 |
|
|
|||||
Welcome to AI Decoded, Fast Companys weekly newsletter that breaks down the most important news in the world of AI. You can sign up to receive this newsletter every week here. Vances Paris speech shows a brash American exceptionalism for the AI age Vice President JD Vances speech to world leaders at the Artificial Intelligence Action Summit was by turns warm and conciliatory, and strident to the point of offensiveness. Vance emphasized that AI has the potential to bring significant benefits to the world, and its risks can be effectively managedprovided that the U.S. and its tech companies take the lead. Vance argued that the U.S. remains the leader when it comes to developing cutting-edge AI models, and suggested that other countries should collaborate with the U.S. on AI rather than competing against it. (Vance also said AI companies shouldnt try to dictate the political tenor of content or dialog their models will accept, citing the Google Gemini models failed attempt at generating correct images that resulted in a Black George Washington and female popes.) This administration will ensure that AI developed in the United States continues to be the gold standard worldwide, he said. And key to the U.S.s approach, according to Vance: leaving tech companies to regulate themselves on safety and security issues. Vances view that the U.S. should take a collaborative and open approach to AI with other Western countries, but stressed that the world needed an international regulatory regime that fosters the creation of revolutionary AI technology rather than strangles it. Vance went on to criticize the E.U. for its more intrusive regulatory approach. It would be a terrible mistake for your own countries if they tightened the screws on U.S. tech companies, he advised the assembly. But not everyone agrees: Every country attending the Paris summit signed a declaration ensuring artificial intelligence AI is safe, secure, and trustworthyexcept for the U.S. and the U.K. Vance said that his administration will take a different approachusing protectionist tactics to favor U.S. AI companies. The White House will continue the Biden-era chip bans, which restrict the sale of the most advanced AI chips to other countries. (The goal right now for the Trump administration is to hinder Chinese companies like DeepSeek.) Its possible that a Trump administration could tighten these restrictions further or explore additional measures to slow down foreign AI competitors. To safeguard Americas advantage, the Trump administration will ensure that the most powerful AI systems are built in the U.S. with American designed and manufactured chips, he said. OpenAIs models will no longer shy away from sensitive topics In his Paris speech, JD Vance said his administration believes that AI companies shouldnt try to restrict speecheven disinformation or outright propagandafrom their models and chatbots. Thats music to Silicon Valley bigwigss ears, many of whom dont love the expensive and demanding and human-intensive work of content moderation. Two days after the speech, OpenAI announced that its pushing a new, more permissive code of conduct (a model spec) into its AI models. Going forward, its models will be less conservative about what they will and wont talk about. The updated Model Spec explicitly embraces intellectual freedomthe idea that AI should empower people to explore, debate, and create without arbitrary restrictionsno matter how challenging or controversial a topic may be, the company said in a blog post published Wednesday. As an example, OpenAI said that an AI model should be kept from outputting detailed instructions for building a bomb or violating personal privacy, but should be trained not to default to simply saying I cant help you with that when given politically or culturally sensitive questions. In essence, we’ve reinforced the principle that no idea is inherently off limits for discussion, the blog post said, so long as the model isn’t causing significant harm to the user or others (e.g., carrying out acts of terrorism). This policy shift sounds very much in line with the permissive posture adopted by right wing sites such as Gab and Parler, then by X, then, recently, by Metas Facebook. Now OpenAI is getting in on Big Techs vibe shift on content moderation. Stay tuned for the results. PwC Champions Agentic AI as the Next Major Workplace Disruptor The professional services firm PwC recently released a report asserting that AI agents could dwarf even the transformative effects of the internet. PwC predicts these agents will reshape workforce strategies, business models, and competitive advantages, while combining with human creativity to form augmented intelligence, enabling unprecedented innovation and productivity. The report emphasizes collaboration between humans and AI: While AI agents offer remarkable autonomy, an effective model is one of collaboration and dynamic oversight. This principle of human-at-the-helm can guide the development of clear protocols that define the boundaries of AI autonomy and enable appropriate human intervention. PwC warns that businesses must reimagine work to adapt to this agentic world. But, the PwC authors stress, that shift is a necessary one, as evidenced by AI agents successful deployment in areas like software development and customer service. To facilitate this transition, PwC suggests a five-step approach: strategize, reimagine work, structure the workforce, help workers redefine their roles, and unleash responsible AI. The question is, the report states, have you transformed to become a winner in the age of AI-enhanced work, or are you racing and perhaps too late to catch up? More AI coverage from Fast Company: Instagrams AI bots are often sexually suggestiveand sometimes underage ChatGPTs latest feature is a transformative leap for web research Are you AI literate? Schools and jobs are insisting on itand now its EU law Zooms CEO explains the video conference giants next act Want exclusive reporting and trend analysis on technology, business innovation, future of work, and design? Sign up for Fast Company Premium.
Category:
E-Commerce
Do artists and scientists see the same thing in the shape of trees? As a scientist who studies branching patterns in living things, Im starting to think so. Piet Mondrian was an early 20th-century abstract artist and art theorist obsessed with simplicity and essence of form. Even people who have never heard of Mondrian will likely recognize his iconic irregular grids of rectangles. Tableau I by Piet Mondrian, 1921. [Image: Kunstmuseum Den Haag] When I saw Mondrians 1911 Gray Tree, I immediately recognized something about trees that I had struggled to describe. By removing all but the most essential elements in an abstract painting, Mondrian demonstrated something I was attempting to explain using physics and fractal geometry. My field of research is mathematical biology. My colleagues and I try to explain how treelike structures such as veins and arteries, lungs and leaves fine-tune their physical form to efficiently deliver blood, air, water and nutrients. Grey Tree by Piet Mondrian, 1911. [Image: Kunstmuseum Den Haag] Fundamental research in the biology of branching helps cure cardiovascular diseases and cancer, design materials that can heal themselves and predict how trees will respond to a changing climate. Branching also shows up in ant foraging patterns, slime molds and cities. The treeless tree From 1890 to 1912, Mondrian painted dozens of trees. He started with full-color, realistic trees in context: trees in a farmyard or a dappled lane. Gradually he removed leaves, depth, color and eventually even branching from his tree paintings. Gray Tree uses only curved lines of various thickness superimposed on top of one another at seemingly random angles. Yet the image is unmistakably a tree. Polder Landscape with Silhouetted Young Tree by Piet Mondrian, 1900-1901. [Image: Wikimedia Commons] How did Mondrian convey the sense of a tree with so little? The science of trees may offer some clues. The science of branching One goal of mathematical biology is to synthesize what scientists know about the vast diversity of living systems where there seems to be an exception to every rule into clear, general principles, ideally with few exceptions. One such general principle is that evolution fine-tunes treelike structures in living things to make metabolism and respiration as efficient as possible. The body carefully controls the thickness of vessels as they branch, because deviation from the most efficient diameter wastes energy and causes disease, such as atherosclerosis. In many cases, such as human blood vessels, the body exerts much tighter control over diameter than length. So while veins and arteries might take circuitous routes to accommodate the vagaries of organs and anatomy, their diameter usually stays within 10% of the optimum. The same principle appears in tree branches as well. The precise calibration of branch diameter leads to a hallmark of fractal shapes called scale invariance. A scale invariance is a property that holds true regardless of the size of an object or part of an object youre looking at. Scale invariance occurs in trees because trunks, limbs and twigs all branch in similar ways and for similar reasons. Trees with different values of the scaling parameter . [Image: Gao and Newberry/PNAS Nexus] The scale invariance in branch diameter dictates how much smaller a limb should be as it branches and how much investment a tree makes in a few thick branches versus many thin ones. Trees have evolved scale invariance to transport water, reach light and resist gravity and wind load as efficiently as possible given physical limits. This science of trees inspired my colleague and me to measure the scaling of tree branch diameter in art. The art of trees Among my favorite images is a carving of a tree from a late-medieval mosque in India. Its exaltation of trees reminds me of Tolkiens Tree of Gondor and the human capacity to appreciate the simple beauty of living things. Siddi Saiyyed Mosque in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India, carved ca. 1572. [Photo: Snehrashmi/Wiki Commons] But I also find mathematical inspiration in the Islamic Golden Age, a time when art, architecture, math and physics thrived. Medieval Islamic architects even decorated buildings with infinitely nonrepeating tiling patterns that were not understood by Western mathematics until the 20th century. The stylized tree carvings of the Sidi Saiyyed mosque also follow the precise system of proportions dictated by the scale invariance of real trees. This level of precision of branch diameter takes an attentive eye and a careful plan much better than I could freehand. Cherry Blossoms by Matsumura Goshun (17521811). [Image: Metropolitan Museum of Art] Indeed, wherever our team looked at trees in great artwork, such as Klimts Tree of Life or Matsumura Goshuns Cherry Blossoms, we also found precise scale invariance in the diameter of branches. Grey Tree also realistically captures the natural variation in branch diameters, even when the painting gives the viewer little else to go on. Without realistic scaling, would this painting even be a tree? As if to prove the point, Mondrian made a subsequent painting the following year, also with a gray background, curved lines and the same overall composition and dimensions. Even the position of some of the lines are the same. But, in Blooming Apple Tree (1912), all the lines are the same thickness. The scaling is gone, and with it, the tree. Before reading the title, most viewers would not guess that this is a painting of a tree. Yet Mondrians sketches reveal that Blooming Apple Tree and Gray Tree are the very same tree. Blooming Apple Tree by Piet Mondrian, 1912. [Image: Kunstmuseum Den Haag] The two paintings contain few elements that might signal a tree a concentration of lines near the center, lines that could be branches or a central trunk and lines that could indicate the ground or a horizon. Yet only Gray Tree has scale-invariant branch diameters. When Mondrian removes the scale invariance in Blooming Apple Tree, viewers just as easily see fish, scales, dancers, water or simply nonrepresentational shapes, whereas the tree in Gray Tree is unmistakable. Photo synthesis Mondrians tree paintings and scientific theory highlight the importance of the thickness of tree branches. Consilience is when different lines of evidence and reasoning reach the same conclusions. Art and math both explore abstract descriptions of the world, and so seeing great art and science pick out the same essential features of trees is satisfying beyond what art or science could accomplish alone. Just as great literature such as The Overstory and The Botany of Desire show us how treesinfluence our lives in ways we often dont notice, the art and science of trees show how humans are finely attuned to whats important to trees. I think this resonance is one reason people find fractals and natural landscapes so pleasing and reassuring. All these lines of thinking give us new ways to appreciate trees. Mitchell Newberry is a research assistant professor of biology at the University of New Mexico. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
The German antitrust authority has charged Apple with abusing its market power through its app tracking tool and giving itself preferential treatment in a move that could result in daily fines for the iPhone maker if it fails to change its business practices. The move follows a three-year investigation by the Federal Cartel Office into Apple’s App Tracking Transparency feature, which allows users to block advertisers from tracking them across different applications. The U.S. tech giant has said the feature allows users to control their privacy but has drawn criticism from Meta Platforms, app developers and startups whose business models rely on advertising tracking. “The ATTF (app tracking tool) makes it far more difficult for competing app publishers to access the user data relevant for advertising,” Andreas Mundt, cartel office president, said in a statement. Apple defended the feature in an emailed statement to Reuters, adding that it “holds itself to a higher standard than it requires of any third-party developer.” “We will continue to constructively engage with the Federal Cartel Office to ensure users continue to have transparency and control over their data,” it added. Apple will be required to address the concerns set out in the German charge sheet or risk further proceedings and daily fines if it fails to do so by the time of a final ruling which could come this year but is more likely to land next year. The case was triggered by complaints from associations representing publishers, broadcasters, advertisers, their agencies and ad tech firms. “Today’s charges are groundbreaking. Apple’s measures had created an artificial opacity in its ecosystem that led to less choice, higher costs for apps, and less protection against ad fraud, all while boosting Apple’s revenues from services,” said Thomas Höppner, partner at law firm Hausfeld, which represents the complainants. “For the first time it has been clarified that Apple may not rely on pretextual privacy arguments to massively restrict competition in its favor,” he said. Companies found guilty of breaching Germany’s antitrust rules risk fines as much as 10% of their annual turnover. Rachel More and Foo Yun Chee, Reuters
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||