 |
|
|
|||||
New York City is a city of walkers. More trips are made on foot than by car (41% versus 28%) and the citys “80X50” climate action plan envisions that 80% of all trips by 2050 will be made either on foot, by biking, or by public transit. The problem is that pedestrian movement in the city has remained largely unmapped and underestimateduntil now. Together with a team of researchers, Andres Sevtsuk, an associate professor in MITs Department of Urban Studies and Planning, has built what he says is the first complete model of pedestrian activity in New York Cityand it’s a model that can now be applied to any U.S. city. The model, which maps foot traffic across all sidewalks, crosswalks and footpaths in NYC during peak periods, reveals surprising patterns about the way people move around the city, as well as where they are most vulnerable to vehicle crashes (hint: its not Midtown Manhattan). It could have tremendous benefits for city planners. Spatial distribution of estimated foot-traffic volumes in New York City during the weekday AM peak period. Blue labels describe observed pedestrian counts during the AM peak hour (in 2018 or 2019) and the white labels describe model estimates. [Image: MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning] The pitfalls of a car-centric country Much ink has been spilled on the car-centricity of American cities. Americans average two vehicles per household (among the highest rates in the world) and car ownership has shaped everything from suburban sprawl to infrastructure spending priorities. Over the past decades, transportation agencies have become experts at modeling traffic and predicting vehicle flows, but as Sevtsuk points out in a study accompanying the model that was published in the journal Nature Cities, “what gets counted, counts.” The amount of transportation infrastructure funding that states receive from the Federal Highway Administration, for example, relies on vehicle miles traveled in that state. The more residents of that state drive cars, the more funding the state receives. If cities could count the number of pedestrians that walked across their streets, they could steer more federal money into urban, people-oriented infrastructure. But while car domination in the U.S. has long relied on tremendous lobbying from automakers, the pedestrian movement has had no champion pushing for data collection. “Nobody has monetized walking,” says Sevtsuk, “and this is actually a good thing.” Until 1994, the U.S. didn’t even have an accurate roadway map. That year, President Bill Clinton signed an executive order directing federal agencies to build a standardized digital road network. As Sevtsuk explains, this helped revolutionize traffic modeling and paved the way for more efficient deliveries and various location-based services. If a similar order were to help develop and standardize a pedestrian network nationwide, it would highlight where communities have systematically worse pedestrian infrastructure, and help target public space investments in places where they affect the most people. [Image: MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning] The Manhattan bias Over the past decade, Sevtsuk and his team have built various district-wide models in places like Melbourne, Australia, and Cambridge, MA, but they have never built a model at this scale. “A lot of cities don’t even know where their sidewalks are,” he says, “and the sad part is, some cities don’t want to know where sidewalks are.” Indeed, cities face legal obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act to maintain accessible sidewalks, but a comprehensive tracking system also exposes them to greater liability. The result, according to Sevtsuk, is a perverse incentive whereby cities that don’t systematically inventory their sidewalk conditions can more easily defend themselves against injury claims by arguing they weren’t aware of specific hazards. In New York City, Sevtsuk’s model revealed illuminating findings. One of them has to do with the way street improvements are funded in the city. In 2020, the NYC Department of Transportation released a New York City Pedestrian Mobility Plan that laid out a road map for ongoing improvements for pedestrians and other road users. The plan laid out five corridor classification types intended to serve as a guideline for pedestrian infrastructure renovations. Most streets with the highest classification type”global corridors” that would receive priority funding for sidewalk widening, pedestrian plazas, and other improvementswere located in Manhattan. Sevtsuk acknowledges that many of these streets, including Broadway and Fifth Avenue, are important corridors, but his teams model shows that 26 streets in the outer boroughs had higher pedestrian volume than 75% of the “global corridors” designated by NYC DOT, yet they were categorized lower, meaning they won’t receive the treatment or investment they deserve. Average pedestrian volumes weekday evening peak period 5-6 p.m. in 59 NYC Community Districts. [Image: MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning] “We discovered there is a Manhattan bias in policymaking,” he says, noting the discrepancy was likely due to a lack of metrics. “They were guesstimating, and with guesstimation, we’re all flawed and have biases,” he added. Comparison between the total number of crashes involving pedestrian injuries between 2012 and 2023 (left), and the rates of pedestrian injuries (right), where the crash counts are divided by foot-traffic. [Image: MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning] Another finding had to do with car crashes. For years, transportation officials have thought the highest number of pedestrian injuries involving vehicle crashes was around Times Square, in Manhattan. But these numbers never took crash rates per pedestrian into account, meaning they simply looked at where the most crashes occur, without considering the fact that there were more crashes simply because there were more people. “We need to take into account how many people actually walk there, then look at crash rates per pedestrian,” says Sevtsuk. Using data from the model, the researchers mapped the rate of pedestrian crashes and found the highest concentration in The Bronx, Staten Island, as well as outer regions of Brooklyn and Queens. Not a single street below 125th in Manhattan lit up on the map. “Midtown sees a lot of crashes but it’s a safe place to walk because it has very high level of foot traffic,” says Sevtsuk. A template for cities worldwide The implications of the team’s work extend far beyond New York City. In fact, what makes the model particularly powerful for other cities is how adaptable it is. The researchers approach builds on a framework called Urban Network Analysis that Sevtsuk and his team have been developing for a decade. The team started by assembling data on where in NYC sidewalks, crosswalks, and footpaths are located, then mapping major trip origins and destinationsthink home to school, job to subway, or restaurant to park. They then simulated how pedestrians move between these locations, accounting for the fact that people don’t always take the shortest route and often have multiple subway stops to choose from. Using pedestrian counts from over 1,000 locations from NYC DOT as ground truth, the team calibrated the model using machine learning to ensure the estimates matched real-world observations. Once calibrated at those locations, the model could predict pedestrian volumes across every street in the city. The process took about a year to complete, but relatively speaking, it’s still much easier than building a full-fledged traffic model, says Sevtsuk. The researchers are now working with 140 cities across the state of Maine to better understand the kinds of upgrades and safety improvements they could make for pedestrians. They have also partnered with LA Metro to identify opportunities where the city could do small but important interventions that would help them better prepare for the LA28 Olympic Games, but also everyday users. “They are trying to use [the interventions] as a kind of legacy, using some of the Games budget to support walking in the city,” says Sevtsuk.
Category:
E-Commerce
Ghost jobs are postings for positions that don’t actually exist for various reasons, and they waste countless hours for job seekers who apply to roles that were never meant to be filled. Experts in recruiting and career strategy have identified specific warning signs that reveal when a posting is likely fake or abandoned. This guide breaks down how to recognize these red flags before investing time in an application, so you can better focus your efforts on genuine opportunities. Prioritize Responsive Employers that Show Immediate Engagement One reliable way to identify a ghost job is to see whether applying to it leads to any human response at all. Today, silence has become the norm. I’ve watched thousands of job seekers reach out to employers saying it feels like they’re reaching out into a void. The numbers tell a similar story; research shows that only about 20% to 25% of applications submitted on large job boards, like Indeed, receive any response, which means the majority of applicants never hear back. That is why so many job seekers feel stuck. Many are not being rejected, but they’re being ignored by jobs that were never truly open. Some listings exist to build applicant pipelines, satisfy internal posting requirements, or because job distribution is automated even when no recruiter is actively reviewing candidates. We’ve learned to spot the difference between a real opening and a ghost job by watching for one thing: action. When a role is genuinely open, employers engage quickly by reviewing candidates, sending messages, or moving applicants into next steps. When there is no engagement at all, the listing may exist in name only. Job seekers can better focus their efforts by looking for signals of immediacy and accountability. Listings that include clear location details, shift times, pay ranges, or start timing are far more likely to be tied to real hiring needs. Applying locally and prioritizing roles where employers are actively engaging candidates leads to better outcomes than applying broadly and hoping for a response. Debbie Emery, Cofounder & CSO, Juvo Jobs Follow Projects and Investment Signals for Reality Another good way to spot a ghost job is to look at how disconnected the posting feels from what’s actually happening in the sector. In energy, where I specialize, hiring is almost always tied to a real project, a capital investment, or some kind of regulatory timeline. So that’s a key indicator: If a role keeps getting reposted for months, the description never really changes, and there’s no clear business reason behind it, it might just be a ghost job. I’ve seen this happen a lot with software and data roles at utilities. There was one utility that kept reposting a cloud engineering role for close to a year. On paper it looked urgent. In reality, their digital transformation project had been paused while they waited on regulatory approval, but HR kept the job live to collect résumés. Candidates were spending hours interviewing for a role that couldn’t even be funded yet. Internally, everyone knew what was going on. Externally, it looked like a great opportunity. For job seekers, I’d say the safest move is to follow the money and follow the projects. Pay attention to which companies just secured funding, announced expansions, or won major contracts. In energy, hiring tends to follow infrastructure. If a company just broke ground on a new facility or announced a big grid modernization program, those roles are usually real. Your sector likely has its own red and green flags; take a minute to establish them early on. Then, keep your eyes open. Jon Hill, Managing Partner, Tall Trees Talent Target Newly Posted Positions with Urgency An easy way to spot a ghost job listing is when the same role sits online for months with no real changes. In real hiring cycles, things usually move fast, or at least you see progress. When a job keeps showing up again and again, or never fully closes, it is often there to collect résumés or test the market, not to hire right now. We constantly update our job postings on Indeed. I work closely with our team managers to shape each listing, tweak the wording, and pull roles down when hiring pauses. That is why ghost jobs stand out to me so clearly. There was this one company in particular that always seemed to have the same opening listed on Indeed. It was a marketing manager’s role that got reposted every 30 days for almost a year. We’ve posted and filled at least five positions over the past six months, but that specific position was still open. Behind the scenes, I’m guessing candidates kept applying and following up for that role. But no interviews were happening at all. The post stayed live only to build a future talent pool, which felt unfair to job seekers putting in real effort. To focus on real opportunities, I usually tell job seekers to look for roles posted within the last 14 to 30 days and scan for signs of real activity. This can be a named hiring manager, clear next steps in the process, or recent team growth on LinkedIn. From what I have seen, applying to fewer roles with stronger signals of urgency works better than sending out dozens of applications and hoping one sticks. Lauren Byrne, Co-Owner and Head of HR, My Biz Niche Watch for Reposts, Research Beyond the Listing Job searching requires time, emotional energy, and vulnerability. When a role turns out to be a ghost job, or worse, a risky one, it understandably erodes trust in the hiring process and in employers more broadly. One reliable way to spot a ghost job is when a role has been posted or repeatedly reposted for months with no visible hiring activity or meaningful evolution. These listings are often vague, evergreen, and disconnected from a clear, time-bound business need. I see this most often with fast-growing companies that are fundraising or planning for future scale. From an employer perspective, building a talent pipeline is strategic. From a candidate perspective, applying to a role that is not actively being filled can feel misleading. A strong candidate experience depends on transparency. If a role is exploratory or pipeline-based, say so clearly. Candidates deserve to know whether an opportunity is immediate or future-facing. Other things to be mindful of: Legitimate employers do not ask for personal or financial information such as banking details, SIN/SSN, or government ID during the application or interview process. That information is only collected after a formal offer has been made and accepted, typically through secure onboarding systems. I have seen candidates targeted through fake or misleading job posings that quickly move conversations off platform and request personal details under the guise of “pre-onboarding” or “payroll setup.” These are clear red flags. For job seekers, taking your research further can make a meaningful difference. Look beyond the posting itself. Review the company’s website, its LinkedIn employer profile, and the profiles of potential hiring managers or team members. Platforms like Glassdoor can also provide useful context when viewed thoughtfully. Pairing this research with a focus on recently posted roles and clear ownership, and combining applications with targeted outreach, helps reduce wasted effort and job search burnout. For employers, the takeaway is simple. Hiring practices are part of your brand. If you are building a pipeline, be transparent about it. Trust is built through clarity, not ambiguity. Heidi Hauver, Executive Advisor & Mentor | Fractional VP, People & Culture Spot Vague Descriptions Vague job descriptions paired with little or no movement in the hiring process are another red flag. If a posting lists generic responsibilities, lacks clear success metrics, and there’s no defined next step or timeline; it’s often a sign that the company isn’t truly ready to hire. I’ve seen this firsthand when companies post roles before aligning internally. They think they’re hiring, but they haven’t clarified what success in the role actually looks like. That lack of structure leads to stalled searches and leaves candidates hanging. To avoid ghost jobs and focus on real opportunities, job seekers should look for postings that are outcome-based, with clear expectations and a transparent process. Companies that understand job fit, and define the role based on competencies, tend to move faster and hire more intentionally. Linda Scorzo, CEO, Hiring Indicators Chase Recently Funded Firms where Demand Exists Another reliable way to spot a ghost job is to step back and look at the hiring context of the company, not just the job description itself. First, pay attention to the total number of open roles a company is posting and whether the employer is actually a recruiting or staffing agency. Agencies often publish large volumes of roles to build résumé pipelines, even when no active opening exists. If a company consistently posts dozens or hundreds of similar roles without clear hiring updates, that’s a strong red flag. Second, if the company has only a few openings, check who the company is and why they might be hiring now. Well-known brands or Fortune 500 companies often keep roles open continuously for “evergreen” hiring or future needs. In contrast, genuine hiring urgency is usually tied to recent business events, such as a funding round or rapid expansion. You can verify this by checking sources like TechCrunch or recent press releases. From my experience, the most efficient strategy is to focus on startups that raised significant funding within the last one to three months. Fresh capital almost always translates into real hiring pressure, defined roles, and faster decision cycles. Platforms like Wellfound (AngelList Talent) make this especially easy, as many startups there are actively converting funding into immediate hires. In short, job seekers should shift their effort from volume-based applying to signal-based targeting: companies with recent funding, clear growth drivers, and a concrete reason to hire right now. This dramatically reduces wasted applications and increases the odds of engaging with real, active opportunities. Bogdan Serebrykaov, Founder & CEO, Careery Favor Definite Steps toward Live Interviews One reliable red flag is a process that never outlines clear steps toward a live interview. At the SHRM25 Executive Network Experience, HR leaders told me they are bringing candidates into the office earlier to confirm identity because of deep fakes, and processes that outline this process upfront are more credible than those that are vague. Job seekers should focus on employers that clearly describe those in-person steps in the job description and early communications. Colleen Paulson, Executive Career Consultant, Ageless Careers Match Role Scope to Company Stage One thing I’ve learned is that a job posting can sound way bigger than the company actually is, and that’s a strong sign it might be a ghost job. If the role promises “global leadership,” “building a world-class team,” or “executive-level strategy” for a startup that only has a handful of employees, it usually means the posting was created to attract clicks or collect résumés, not to fill a real position. I once saw a listing for a “VP of Growth” at a tiny SaaS company with no marketing team and only a couple of customers. The job description read like it was written for a large enterprise. When I checked the company’s LinkedIn and website, there was no evidence they were scaling at that level, so it didn’t feel genuine. To avoid wasting time, I recommend focusing on companies whose job descriptions match their real size and stage. A genuine opportunity will clearly describe the team structure, the current product roadmap, and what success looks like in the first 90 days. If those details are missing or exaggerated, treat it as a red flag. So my advice is to avoid chasing roles that sound too big for the company. Instead, focus your energy on listings where the job scope matches the company’s real-world reality. That’s how you find real opportunities. Monica Panait, CMO, Brizy Cross Check Ads against Employer-Owned Channels I would say that one reliable way to spot a ghost job is to check when the job was posted against the company’s own careers page or their social media activity. I tend to see roles on LinkedIn which say that the job was posted two days ago. But if you really dig into the company’s website, the same role has been listed with the exact same description for several months now. You should focus on the active signals instead of just open roles. I recommend looking for a hiring manager posting about the role personally on their LinkedIn profile or on Twitter in the past week. If you’re only able to find evidence of that job on an automated feed on a job board, then it’s quite likely just a “pipeline builder” and not something the company is taking very seriously. But if there’s a human behind it talking about the role, then there is a real budget attached to that role right now. Jeremy Chatelaine, Founder & CEO, MonsterOps Verify Local Contact Numbers before You Proceed Job seekers should know that an out-of-townor countryphone number is often a red flag. On its own, it seems like a small detail. People move and often keep their old numbers. But businesses are different. A legitimate company hiring for a real, funded role should have a local presence tied to the market they operate in. Even large national or global companies still maintain local recruiting numbers, local HR contacts, or at minimum a clear corporate line that routes internally. So, when a posting claims to be hiring in Dallas, Chicago, or Toronto, but every call comes from an overseas call center or a rotating set of untraceable numbers, that’s worth paying attention to. In my experience, real hiring teams want to be reachable. They want candidates to be able to call back, verify who they spoke with, and feel confident about who is on the other end of the process. When a company refuses to provide a local number, hides behind VOIP lines, or routes all recruiting through offshore screening centers with no accountability, it often means the role itself isn’t real. It doesn’t mean you walk away immediately. But it does mean you proceed carefully, protect your time, and keep your expectations realistic. Ben Lamarche, General Manager, Lock Search Group Ask Specific Questions, Confirm Real Work The most reliable signal of a ghost job is how the hiring manager responds to technical questions about the actual work. When I’m actively hiring, I can tell you exactly what technologies you’d be working with, which client projects need support, and what the team structure looks like. If you ask specific questions about the tech stack, the development process, or what the first month would look like and get vague answers or deflection, that’s your warning sign. Real hiring managers are usually eager to talk about the work because they need to fill the role and want candidates who understand what they’re signing up for. Job seekers should treat initial conversations like due diligence, not auditions. Ask about timelines, who you’d report to, what problem this hire solves, and why the position is open. A legitimate manager will answer these directly because they’re trying to assess fit just as much as you are. I’ve seen candidates waste months chasing roles where the company was “just collecting résumés” or the position was frozen but still posted. The ones who filtered fast by asking pointed questions about the actual work moved on to real opportunities while others were still waiting for callbacks that would never come. Sergiy Fitsak, Managing Director, Fintech Expert, Softjourn Review Team Activity around Announced Vacancies If the hiring team or recruiter don’t have activity regarding the open position, that can be a red flag. Let’s assume a company advertises open roles. If the hiring team or internal recruiters haven’t posted, shared, or commented on these open positions, it is likely a ghost job. Companies tend to be loud and very active about their open positions and willingness to recruit people to join their mission. Check for activities from the company’s hiring team or internal recruiters. Even better, use LinkedIn to search for people who worked at the company and if they started new jobs elsewhere within the last month. If they did, then the company is trying to fill their vacuum and the opportunity is real. Anush Gasparian, Human Resources Director, Phonexa Treat Easy Apply as a Red Flag I have seen the job search process from all sides, and for me, the most striking indicator of ghost job postings is the use of LinkedIn’s Easy Apply feature. When an employer posts an Easy Apply job, they instantly receive hundreds or thousands of responses, most of which are irrelevant, while worthy candidates get lost in the white noise. In addition, candidates sometimes simply don’t remember that they applied for your job and may not respond to your messages. In short, from the perspective of a recruiter or hiring manager, digging through hundreds of résumés is simply not practical. In my opinion, if you see an easy apply button, then something is wrong with this vacancy. And I know at least a couple of reasons why these ghost vacancies are posted: To gain followers. When a candidate applies for a vacancy, they automatically subscribe to the company’s page. This allows companies to grow their followers and raise their authority on LinkedIn. To show potential investors, clients, or partners that the company is growing. If I were looking for a job right now, I would perceive the easy apply button as one of the warning signs. Of course, there are genuine vacancies among them, but this is the first red flag. Michael Vavilov, Product Manager, Glozo
Category:
E-Commerce
After officials released millions of pages of documents related to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, revelations in his emails and other files have led to the resignations of multiple corporate executives, new investigations into abuses by Epstein and potential accomplices, and even the arrest of the United Kingdoms former Prince Andrew. For those looking to research Epsteins vast correspondence and web of connections across industry, government, and academia, some of the most effective tools have been built not by federal investigators or big-name news organizations but by a scrappy team of volunteer developers. Starting with a website called Jmail, which made Epsteins publicly released emails searchable through an interface cheekily copied from Gmail, they have since built a set of web apps modeled after familiar sites like Google Drive, Wikipedia, Amazon, and YouTube. The goal: to turn messy PDFs and other files released in bulk by federal officials into something members of the publicincluding journalistscan more easily search and understand. Key to the projects speedy success is the technical talent of the team of around 15 named core contributors. But equally vital, they say, is the current wave of AI tools that helped them rapidly generate code and process huge troves of data. So not only do we have an app that we were able to make very quickly, we have data that can populate that app with real content, says Luke Igel, among the projects initial creators. Both those things had to come together; both of those were not possible a few years ago. Igel, an MIT grad who is cofounder and CEO of video software company Kino, says the inspiration for the project came after he and a friend were discussing an initial tranche of Epstein-related documents released by members of Congress in November. They were struck by the extent of Epsteins ties to political figures across party lines and around the world but questioned whether the public would be able to fully understand the story as the data was initially presented. Igel then reached out to Riley Walz, a developer and entrepreneur known for creative internet projects (including a recent parody of Apples Find My interface that tracked San Francisco parking enforcement officers) about collecting the emails in a Gmail-style interface. Thanks to AI development tools like Cursor and Anthropics Claude models, the pair was able to put together the first version of Jmail in just a few hours, Igel says. We cloned Gmail, except you’re logged in as Epstein and can see his emails, Walz announced in a viral X post in November. When the Department of Justice released an additional trove of files in December, spurred by the Epstein Files Transparency Act passed by Congress the previous month, a group of about 10 collaborators gathered at Igels San Francisco home and via video conference to build the next iteration of the software. The team also had help from a company called Reductoa maker of software that turns messy PDFs and other complex documents into structured datato parse the newly released files, which had become too complex for general-purpose AI tools to decipher reliably. A lot of these PDFs are scans of printouts or handwriting, says Adel Wu, who works on growth at Reducto. It was actually very messy. The companywhich is located in the same building as Kinohad already been considering doing something with the Epstein files and quickly decided to support the Jmail effort after hearing about it, says founding engineer Omar Alhait, noting, We very quickly went through all of the documents and parsed out all relevant email information from them. Reductos software helped accurately render redactions within the documents and even let the team extract complex information like Epsteins flight data, which was made available in a Google Flights-style interface called JFlights. Again, AIincluding Anthropics then-new Claude Opus 4.5 modelhelped the Jmail team rapidly develop new features and apps and merge thousands of code updates in a short time. So much of what I thought was core to software engineering is actually something that this model can help you with and help you blast through very quickly, Igel says. The teams investment in infrastructure let them quickly import, process, and share additional documents released just before Christmas, though the project drew even more attention after a massive DOJ release of millions of Epstein-related files on January 30. Handling that release required not only processing the new documentsAlhait says it took Reducto about three days to crunch through the databut also beefing up the projects infrastructure to handle an influx of traffic as public interest in the files continued to grow. Tons of people came to the house again, and this time we really just had to make it scale, Igel says. Everything broke. Tons of scaling issues we thought we had solved, with database outages and caching failing, came through again. With the help of AI tools, the team stabilized the site, which has now served more than 500 million page requests to more than 50 million unique visitors. The project has also expanded beyond Jmail and JFlights to include an AI guide to the files called Jemini, a video repository called JeffTube, a file repository known as JDrive, and even a searchable log of Epsteins Amazon orders called Jamazon. The team works to ensure information in the files is properly redacted to protect sensitive details, taking care to update the sites available materials to reflect any new redactions by federal officials. It’s very, very important to us to be as responsible as possible when surfacing information to the public, says Melissa Du, an AI research engineer who works on the project. We obviously don’t want to be over-redacting, but also the privacy of the victims is of utmost importance. Du, another MIT grad, says she became morbidly fascinated by the first set of files released on Jmail, including documents referencing MIT-linked academics such as former Media Lab director Joi Ito and professor emeritus Noam Chomsky. She has since worked on aspects of the project such as JDrive for data management and the Wikipedia-style Jwiki, which was first populated with write-ups of key Epstein-linked figures generated by AI and then carefully vetted before publication. Perhaps most striking about the project is that a small group of developers was able to do what major media organizations had done in organizing previous viral data repositories, like former intelligence contractor Edward Snowdens revelations about government surveillance or the offshore finance leaks known as the Panama Papers. The team has received about $32,000 in donations to cover various costs, along with donated technical services from Reducto, Kino, and cloud provider Vercel. But the core work has been carried out by developers with their own day jobs and startups. Though at times Igel wondered whether the project would be effectively scooped by big news organizations building their own Epstein data explorers, data from the Jmail project has actually been cited by news outlets including The Economist. The team has also been in touch with congressional staffers about passing on crowdsourced requests for release of potentially excessively redacted files. And additional features are being considered, including a Google Calendar-style interface to explore calendar data in the repository, says Igel, who notes that the underlying code from the project will also likely be released as open source in the future. Already the project stands as an example of whats possible for a talented team equipped with the latest in AI development and data processing tools. We’ve really relied on the new AI models, Du says. “And we’ve also just had a very high level of trust across the team.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||