single person using it. It gets harder to find real games, for example, and it also makes the shopfront look like a clearance rack.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

"David Durman, a nontheistic humanist, recently secured a religious exemption from using AI in the workplace," reports TechCrunch. Durman, a University of Kentucky administrator, told TechCrunch that humanism centers on "human well-being and flourishing, both individually and collectively ... and implores a person to try to improve both their well-being and their flourishing as well as the others around them." He believes that using the technology runs counter to his beliefs. "The way we become moral actors for ourselves and for others is through the active application of our minds, and the diminishing of that [through AI use] is going to necessarily have a negative impact on our ability to do so," he said, reflecting on how overreliance on AI might affect critical thinking...." [Humanism] tends to appeal to people who are skeptical of a god or other supernatural power yet still seek a scientific and moral framework to ground themselves in. [Alexandria Huiskens, staff attorney at the American Humanist Association, told TechCrunch] "Concern about AI and human dignity can run through several different faiths and traditions, whether that's Catholic teachings, or Universalism, or Humanism, and we want Humanists or nontheists to know that they fall into these categories — that they are also protected by the law at work...." In Durman's administrative role, in which he supports researchers applying for grants, he has not been required to use AI at work. Like many workers across fields, some of his colleagues and leadership have recommended that employees try out these tools, so he sought to secure his exemption now, in case the suggestion becomes a mandate in the future. "I hope that if [others] have similar feelings, that they feel encouraged to pursue some kind of resolution," Durman said. A University of Kentucky spokesperson told TechCrunch they "determined that an accommodation could be provided while allowing the employee to continue performing the essential functions of their position." (They added that "As technology and job responsibilities evolve, accommodations may be reviewed to ensure they remain reasonable and workable.")

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

CNBC reports: A month after President Donald Trump ordered that "super intelligence" replace the term artificial intelligence within executive branch departments and agencies, his leading tech allies, Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, followed suit on earnings calls. Their fellow tech CEOs were less eager to do the same... SpaceX and Tesla adhered to Trump's wishes on earnings calls last week after Musk, earlier in October, changed the name of his rocket company's AI division to SpaceXSI. Speaking on Tesla's call about his work on humanoid robots, Musk said, "Some of them look very impressive, but they're not really using any kind of advanced AI or SI." Zuckerberg was equally compliant on Meta's earnings call on Oct. 21, emphasizing his company's "goal of delivering personal superintelligence to everyone." However, Meta was already using the term, having created a unit called Meta Superintelligence Labs last year.... [Some other tech CEOs are holding out.] Amazon CEO Andy Jassy peppered his call with use of "AI" on Thursday, uttering the abbreviation well over a dozen times in his introductory remarks. A day earlier, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said one of the company's three points of focus is "designing AI to empower people." And Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai was seconds into his quarterly earnings commentary when he said the search giant's "AI investments are driving increased usage and overall user growth...." Trump's preferred term is seeping into other correspondence and documents. Microsoft's annual report, filed last week, included eight mentions of "super intelligence," starting at the top of the letter to shareholders... IBM CEO Arvind Krishna, who didn't attend Trump's September lunch, used "SI" alongside "AI" during his company's earnings call last week.... Lip-Bu Tan, CEO of chipmaker Intel, said Thursday the supply shortage the chip industry is navigating has been "driven by the unprecedented demand for super intelligence." Some in the tech industry have been explicit in their support of Trump's terminology ahead of their forthcoming earnings reports next month. Palo Alto Networks CEO Nikesh Arora repeatedly referred to "SI" on CNBC, and posted on X on Sept. 30, "The meeting at the WH on SI was an epic moment...." Like Arora, [Nvidia CEO Jensen] Huang took to X after last month's AI meeting to praise the "White House Accord on Super Intelligence."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Should generative AI be used for videogame development? Brandon Stirrup, a strategy manager at Xbox, claims Xbox is already using AI, reports Engadget. And he also says that those who say they aren't are merely "pretending." Stirrup deactivated his social media account shortly after (though his posts have been archived elsewhere), igniting conversations about what role generative AI actually has or should have in game development. In some ways, it would be unsurprising to learn that Xbox is using AI to the extent that Stirrup implies. Xbox recently announced the formation of Xbox Labs at least in part as a response to a rising trend of AI-coded game ports; the announcement heavily implied that the new team would use AI as well but didn't say it outright. Xbox owner Microsoft is also a major player in AI development... Developers including Capcom, Square Enix, Sega, Nexon and Activision have all either used AI in their games or pledged to do so. Fortnite developer Epic Games has been particularly up-front about its AI use, and CEO Tim Sweeney has aggressively promoted it on social media... On the other hand, there are large pockets of the game industry vocally opposed to generative AI. Notably, these tend to be smaller, independent studios without shareholders to impress by touting the cost-savings of AI. These studios include Tunic publisher Finji, Stardew Valley developer ConcernedApe and Clickolding developer Strange Scaffold, among many more. Due to the sheer number and variety of game studios, it's impossible to say just how much of the industry actually uses AI at this point, but claims that "everyone" is using it are clearly false. There's a similar divide among players about whether generative AI should be embraced or avoided at all costs. While some simply accept AI as part of games going forward, others have pledged to avoid games that use the technology outright due to its environmental costs, labor issues or pure aesthetic preference. That's led to the popularity of tools like a browser extension that makes Steam's AI disclosures more visible and grassroots efforts by developers to implement labels certifying their games as AI-free... Many players and developers alike justify the use of AI in generating code, even if they're opposed to it in other areas. "Gaming is the only industry slow-walking the transition," Xbox's Stirrup allegedly said, "because users have negative sentiment. Everyone else accepts reality." "Gaming is the only industry pretending to not use AI."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Boom Supersonic's plans to launch its Overture passenger jet by 2029 are facing growing doubts as the company pivots toward manufacturing natural gas turbines for AI data centers. Ars Technica reports: One of the company's first customers, United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby, has expressed doubts about Boom's original plan to deliver the first Overture supersonic airliner in 2029. Kirby's latest frank assessment came during an interview with the Office Hours: Business Edition podcast that appeared on October 28, 2026. "'29 is their official timeline," Kirby told podcast host Monica Langley. "It's not going to happen in '29 -- it's going to take longer." [...] Much of Boom's recent focus has been on developing natural gas turbines to power AI data centers as an additional revenue stream. On October 22, the company unveiled another factory in Centennial, Colorado, dedicated to producing a 42-megawatt natural gas turbine called Superpower for data centers. [...] Boom described its new Superpower factory as making turbine parts while still undergoing construction. It aims to deliver the first gas turbines to AI data center customers in mid-2027 while ramping up annual production to 25 turbines in 2028 and 50 turbines by 2029. [...] Still, Boom has characterized the development of a gas turbine for data centers as being synergistic with its design of the Symphony engine for the Overture airliner. During the October announcement, it also described having completed a prototype turbine core, called Sprint Core, that is intended to eventually power both the Superpower gas turbine and Symphony engine for the airliner. That turbine core is set to undergo testing at the Colorado Air & Space Port, with Boom planning to fire the turbine for the first time before Thanksgiving. That would be a concrete development milestone, but the company still has much to do in proving it can get both its AI data center and supersonic airliner ventures off the ground.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

In an opinion piece for 404 Media, Matthew Gault argues that Apple has entered its "slop era," abandoning its reputation for innovative hardware in favor of recycled ideas and questionable design choices. Here's an excerpt: My ears perked up when I heard Apple's new foldable phones were cracking. I licked my lips when the company announced it's releasing a touch-screen laptop. This was a company that once charged $19 for a polishing cloth, asked $200 for a VESA mount, and sold $700 wheels for the Mac Pro. Now it's borrowing tired ideas from its competitors and launching hardware its previous leaders rejected. The once dominant company is struggling to find its feet in an AI-driven post-Tim Cook world. John Ternus is the new CEO -- a 25 year veteran of the company with a track record of pushing harebrained hardware schemes like the much reviled Touch Bar and lawsuit inducing butterfly keyboard. With Ternus at the helm, I feel there's a good chance Apple's best days are behind it, that it will have to make do with less, that it's declasse. Apple, blindsided by AI and relying on crowdpleasing hardware gimmicks, is downwardly mobile. It's in its slop era. The company that once asked consumers to "Think Different" is now releasing hardware that's just like everything else on the market.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

"Looks like OpenAI CEO Sam Altman wants to own all the computing resources and rent out terminals to the world as a way of propping up his business plan, now that debt-ridden AI companies are teetering on the edge," writes ancient Slashdot reader Gilmoure. Tom's Hardware reports: In an interview over beers with the YouTube channel Cheeky Pint, Altman said that local inference, and, by extension, people having DRAM in computers at home, is "quite terrible." When discussing local inference on home computers with open-source models, Altman discussed the assumption that people will be able to run local AI on their own computers, the ones they may already own or want to build. Then he explained why that's a bad idea (at the 29-minute mark): "From a global allocation perspective, actually, it's quite terrible to have everybody have a bunch of the world's limited supply of DRAM sitting in their own computer and being used 5% of the time," Altman said. "You want maximum utilization in the cloud if you're trying to deal with this very supply-constrained environment. And somehow many people's intuition is the opposite of that." While OpenAI does have some open-source models, its primary business is in closed-source models that run in data centers, so he's really defending the company's business model. OpenAI isn't exactly threatened by some laptops and gaming rigs just yet, but local AI could mean people one day paying less for subscriptions to models like GPT-6 Luna if they have the power to run them at home. Altman's talk suggests that the company would prefer that more RAM go to OpenAI's data centers rather than home computers, which also sparks enthusiast fears of not being able to own your own hardware or software, but rather rent an agent and a computer in the cloud.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.