Submission + - All New Cars Could Have Mandatory Surveillance Tech Unless Congress Stops This (reason.com)

Submitted by fjo3
fjo3 writes: This week, several House Republicans reignited a yearslong debate over a law that federally mandates cars to have impaired driving technology, raising concerns about the expanding surveillance state.

The controversy over "kill switch" technology began in 2021, when Congress passed the HALT Drunk Driving Act as part of the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law. The provision requires that "advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology"—which the bill defined as a system that can "passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired" and "prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected"—be installed in new cars. Such systems could involve driver eye tracking, a feature already built into some cars.

Submission + - Colorado's Anti-Repair Bill Is Dead (wired.com)

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: A controversial bill in Colorado that would have undone some repair protections in the state has failed. The bill had been the target of right-to-repair advocates, who saw it as a bellwether for how tech companies might try to undo repair legislation more broadly in the US. Colorado’s landmark 2024 repair law, the Consumer Right to Repair Digital Electronic Equipment, went into effect in January 2026 and ensured access to tools and documentation people needed to modify and fix digital electronics such as phones, computers, and Wi-Fi routers. The new bill, SB26-090, would have carved out an exception to those repair protections for “critical infrastructure,” a loosely defined term that repair advocates worried could be applied to just about any technology.

SB26-090 was introduced during a Colorado Senate hearing on April 2 and was supported by lobbying efforts from companies such as Cisco and IBM. It passed that hearing unanimously. The bill then passed in the Colorado Senate on April 16. On Monday evening, the bill was discussed in a long, delayed hearing in the Colorado House’s State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee. Dozens of supporters and detractors gave public comments. Finally, the bill was shot down in a 7-to-4 vote and classified as postponed indefinitely.

Submission + - DOJ just sues Cloudera for rigging high-paying tech jobs against Americans (x.com)

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: We just sued Cloudera for discriminating against U.S. workers in favor of foreign visa holders for high-paying tech jobs. This is a violation of the Immigration & Nationality Act, & @CivilRights will not hesitate to sue employers for discriminating against U.S. workers! You are on notice! AAG Harmeet Dhillon

Cloudera created a fake internal email that bounced every U.S. applicant’s resume then claimed “no qualified Americans applied” to fast-track foreign visa holders for green cards.

Submission + - EU Tells Google To Open Up AI On Android; Google Says That's 'Unwarranted' (arstechnica.com)

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: In January, the European Commission began an initial investigation, known as a specification proceeding, into how Google has implemented AI in the Android operating system. The results are in, and the EU says Android needs to be more open, which is not surprising. Meanwhile, Google says this amounts to “unwarranted intervention,” which is equally unsurprising. Regardless of Google’s characterization of the investigation, the commission may force Google to make Android AI changes this summer. This action stems from the continent’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), a sweeping law that designates seven dominant technology companies as “gatekeepers” that are subject to greater regulation to ensure fair competition. Google has consistently spoken against the regulations imposed under the DMA, but it and the other gatekeepers have been subject to the law for several years now, and there’s little chance the commission backs away from it.

The issue before the commission currently is the built-in advantage for Gemini on Android. When you turn on any Google-powered Android phone, Gemini is already there and gets special treatment at the system level. The European Commission is taking aim at the lack of features available to third-party AI services. The commission believes that there are too many experiences on Android that only work with Google’s Gemini AI, and as a gatekeeper, Google must change that. “As we navigate the rapidly evolving landscape of AI, it is clear that interoperability is key to unlocking the full potential of these technologies,” said Commission VP for Tech Sovereignty Henna Virkkunen in a statement. “These measures will open up Android devices to a wider range of AI services, so that users will have the freedom to choose the AI services that best meet their needs and values, without sacrificing functionality.”

The commission does have a solid track record pushing for openness so far. Since the DMA came into force, Google has been required to make numerous changes to its business in Europe, like implementing search choice screens on Android, allowing alternative payment methods in the Play Store, and limiting data sharing across services. Now, the EU wants Google to make the Android platform more hospitable to third-party AI services. Google’s objection focuses on preserving the autonomy for device makers (including Google) to customize AI services. “This unwarranted intervention would strip away that autonomy, mandate access to sensitive hardware and device permissions; unnecessarily driving up costs while undermining critical privacy and security protections for European users,” said Google senior competition counsel Claire Kelly.

Submission + - The 1984 Unix PC was a tech and design marvel. Why did it fail so hard? (youtube.com)

Submitted by Shayde
Shayde writes: I love these machines. I was super-active in the Unix-PC usenet groups back in the 90s, organizing BOF meetings at TCF and the like. We hacked the hell out of them. They were small, sexy, and... they ran unix! Unfortunately, they were a commercial failure. There were so many things wrong with them — not just stuff that broke, but the baseline configuration was nigh on worthless.

I recently was able to get another machine and got it up and running (with a few hiccups), so whipped up a video showing all the cool things it can do, but also running through what went wrong and why it ultimately failed.

Submission + - Is AI Cannibalizing Human Intelligence? (wsj.com)

Submitted by destinyland
destinyland writes: "For the AI industry, a key design question has gone largely unasked: Is the product building human capacity or consuming it?" That's according to neuroscientist/cognitive scientist Vivienne Ming, who just published a book called “ Robot-Proof: When Machines Have All The Answers, Build Better People .” Writing in the Wall Street Journal she describes which group performed best at predicting real-world events (compared to forecasters on prediction market Polymarket) — AI, human, or human-AI hybrid teams.

The human groups performed poorly, relying on instinct or whatever information had come across their feeds that morning. The large AI models—ChatGPT and Gemini, in this case—performed considerably better, though still short of the market itself. But when we combined AI with humans, things got more interesting. Most hybrid teams used AI for the answer and submitted it as their own, performing no better than the AI alone. Others fed their own predictions into AI and asked it to come up with supporting evidence. These “validators” had stumbled into a classic confirmation bias-loop: the sycophancy that leads chatbots to tell you what you want to hear, even if it isn’t true. They ended up performing worse than an AI working solo.

But in roughly 5% to 10% of teams, something different emerged. The AI became a sparring partner. The teams pushed back, demanding evidence and interrogating assumptions. When the AI expressed high confidence, the humans questioned it. When the humans felt strongly about an intuition, they asked the AI to come up with a counterargument... These teams reached insightful conclusions that neither a human nor a machine could have produced on its own. They were the only group to consistently rival the prediction market’s accuracy. On certain questions, they even outperformed it...

We are building AI systems specifically designed to give us the answer before we feel the discomfort of not having it.What my experiment suggests is that the human qualities most likely to matter are not the feel-good ones. They’re the uncomfortable ones: the capacity to be wrong in public and stay curious; to sit with a question your phone could answer in three seconds and resist the urge to reach for it. To read a confident, fluent response from an AI and ask yourself, “What’s missing?” rather than default to “Great, that’s done.” To disagree with something that sounds authoritative and to trust your instinct enough to follow it. We don’t build these capacities by avoiding discomfort. We build them by choosing it, repeatedly, in small ways: the student who struggles through a problem before checking the answer; the person who asks a follow-up question in a conversation; the reader who sits with a difficult idea long enough for it to actually change one’s mind. Most AI chatbots today default to easy answers, which is hurting our ability to think critically.

I call this the Information-Exploration Paradox. As the cost of information approaches zero, human exploration collapses. We see it in students who perform better on AI-assisted tasks and worse on everything afterward. We see it in developers shipping more code and understanding it less. We are, in ways that feel like progress, slowly optimizing ourselves out of the loop.

Submission + - Is "Outsourcing Our Thinking to AI" a Bug or a Feature?

Submitted by theodp
theodp writes: In a year-end podcast, GeekWire noted that Microsoft President Brad Smith offered his own evidence to investors that AI-is-real at Microsoft's Annual Shareholder Meeting in December, explaining that he relied on Copilot’s Researcher Agent's memory (YouTube, audio) earlier in the day to recall and explain an issue for company leaders that Microsoft faced seven or eight years ago (to help them deal with a similar problem they now faced), and it generated a 25-page report with 100 citations that so wowed his colleagues that they clamored for him to share the prompt he used to produce it so they too could learn how to use AI so effectively. While Smith didn't share either the report or prompt with investors in the webcast, the anecdote alone left his fellow Microsoft execs nodding and smiling in amazement (GeekWire couldn't resist wondering aloud how many of the recipients used their AI agents to summarize the 25-page report rather than having to actually read it).

Reminiscing about Def Leppard in her weekly Ed-Tech and AI newsletter Second Breakfast, watchdog Audrey Watters on Friday painted a much bleaker picture of the what-me-worry-about-thinking AI utopia presented to Microsoft investors, cautioning: "Our understanding of the world — knowledge, memories, skills — are never, as are the versions of these things fixed in print or in the machine, inert. And importantly, the more we know, the more we practice knowing — thinking, reading, writing, imagining, talking to one another — the more we strengthen our ability to know. And the inverse is true too: the less we practice, the weaker our cognitive powers. The more superficial and scattered our mental activities – skimming, clicking — the more shallow our thinking. The more we 'outsource our thinking' to 'AI' (hell, to the computer or the Web), the more we might find ourselves unable to think deeply at all. [...] There's a product, but there is no process for you, the user. No discernment, no contemplation. No recollection or consolidation of earlier thoughts and ideas and memories. No cognitive effort through which you will think or learn or know or grow or ever remember any of this."

Sharing Watters' concerns, The New Yorker's Jessica Winter asks, What Will It Take to Get A.I. Out of Schools? "The tech world assumes that A.I.-aided education is necessary and inevitable. A growing number of parents, educators, and cognitive scientists say the opposite," Winters begins. She closes with a reminder that "Nowhere is it written that a multinational conglomerate with a market cap of roughly four trillion dollars is fated to command our public schools, or to grant fellowships to the leaders of those schools, or to monetize the inefficient children who attend them. Another item in the Student Tech Bill of Rights, in fact, is the 'right to a learning environment that is free from undue corporate influence.'"

Submission + - New Gas-Powered Data Centers Could Emit More Greenhouse Gases Than Entire Nation (wired.com)

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: New gas projects linked to just 11 data center campuses around the US have the potential to create more greenhouse gases than the country of Morocco emitted in 2024. Emissions estimates from air permit documents examined by WIRED show that these natural gas projects—which are being built to power data centers to serve some of the US’s most powerful AI companies, including OpenAI, Meta, Microsoft, and xAI—have the potential to emit more than 129 million tons of greenhouse gases per year. As tech companies race to secure massive power deals to build out hundreds of data centers across the country, these projects represent just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the potential climate cost of the AI boom.

The infrastructure on this list of large natural gas projects reviewed by WIRED is being developed to largely bypass the grid and provide power solely for data centers, a trend known as behind-the-meter power. As data center developers face long waits for connections to traditional utilities, and amid mounting public resistance to the possibility of higher energy bills, making their own power is becoming an increasingly popular option. These projects have either been announced or are under construction, with companies already submitting air permit application materials with state agencies. Michael Thomas, the founder of clean energy research firm Cleanview, has been tracking gas permits for data centers across the country. He calls behind-the-meter power “a crazy acceleration of emissions.” “It's almost like we thought we were on the downside of the Industrial Revolution, retiring coal and gas, and now we have a new hump where we’re going to rise,” he says. “That terrifies me in a lot of ways.”

[...] The emissions projections for the xAI and Microsoft projects, and all the others on WIRED’s list, were pulled directly from publicly-available air permit documents in state databases as well as public air permit materials collected by both Cleanview and Oil and Gas Watch, a database maintained by the Environmental Integrity Project, an environmental enforcement nonprofit. Actual greenhouse gas emissions from power plants are usually lower than what’s on their air permits. Air permit modeling is based on the scenario of a power plant constantly running at full capacity. That’s rarely the reality for grid-connected power plants, as turbines go offline for maintenance or adjust to the ebbs and flows of customer demand. “Permitted emission numbers represent a theoretical, conservative scenario, not the actual projected emissions,” Alex Schott, the director of communications at Williams Companies, an oil and gas company that is building out three behind-the-meter power plants in Ohio for Meta, told WIRED in an email. Internal modeling done by the company, Schott added, shows that actual emissions could be “potentially two-thirds less than what's on paper.”

The projections involved, however, are still substantial. Even if the actual emissions from these power plants end up being half of the emissions numbers on the permits, they still could create more greenhouse gas emissions than the country of Norway emitted in 2024. This number is, according to the EPA, equivalent to the emissions from more than 153 average-sized natural gas plants. (WIRED’s analysis does not include emissions from backup generators and turbines on the data center campuses themselves, which create smaller amounts of emissions.) Energy researcher Jon Koomey estimates that while emissions from efficient grid-connected gas plants could be 40-50 percent of the permitted numbers, data center emissions could be much closer to what is modeled on the permit, given that they don’t have to respond to customer demand. [...] Koomey points out that a global shortage of the most efficient types of gas turbines—thanks in part to the data center race—is prompting some developers to consider choosing less efficient turbine models, forcing them to run them for longer and create more emissions. “[Data center operators’] belief is that the value being delivered by the servers is much, much more than the cost of running these inefficient power plants all the time,” Koomey says.

Submission + - Intel Lands Tesla As First Major Customer For 14A Chip Technology (yahoo.com)

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: Tesla CEO Elon Musk said on Wednesday the EV maker plans to use Intel's next-generation 14A manufacturing process to make chips at its Terafab project, an advanced AI chip complex Musk has envisioned in Austin. The contract would mark Intel's first major customer for the technology, a breakthrough for the chipmaker which has struggled to stand up its contract manufacturing business essential for taking on top rival TSMC. Intel CEO Lip Bu Tan has said that the company would exit the chip manufacturing business altogether if it failed to secure an external customer.

Intel has previously said it was in discussions with large customers about 14A, but has not yet disclosed a major external customer. It declined to comment on Musk's remarks. [...] "Given that by the time Terafab scales up, 14A will be probably fairly mature or ready for prime time," Musk said. "14A seems like the right move, and we have a great relationship with Intel," he said. Ben Bajarin, head of technology consultancy Creative Strategies, said that Intel's 14A technology could "turn out to be a bigger deal for Intel than folks thought." "It’s important to have multiple partners as early design partners to help clean the pipe and work through needed learnings at the leading edge. They will definitely have scale, so a great first non-Intel customer," Bajarin said.

Seaport Research Partners analyst Jay Goldberg said Musk's vote of confidence in Intel's technology outweighed the unknowns about the Terafab project. "Having a customer is more important than the timing," he said. Goldberg said that Musk's lofty estimates of how many chips its robots could one day require may or may not materialize, but even making chips for Tesla's existing businesses would be a significant win for Intel. "It's not equivalent to Apple or Nvidia" in terms of chip volumes, Goldberg said. "But it's a real customer. It can be real volumes."

Submission + - Little Caesars drone delivery proves even terrible pizza can fly (nerds.xyz)

Submitted by BrianFagioli
BrianFagioli writes: Flytrex is expanding its drone delivery ambitions with a new partnership with Little Caesars, and the hook here is scale. The companyâ(TM)s new Sky2 drone can carry up to 8.8 pounds, which is enough for two large pizzas, sides, and drinks in a single flight. That may not sound like a big leap, but most drone delivery efforts so far have been limited to small, lightweight orders. This setup stretches to about four miles and Flytrex claims roughly 4.5 minutes from takeoff to drop-off, with direct integration into restaurant ordering systems to cut down on delays. The drone itself uses an eight-motor design for redundancy, dual batteries, and high-precision navigation, plus onboard AI managing flight operations.

If you care about the tech, this is one of the more practical implementations weâ(TM)ve seen, especially with recent FAA approvals for beyond visual line of sight flights and partnerships forming across the delivery ecosystem. If you care about the food, well, thatâ(TM)s a different conversation. As someone from Long Island, Iâ(TM)m not convinced that shaving minutes off delivery time suddenly makes chain pizza desirable, even if it arrives via autonomous octocopter. Still, convenience tends to win, and if suburban customers can get dinner dropped in their yard without dealing with traffic or drivers, this kind of system might actually stick.

Submission + - Palantir posts Bond villain manifesto on X

Submitted by DeanonymizedCoward
DeanonymizedCoward writes: Engadget reports that Palantir has posted to X a summary of CEO Alex Karp and Nicholas W. Zamiska's 2025 book, The Technological Republic, which reads like a utopian idealist doodled on a Bond villain's whiteboard. While the post makes some decent points, it also highlights the Big-AI attitude that the AI surveillance state is in fact a good thing, and strongly implies that the Good Guys need to do war crimes before the Bad Guys get around to it.

Submission + - Allbirds' Move to AI Has Echoes of the Dot-Com Frenzy (bloomberg.com)

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: Allbirds is pivoting to artificial intelligence. The San Francisco brand, whose wool running shoes were once the sneaker du jour among the tech crowd, announced last week that it was expanding into AI computing infrastructure. The bizarre strategic shift was immediately greeted with a surprising frenzy on Wall Street, where shares of Allbirds soared 582% last Wednesday before dropping the next day. [...] Of course, the absurdity of Allbirds’ situation echoed familiar Silicon Valley tropes — from the endless startup pivots of the 2010s to the more recent boom-and-bust cycles of arbitrarily valued crypto coins. But it immediately reminded me of the marketing ploys of the dot-com crash. After all, some of the more iconic fails ended up being retailers such as Pets.com, Webvan, etc., riding the web wave with little to show for it beyond terrible margins.

One particular comparison from that period stands out as relevant to Allbirds: Zap.com. The holding company behind it, Zapata Corp., had a long and convoluted history, but was essentially selling fish-oil products by the time it decided to reinvent itself as an internet portal. It amassed a variety of web properties — in media, e-commerce, gaming and so on — and even once tried to acquire the search engine Excite. Spoiler alert: Zap flopped.

Jen Heck, then a young employee at one of Zap’s up-and-coming portfolio entities, remembers how quickly the hype of that web 1.0 turned to hell. As absurd as Zapata’s pivot sounds today, it seemed feasible during the excitement of the internet revolution. “We went from like, ‘Wow, this life thing is just so easy,’ to it all ending so suddenly,” Heck recalls. The ones who survived that tech bubble, she says, actually had differentiated products and the right creative thinkers building them — and weren’t just cynically jumping on the latest hot trend. “‘Internet’ was the magic word then, and ‘AI’ is the magic word now,” Heck says.

Submission + - Robots Beat Human Records At Beijing Half-Marathon (techcrunch.com)

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: The winning runner at a Beijing half-marathon for humanoid robots finished the race today in 50 minutes and 26 seconds — significantly faster than the human world record of 57 minutes recently set by Jacob Kiplimo. Comparing human and robot running times may seem unfair; one social media user observed, “my car can outrun a cheetah too.” Still, the winning time is a massive improvement over last year’s race, when the fastest robot finished in two hours and 40 minutes. (Back then, I scoffed that this “would not be an impressive time for a human.”)

The Associated Press reports that this year’s winner was built by Chinese smartphone maker Honor. It seems the winning robot wasn’t actually the fastest, as a different Honor robot finished in 48 minutes and 19 seconds. But that one was remote controlled — the 50:26 robot was autonomous and won due to weighted scoring. About 40% of participating robots competed autonomously, while the remaining 60% were remote controlled, according to Beijing’s E-Town tech hub. Not all of them did as well as Honor’s robots, with one robot falling at the starting line and another hitting a barrier.

Slashdot Top Deals