Sam Bankman-Fried Files Formal Pardon Bid With Trump After Months of Prison Outreach

Sam Bankman-Fried made it official Monday. The founder of the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX submitted an application for a presidential pardon to the Justice Department’s Pardon Attorney Office. He seeks relief after completion of his sentence. The move comes more than two years after his conviction on fraud and money laundering charges tied to the disappearance of billions in customer funds.

This step escalates a campaign Bankman-Fried has conducted from behind bars. He has posted on social media. He has granted interviews to conservative outlets. He has praised policies and figures aligned with the current administration. Yet the odds remain long. President Trump stated in a January interview with The New York Times that he does not plan to pardon him. White House officials have repeated that position as recently as February.

Bankman-Fried, 34, is serving a 25-year prison term handed down in March 2024. Prosecutors proved he orchestrated multiple fraudulent schemes. He directed FTX customer deposits into his hedge fund Alameda Research. He used those funds for personal expenses, political donations and to cover losses. Customers lost more than $8 billion. The bankruptcy process has since recovered assets that allowed repayments exceeding 100 percent in many cases. Bankman-Fried still maintains he did not steal user funds. “Customers have been repaid now 170% or so on their deposits,” he told Fox Business correspondent Susan Li in an exclusive interview from his federal prison cell. “Customers were more than made whole.”

Absolutely. That was his direct response when asked if he wants a pardon. “It would be obviously, you know, ultimately up to the president, not up to me.” He declined to discuss whether his parents or others lobby on his behalf. “I can’t speak for them,” he said.

The formal filing stands out. Trump has issued pardons to hundreds during his second term. Many went to participants in the January 6 events. A significant share, however, benefited white-collar offenders. An NBC News analysis from January showed more than half of individual pardons addressed crimes such as money laundering, bank fraud and wire fraud. The president has shown willingness to extend clemency to figures in the crypto space. He pardoned Binance founder Changpeng Zhao and Silk Road creator Ross Ulbricht. Bankman-Fried’s profile differs. He was a major donor to Democratic causes before the collapse. His trial highlighted ties to influential politicians and effective altruism circles.

Congressional voices in the crypto-friendly wing of the Republican Party have pushed back. A Politico report from March captured blunt sentiment. One lawmaker called Bankman-Fried “a piece of s–t.” Industry advocates urged Trump to avoid the controversy. The White House offered no comment on the latest application. Officials had already signaled in responses to Fortune that Trump has no intention of granting clemency.

Bankman-Fried’s strategy evolved over months. Early reports from Bloomberg in January 2025 indicated his parents, both Stanford law professors, explored options and met with figures in Trump’s orbit. By February he ramped up public comments. He backed Trump’s strikes on Iran. He highlighted lower gas prices. He drew parallels between his story and tech successes. In the Fox Business conversation he expressed regret over missing the artificial intelligence surge. He singled out Elon Musk’s ability to scale companies. Such remarks appeared designed to build common ground. A Ars Technica article in March revealed prosecutors uncovered a document in which Bankman-Fried mapped out a post-collapse rehabilitation and pardon plan. The discovery undercut his reinvention narrative inside the Justice Department.

The pardon process itself carries limited weight in Trump’s approach. Bloomberg Law noted that few of those who received clemency filed formal applications through the Pardon Attorney Office. The president has often acted on direct recommendations or political calculations. TechCrunch reported the application’s confirmation via the official Justice Department website. The filing requests a full pardon after sentence completion rather than immediate commutation. That distinction matters. It signals Bankman-Fried anticipates serving substantial time before any relief.

Reactions on X lit up within hours. Prediction markets priced the chance of a pardon between 10 and 32 percent. Some traders pointed to FTX’s token FTT jumping as much as 62 percent on the news. Crypto investors remain divided. Many see the FTX saga as a stain the industry has worked hard to move past. Others argue the full customer repayments and changing political climate could justify mercy. Bankman-Fried continues to insist the bankruptcy resolution proves no permanent harm occurred. Prosecutors countered during sentencing that his actions shattered trust in digital assets at a critical moment.

So the application sits with the Pardon Attorney Office. It joins a stack of similar requests. Trump’s track record on white-collar cases suggests he weighs factors beyond standard DOJ review. Political loyalty, public image and donor history all play roles. Bankman-Fried’s past support for Democrats and effective altruism causes once made him an outlier in Republican circles. His recent pivot has not yet swayed key decision makers. Lawyers for Bankman-Fried offered no immediate comment on the filing. The White House stayed silent Monday.

His prison interviews reveal a man still intellectually engaged. He follows technology trends. He draws business analogies. He positions himself as rehabilitated. Whether that narrative gains traction with the one person who can change his outcome remains uncertain. Trump has surprised observers before with clemency grants. He has also held firm against certain high-profile names. For now Bankman-Fried’s bid represents the latest chapter in a saga that began with a Bahamas penthouse, a Super Bowl advertisement and billions in misplaced customer assets. It continues in a federal facility where he waits for an answer that may never come.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/devg4SZ

Nasdaq Drops 2% as Strong Jobs Report Dims Hopes for Fed Rate Cuts

The Nasdaq experienced a sharp selloff on Friday following the release of a stronger-than-expected jobs report that heightened concerns about persistent inflation and the potential for delayed interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve. This downturn wiped out more than 2 percent of the index’s value in a single session, marking one of the steepest declines of the year and raising fresh questions about the sustainability of the artificial intelligence-fueled market rally that has dominated trading for much of the past two years.

According to a detailed report from Fortune, the selloff reflected growing investor anxiety that the extraordinary gains in technology stocks, particularly those tied to artificial intelligence infrastructure and applications, may have outpaced the underlying economic realities. Major names such as Nvidia, Microsoft, and Broadcom all posted losses exceeding 3 percent, while smaller AI-related companies saw even steeper drops. The broader market followed suit, with the S&P 500 falling nearly 1.8 percent and the Dow Jones Industrial Average declining by more than 400 points.

The catalyst for this reversal came from the latest employment data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Nonfarm payrolls increased by 272,000 jobs in May, well above the 185,000 consensus estimate from economists. Even more telling, the unemployment rate edged lower to 3.9 percent, and average hourly earnings rose 0.4 percent month-over-month, pushing the annual wage growth rate to 4.1 percent. These figures suggested an economy that continues to run hotter than anticipated, potentially keeping inflationary pressures elevated and forcing the Federal Reserve to maintain higher interest rates for longer than many investors had hoped.

Bond markets reacted immediately to the data. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note climbed above 4.5 percent, a level not seen since late 2023, as traders repriced their expectations for monetary policy. Futures markets now assign only a 35 percent probability to a rate cut at the Federal Reserve’s September meeting, down from more than 70 percent just a week earlier. This shift in expectations carries significant implications for the valuation of growth stocks, which have benefited enormously from the low-rate environment that prevailed after the pandemic.

The artificial intelligence trade that propelled the Nasdaq to record highs throughout 2024 and into 2025 has rested on two central assumptions. First, that AI represents a genuine technological breakthrough capable of driving substantial productivity gains across multiple industries. Second, that the Federal Reserve would eventually ease policy enough to support high valuations even in the absence of immediate earnings growth from many AI-focused companies. The latest jobs report directly challenges the second assumption while leaving the first open to continued debate.

Skeptics have long warned that the AI boom carries characteristics of previous market manias. Capital spending on AI infrastructure has reached unprecedented levels, with companies like Microsoft, Google, and Amazon collectively committing more than $200 billion in 2025 alone to data centers, specialized chips, and related technologies. Much of this investment has flowed to a relatively small group of semiconductor manufacturers and cloud computing providers, creating concentrated gains that have distorted broader market performance. The so-called Magnificent Seven stocks accounted for nearly 60 percent of the S&P 500’s gains in 2024, a level of concentration that historically has preceded periods of underperformance.

Yet the case for artificial intelligence remains compelling to many analysts. Enterprise adoption of generative AI tools has accelerated, with surveys from major consulting firms showing that more than 70 percent of Fortune 500 companies have now implemented some form of AI initiative. Productivity improvements have begun appearing in certain sectors, particularly software development, customer service, and content creation. Companies that can demonstrate measurable returns on their AI investments may continue to command premium valuations even in a higher interest rate environment.

The current market correction, while painful for many investors, may ultimately prove healthy if it separates businesses with genuine AI capabilities from those simply riding the hype cycle. Several technology executives have begun tempering expectations in recent earnings calls, emphasizing that meaningful financial returns from AI investments will likely take several years to materialize fully. This more measured tone contrasts sharply with the exuberance that characterized much of the market commentary in 2023 and early 2024.

Economic data beyond the jobs report has offered mixed signals. Inflation, as measured by the personal consumption expenditures price index, remains stuck above the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent target at approximately 2.6 percent. Core inflation, which excludes volatile food and energy prices, has shown even less progress in recent months. At the same time, consumer spending has remained resilient despite high interest rates, supported by strong household balance sheets and a still-tight labor market.

This combination of strong growth and sticky inflation presents a challenging environment for monetary policymakers. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has repeatedly emphasized the central bank’s data-dependent approach, noting that recent economic strength reduces the urgency for rate cuts. However, he has also acknowledged that prolonged high rates could eventually weigh on economic activity if maintained for too long.

For individual investors, the recent volatility highlights the risks inherent in concentrated technology positions. Many retail investors have poured money into AI-themed exchange-traded funds and individual stocks over the past two years, often at elevated valuations. The average price-to-earnings ratio for the Nasdaq-100 index stands near 32 times forward earnings, well above its long-term average. While such multiples can be justified by rapid growth, they leave little margin for error if either growth slows or interest rates remain elevated.

Financial advisors increasingly recommend diversification strategies that extend beyond simply owning technology stocks. This includes exposure to international markets, where valuations remain more reasonable and economic cycles differ from those in the United States. Value-oriented sectors such as financials, energy, and industrials have lagged the AI trade but could benefit if the Federal Reserve eventually begins cutting rates while the economy continues expanding.

Smaller companies outside the AI spotlight have faced particular pressure during the recent rally. The Russell 2000 index of small-cap stocks has significantly underperformed the Nasdaq over the past 18 months, creating one of the widest performance gaps in decades. Many of these companies rely more heavily on borrowing and could benefit substantially from lower interest rates, yet they have been largely ignored by investors chasing AI opportunities.

The coming weeks will likely bring additional economic data that could influence market direction. Upcoming inflation readings, retail sales figures, and manufacturing surveys will all factor into the Federal Reserve’s assessment of appropriate policy. Earnings reports from major technology companies scheduled for later in the month will also receive intense scrutiny, with investors looking for concrete evidence that AI investments are beginning to generate proportional returns.

Market participants remain divided on the longer-term outlook. Optimists point to historical examples of transformative technologies that initially produced concentrated gains before broader economic benefits emerged. Pessimists draw parallels to previous episodes of technological enthusiasm, from railroads in the 19th century to the internet bubble of the late 1990s, noting that even genuine innovations can lead to periods of significant market dislocation when investment runs ahead of practical application.

What seems clear is that the easy phase of the AI trade, characterized by indiscriminate buying of anything remotely connected to the technology, has likely ended. Future gains will probably require greater discrimination based on actual business models, competitive advantages, and paths to profitability. Companies that can demonstrate clear economic value from AI rather than simply adopting the terminology will likely separate themselves from those that cannot.

The jobs report and subsequent market reaction serve as a reminder that financial markets ultimately reflect economic fundamentals, even if that connection can sometimes appear tenuous during periods of rapid technological change. While artificial intelligence may indeed transform many aspects of business and society, the timing and magnitude of those changes will determine whether current valuations prove sustainable. For now, investors appear to be reassessing those assumptions in light of an economy that refuses to cool as quickly as many had anticipated.

This reassessment process may extend for several months as new data arrives and corporate executives provide more detailed guidance about their AI strategies and spending plans. The transition from euphoria to more measured expectations often creates volatility, but it can also lay the foundation for more sustainable market advances if grounded in genuine economic progress rather than speculative fervor.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/fvi9kIQ

Pope’s AI Encyclical Opens Door to Workplace Faith-Based Opt-Outs

Pope Leo XIV didn’t mince words. In his first major encyclical, the pontiff called for artificial intelligence to be “disarmed.” He warned of new forms of dehumanization. He condemned the sacrifice of jobs at the altar of profit.

The 43,000-word document, titled Magnifica Humanitas, landed like a stone in still water. Ripples now spread into corporate America. Lawyers see potential claims. Workers smell opportunity. One software engineer already won her case. Others may soon follow.

The Vatican’s stark assessment of technology’s human cost

“Technology is not simply a tool,” the encyclical states, according to reports in BBC News. It risks creating “new digital slaveries.” The pursuit of greater profits cannot justify choices that systematically sacrifice jobs. Leo urged governments to regulate AI. He demanded safeguards for workers. He framed the technology as a potential instrument of domination, exclusion and death.

The language carries weight. For 1.4 billion Catholics, encyclicals represent high-level teaching. Yet its influence stretches further. Employment attorneys say the text could bolster claims under U.S. law. Title VII requires companies to accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs. Undue hardship sets the limit. Courts interpret that bar generously since a 2023 Supreme Court decision.

James Paul, a labor and employment litigator at Ogletree Deakins, told USA Today he braces for an influx of cases. “What is needed is a more active political involvement that is capable of slowing things down when everything is accelerating,” the pope wrote. Those words now echo in HR departments.

Ryan Stygar, author of an upcoming book on workplace rights, expects some employees to succeed. But proving entitlement remains the toughest hurdle. Sincerity matters. Timing raises questions. A sudden conversion after an AI mandate might not persuade a judge. And. Courts look for consistency in belief and practice.

But the pope’s intervention changes the conversation. It gives concrete doctrinal grounding to objections once dismissed as vague. Environmental harm from data centers. Erosion of human creativity. Displacement of meaningful work. These concerns gain religious cover.

Consider Erin Maus. The 34-year-old North Carolina software engineer works at a large tech-entertainment company she calls progressive. Last April she requested an accommodation. Her faith as a Unitarian Universalist, she argued, conflicts with AI’s environmental toll and ethical shortcuts. She consulted a lawyer. She spoke with her minister. The company granted her request in mid-May.

“I’m writing my code and reviewing my code by hand, which seems crazy to say,” Maus told Business Insider. Two years ago that statement would have drawn blank stares. Today it marks a quiet rebellion. Her exemption came before the encyclical. Pope Leo’s words could multiply such stories.

James M. Cooney, a labor expert at Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations, told Yahoo News it is possible employees could invoke the encyclical as religious objection. The document’s emphasis on human dignity over efficiency provides a roadmap. Workers need not be Catholic. Sincere belief suffices. Unitarian Universalists, other Protestants, even non-Christians might draw parallels.

Legal precedent supports broad protection. The Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Groff v. DeJoy clarified that employers must show substantial increased costs. Minor inconvenience falls short. This standard applies whether the objection stems from vaccine mandates or, now, algorithmic tools.

Yet success varies. A warehouse worker refusing barcode scanners on theological grounds would likely fail. AI touches more roles with deeper philosophical stakes. Coders. Analysts. Writers. Marketers. The technology promises efficiency while raising questions of authorship, accountability and skill atrophy.

Companies already deploy AI across functions. Some mandate its use. Others tie performance metrics to adoption. Refusal can mean stalled careers. Or termination. Religious accommodation requests force a reckoning. HR teams must investigate. They cannot simply dismiss claims as secular policy disputes.

So far, documented cases remain rare. Maus stands out. Her story, reported in recent days, arrived just as the encyclical amplified the debate. Gizmodo noted her success could inspire similar appeals. Other outlets from NewsNation to Global News highlight the emerging legal question in both the U.S. and Canada.

Challenges abound. Employers might argue AI has become essential. Undue hardship could apply in fast-moving industries where competitors race ahead. Proving a belief is religious, not merely philosophical, requires evidence. Consistency over time. Depth of conviction. Consultation with clergy helps, as Maus demonstrated.

Still, the pope’s timing feels potent. AI hype peaks. Job losses mount in sectors from customer service to creative fields. Public skepticism grows over bias, hallucinations and opaque decision-making. Into this moment steps a moral authority warning against unchecked power.

Leo didn’t reject technology outright. He called for its proper place. Human dignity first. Workers protected. Profit subordinate to people. That message resonates beyond cathedrals. It lands in boardrooms. Court filings. Union halls.

Expect more requests. Some will succeed. Others will test the limits of accommodation law. The encyclical won’t rewrite statutes. It does arm believers with authoritative language. It signals that faith-based resistance to AI carries weight.

Corporations face a choice. Accommodate where possible. Risk litigation. Or redesign roles to minimize conflict. The latter might prove smartest. Not every task needs algorithms. Some benefit from human judgment, creativity and accountability.

The coming months will clarify the impact. Early cases will set patterns. Judges will weigh papal texts against business necessity. Attorneys will sharpen arguments. Workers will watch closely.

One thing seems clear. The conversation about AI just gained a moral dimension that employers can no longer ignore. Faith, technology and labor collide. The pope spoke. Now courts and companies must respond.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/4VtTarE

InnoVision’s Gen One Glasses Target Low Vision Market With Simple, Wearable Tech

Steve Willey saw the AR hype cycle peak and then stall. Microsoft pulled back from HoloLens. Snap and Google delayed consumer releases. Meta’s Ray-Ban smart glasses gained fans but lacked displays at the time. So the Innovega CEO did something unexpected. He chose the simplest problem he could find.

A person with poor vision who wants good vision.

That pivot produced Gen One. The glasses look ordinary. They weigh under 70 grams. A camera captures the scene. Software tuned to the wearer’s specific condition adjusts magnification, brightness, contrast and sharpness. The processed image appears on transparent micro-OLED displays. Tap the frame or speak a command. The enhanced view activates. Turn it off and the lenses stay clear.

The device tethers to a smartphone for heavy processing. Battery lasts about three hours of active use. Yet wearers can keep the glasses on all day. The display only draws power when needed. Early demand shows real interest. More than 100 pairs sold at $2,950 each in the Founder Series. Innovega now accepts orders for 1,000 additional units. Commercial deliveries target early 2027. Pre-orders remain fully refundable until shipment.

Nearly 300 million people worldwide live with significant vision loss. Many cannot read a menu or recognize a face across a room. Willey, Innovega’s CEO and co-founder and former president of laser-projection firm MicroVision, aims higher than incremental gains. He wants to “substantially change the quality of life and independence of tens of millions of people in the U.S. and hundreds of millions globally.” (GeekWire)

The company spent years on augmented-reality contact lenses. Those lenses would have let users focus on tiny displays in ordinary glasses. DARPA and the U.S. Army signed contracts. Tencent invested. Innovega filed more than 75 patents. Yet the broader AR market refused to mature on schedule. Two years ago Willey took stock. Only a fraction of the low-vision population would accept contact lenses. The team shifted to glasses alone.

Requirements for this audience differ sharply from gamers or enterprise users. Central vision loss does not demand 4K resolution or a 100-degree field of view. It demands personalized tuning in a form factor people will actually wear all day. The result stays lightweight. It avoids the bulk of many headsets.

Innovega committed $1 million to manufacturing partners. It signed an agreement with Quanta Computer, the Taiwanese firm that produces devices for Apple, Meta and Google. That deal stands out for a company of Innovega’s size. The firm has raised roughly $25 million total. One-third came from strategic investors including Tencent. Another third arrived from family offices and high-net-worth individuals. The final third, about $9 million, came via crowdfunding from approximately 4,000 shareholders. Plans call for another $10 million to $20 million this year to support manufacturing, launch, marketing and distribution.

The 20-person team draws heavily from big tech. CTO Arthur Zhang served as senior manager of system architecture in Apple’s Vision Products Group and contributed to the first Apple Vision Pro. Chief engineer Jay Marsh and hardware lead Sang Lee, a former Apple Technology Development Group engineering manager, round out the technical side. Business roles include Corrinalyn Guyette on partnerships, Vijay Raghavan as fractional CFO and former Microsoft controller, and Bambo Sofola on strategy from Microsoft’s Devices and Experiences group.

Clinical and engineering operations sit in San Diego. Administration, marketing and advisors remain in the Pacific Northwest. The company completed about $6 million in contract work over its lifetime. Projects touched the U.S. defense community, Microsoft and Oakley.

But the low-vision space already shows competition. Devices from eSight and Vision Buddy deliver strong magnification and contrast for detailed tasks. (Florida Reading) AI-focused options such as Envision Glasses and OrCam provide real-time scene recognition and text reading. Consumer products like Meta’s Ray-Ban models add practical AI features though they were not built specifically for vision loss. (ABILITY Magazine)

Agiga’s EchoVision uses a camera and AI to identify objects, people and text then speaks descriptions aloud. It targets the blind and visually impaired community directly. (Agiga) HumanWare offers smart glasses with hands-free spot reading, voice commands and optional AI. Recent coverage highlights how the low-vision community has embraced AI smart glasses for independence. (Lighthouse for the Blind)

Innovega positions Gen One differently. It projects an enhanced image directly onto the user’s field of view rather than relying solely on audio feedback. The transparent displays let natural vision pass through when the enhancement is inactive. And the personalization happens at the software level for each individual’s condition.

After Gen One ships the company plans expansions. Applications for hearing impairment and cognitive or memory support sit on the roadmap. The original contact-lens technology could return in Gen Two. That version promises wider field of view, further vision gains and even lighter eyewear.

Innovega also launched a related nonprofit called Vision for Humanity. It focuses on the low-vision community beyond the commercial product.

The bet rests on practicality. Low weight. Ordinary appearance. Targeted enhancement rather than general computing. Early pre-sales suggest some in the community see the potential. Delivery in 2027 will test whether the hardware meets real-world needs at scale. Willey and his team, armed with Apple and Microsoft alumni plus defense contracting experience, now face manufacturing deadlines and the expectations of thousands of early backers.

Success here would not remake the entire AR industry. It could, however, deliver meaningful daily gains for people long overlooked by flashy headset demonstrations. Sometimes the simplest application proves the hardest to get right.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/XHv8d6U

AI Chiefs Sound Alarm on Synthetic DNA as Biosecurity Loophole Widens

Sam Altman, Dario Amodei and Demis Hassabis rarely agree in public. Yet on Tuesday the leaders of OpenAI, Anthropic and Google DeepMind joined dozens of other AI executives, Nobel laureates and biosecurity specialists in an open letter to Congress. Their message was blunt. Artificial intelligence is eroding the technical barriers that once kept biological weapons beyond the reach of most bad actors.

The letter, organized by the Foundation for American Innovation and the Institute for Progress, calls for mandatory screening of all synthetic DNA and RNA orders. Providers must verify customers. They must keep records. No more voluntary efforts that leave gaps wide enough for catastrophe. The Wall Street Journal first reported the effort.

“AI systems are improving rapidly, and alongside incredible benefits to science and medicine, there is a real possibility that the knowledge barriers which have historically prevented bad actors from obtaining biological weapons will meaningfully erode,” the signatories wrote. Short. Direct. Ominous.

This isn’t abstract worry. Synthetic nucleic acids can be ordered online and assembled in modest labs. Companies already screen some orders for dangerous sequences. But enforcement is patchy. No federal law demands universal checks. That leaves room for someone with basic equipment and guidance from a capable AI model to piece together a pathogen.

The Verge detailed how the letter targets this exact vulnerability. It presses lawmakers to close what signatories call an alarming gap that could trigger a global pandemic. Its coverage captures the urgency.

Signatories read like a cross-section of the AI and biotech worlds. Altman. Amodei. Hassabis. Mustafa Suleyman of Microsoft AI. Alexandr Wang, Meta’s chief AI officer and Scale AI founder. Emily Leproust of Twist Bioscience, a major DNA synthesis provider. David Baker, 2024 Nobel winner in chemistry. Even Patrick Collison of Stripe and Paul Graham of Y Combinator added their names.

National security voices joined too. Christine Wormuth, former Army secretary and now at the Nuclear Threat Initiative. Gerald Parker, ex-special assistant to the president for biosecurity. The breadth signals consensus where it rarely exists.

But why now? AI models have grown more sophisticated in biology. Recent tests show large language models can outline steps for acquiring materials, designing sequences and evading detection. One New York Times investigation revealed chatbots providing bullet-point instructions for assembling deadly pathogens and deploying them in public spaces. Scientists testing the systems went cold reading the outputs. The Times published those transcripts in April.

Even earlier warnings proved prescient. A 2025 congressional hearing examined biosecurity at the intersection of AI and biology. Staff memos cited studies showing advanced models like Claude and ChatGPT offering detailed guidance across the full spectrum of biological weapon development. The gap between expert and novice narrows fast.

Wired covered the letter’s release and noted its focus on tracking synthetic sequences. OpenAI and Anthropic took leading roles. The piece highlights how AI could help design novel agents or optimize production. Its reporting added fresh context hours after the letter dropped.

Current safeguards rely on voluntary screening by synthesis companies. Some use algorithms to flag hazardous sequences. Others verify customer identities. Yet researchers have shown AI-designed toxin blueprints slipping past these checks. A Science magazine investigation from late 2025 exposed flaws when AI-generated orders for proteins mimicking ricin or botulinum evaded filters. The systems weren’t ready for adversarial prompts.

The letter builds directly on legislation introduced in February by Senators Tom Cotton and Amy Klobuchar. Their Biosecurity Modernization and Innovation Act would direct the Commerce Department to require screening and create a NIST sandbox for testing new biosecurity tools. Signatories want Congress to pass and expand that framework. Make it mandatory. Add recordkeeping. Close the loopholes.

Critics might argue this adds bureaucracy to a fast-moving industry. DNA synthesis powers legitimate research. Vaccines. New materials. Cancer therapies. Overly strict rules could slow innovation. Yet the signatories counter that basic screening is reasonable. Dean Ball, a former Trump AI adviser now at the Foundation for American Innovation, put it plainly in the Journal. If you’re synthesizing the stuff that yields biological life and viruses, society can insist on checks for danger.

And the risks aren’t theoretical. A single released pathogen could spread before detection. Modern travel accelerates that spread. AI lowers the expertise bar. A motivated individual with a STEM background but no advanced biology training might soon assemble something devastating. Models already approach that threshold, according to internal assessments from labs like Anthropic.

Dario Amodei has warned publicly before. In his essay on the adolescence of technology he described how LLMs could provide substantial uplift in bioweapon success rates. His company implemented classifiers to block such outputs. Yet jailbreaks remain possible. The frontier moves quickly.

Similar concerns echo in Nature. A May 2026 feature asked how worried the world should be about AI designing viruses, toxins and other bioweapons. Researchers debate limits on biological AI software. Some see minimal risk in specific cases. Others fear the combination of design tools and generative models creates unprecedented pathways. The piece captures the scientific debate.

Earlier RAND research from 2024 offered reassurance. Then-current LLMs didn’t meaningfully boost non-state actors’ ability to plan biological attacks. Outputs mirrored internet knowledge. Operational risk stayed flat in red-team exercises. But that was two years ago. Capabilities have advanced. The 2026 letter reflects that shift.

Congress faces pressure from multiple directions. The Trump administration issued orders on biological research safety in 2025. Hearings continue. Lawmakers hear from both innovation boosters and security hawks. This letter adds weight to the security side. It comes from the very companies racing to build more powerful models.

That alignment matters. AI firms have incentives to avoid catastrophe. A major biosecurity incident would trigger backlash, regulation, lost trust. Better to shape sensible rules now. The letter doesn’t call for halting progress. It targets one concrete chokepoint: the sale of genetic building blocks.

Implementation won’t be simple. Define dangerous sequences clearly. Avoid false positives that halt legitimate orders. Coordinate with international suppliers. Build enforcement mechanisms. Yet the alternative leaves the door open. No one should order a bioweapon through the mail. The letter’s organizers made that point sharply on social media.

Reactions on X mixed alarm with calls for action. Some users noted the irony of AI companies warning about AI risks. Others saw it as responsible leadership. Threads circulated the full signatory list. Discussions turned to cloud labs and automated biology platforms that further lower barriers.

The convergence worries experts. Synthetic biology plus AI plus remote automation equals new proliferation risks. A determined actor might not need a sophisticated lab. Guidance from models, ordered DNA, desktop synthesizers. The pieces are aligning faster than policy.

Lawmakers now hold the next move. They can build on the Cotton-Klobuchar bill. Require screening. Mandate verification. Create standards. Or they can wait. Hope voluntary measures suffice. History suggests gaps persist until law closes them.

The signatories bet on the former. Their letter doesn’t exaggerate threats or promise silver bullets. It identifies a fixable vulnerability at the intersection of two transformative technologies. Biology and AI both promise enormous good. Both carry shadow risks. Addressing one narrow but critical vector represents a pragmatic start.

Whether Congress listens remains uncertain. Partisan divides, industry lobbying and competing priorities could delay action. Yet the coalition behind this letter spans those divides. AI leaders. Biotech executives. Security veterans. Academics. That breadth might concentrate minds on Capitol Hill.

The knowledge barriers are eroding. The question is whether oversight will catch up before someone exploits the gap. The letter makes clear where these experts stand. They want rules in place. Sooner rather than later.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/580JU7N

One Million Car Buyers Disappear From U.S. Showrooms

American families once treated the purchase of a new car as a rite of passage. That passage has narrowed. Roughly one million potential buyers have stepped away from the new-vehicle market since 2020 and show no sign of returning soon. Sales that routinely topped 17 million units annually before the pandemic now hover near or below 16 million. Industry projections that once counted on a full rebound have been quietly shelved.

The numbers come from a detailed examination by Yahoo Finance. They reflect more than a temporary pause. Persistent high prices, elevated interest rates and climbing operating costs have rewritten the arithmetic for middle-income households. A typical new vehicle now carries a sticker near $50,000. Monthly payments stretch budgets already squeezed by inflation, fuel, insurance and routine repairs.

Automakers have noticed. Volvo’s chief commercial officer Erik Severinson told reporters the trend signals “something more fundamental which is wrong in the general economy” that leaves many people unable to afford new cars. His assessment echoes across Detroit and foreign brands alike. Dealers report customers keeping vehicles longer. The average age of cars on American roads has climbed to about 13 years, according to recent industry tallies.

But the story runs deeper than sticker shock. A parallel squeeze has emerged in insurance. Bloomberg reported late last year that high premiums push growing numbers of drivers to drop coverage or choose bare-bones policies. That decision reduces the pool of totaled vehicles flowing to salvage auctions and alters risk calculations for insurers. It also leaves more motorists exposed in accidents. One recent analysis placed the share of uninsured drivers near one in eight in some states, though national figures remain debated.

So who left the market? The vanished buyers tend to sit in the middle of the income distribution. They once financed sedans or compact crossovers in the $25,000 to $35,000 range. That segment has thinned. Roughly one-quarter of current models still fall in that bracket, yet the majority of new offerings now start above $55,000. Manufacturers chase richer margins on large trucks and luxury SUVs. The math favors volume at the top. The middle has been left behind.

And the consequences compound. Higher used-car prices, themselves inflated by low new-car turnover, make even older models expensive. Tariffs on imported parts and vehicles add further pressure. Gas prices fluctuate but rarely fall enough to offset the rest. The result is a structural shift. Forecasts once anchored to 17 million annual sales now treat 16 million as the new ceiling for years ahead.

Hybrids have offered one pocket of resilience. Their sales rose more than 9 percent in recent months and now account for over 14 percent of new purchases. They deliver the fuel economy and reliability many households seek without the full leap to battery-electric powertrains. Electric-vehicle sales, by contrast, dropped more than one-third in the same period, pushing their market share down to about 5 percent. The divergence highlights a clear preference gap between what factories produce and what buyers can actually afford and want.

Automakers insist they do not miss the missing million. Profit margins on premium vehicles remain healthy. Inventory piles up on some lots, yet executives show little urgency to slash prices across the board. They have recalibrated product lines and marketing to chase the customers who remain. That strategy sustains short-term earnings. It also risks locking in a permanently smaller total addressable market.

Recent coverage reinforces the trend. A May 30 report on Yahoo Finance noted eight straight months of declining sales through April and warned the contraction is “getting worse.” Another piece from Fox Business this week described the same one-million-buyer gap and quoted industry observers who see little prospect of quick reversal. Public discussion on X has echoed the data, with analysts pointing to the same affordability barriers and abandoned forecasts.

The broader economic signal is hard to ignore. Car buying once tracked closely with rising wages and stable costs. That linkage has frayed. Households now weigh whether the depreciation, insurance and maintenance of a new vehicle justify the outlay when a reliable used option or extended ownership of the current car looks cheaper on paper. For millions, the paper wins.

Yet the industry’s response remains uneven. Some brands experiment with lower-priced electric offerings or more hybrid variants. Others double down on luxury. Few have moved aggressively to rebuild the entry-level segment that once anchored volume. The decision carries risk. A smaller buyer base today can translate into thinner supplier networks, reduced scale economies and slower innovation tomorrow.

Insurance dynamics add another layer. As more drivers opt out or downgrade, accident costs shift to those who stay insured. Premiums rise further. The cycle tightens. Bloomberg’s reporting captured how this feedback loop already affects salvage markets and claims data. It also hints at future pressure on lenders and leasing companies that assume certain levels of insurance compliance.

Look closer at the numbers and the picture sharpens. Pre-pandemic, annual sales averaged around 17 million. Current run rates sit 6 to 10 percent lower with no clear path back. The gap equals roughly one million households per year that no longer participate. Those households have not vanished from the roads. They simply drive older cars, insure them lightly or not at all, and postpone the next purchase indefinitely.

This is not a cyclical dip. It is a recalibration of what middle-class mobility looks like in an era of elevated costs. Automakers, dealers, insurers and policymakers will spend the rest of the decade adjusting to that new baseline. Some will adapt by offering more affordable powertrains and transparent pricing. Others may find their traditional business models no longer pencil out at lower volume.

The one million missing buyers have already rewritten the forecast. The question now is whether the industry rewrites its playbook fast enough to bring a meaningful share of them back. Early evidence suggests many will stay on the sidelines until prices, rates or incomes move decisively in their favor. Until then, the American road will carry more older cars, more careful drivers and fewer fresh purchases than it has in a generation.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/fOuL36c

GitHub Copilot’s Metered Billing Shock: Developers Threaten Mass Exodus

Developers who embraced GitHub Copilot as their daily coding companion woke up this week to a harsh new reality. The AI assistant’s switch to metered billing has triggered immediate backlash. Many now question whether the tool remains viable for their workflows.

Effective June 1, GitHub replaced its previous request-based system with usage-based billing built on GitHub AI Credits. Each interaction now draws from a monthly allotment determined by tokens consumed across input, output and cached context. The shift aligns costs with actual compute demands of increasingly complex agentic tasks. But for individual subscribers it has produced bills that feel unpredictable and punishing.

“This is a staggering shift from a ‘predictable subscription’ to a ‘stressful meter-based’ service that hinders my productivity rather than helping it,” one developer wrote on GitHub’s community forum. The user, subscribed to the $39-per-month Copilot Pro+ plan, reported burning through 8 percent of their monthly AI Credits allocation in just two hours. At that pace the 7,000-unit quota would vanish in less than two days. The Register detailed these early complaints hours after the change took effect.

Another forum poster described an even sharper hit. A single feature request consumed more than $6 in credits. “Not after a day of usage. Not after dozens of prompts. After ONE request,” the developer stated. The complaint highlighted how large context windows and complex model calls make consumption impossible to forecast. Individual coders now face budgeting challenges they never anticipated.

Reddit threads echoed the sentiment with striking examples. One user tested the new system on routine site edits using Claude 4.8. The suggestions proved mediocre. The developer still completed most of the work manually. Yet the session used 1,180 credits. That amounted to 16 percent of the monthly Pro+ allowance. “Gone. For basically nothing,” the post read.

The frustration runs deeper than sticker shock. Many subscribers signed up during Copilot’s earlier phase when access felt nearly unlimited for a flat fee of $10 or $39 per month. Those days allowed heavy experimentation across models without watching the meter. GitHub’s April announcement foreshadowed the change. The company explained that Copilot had evolved into an agentic platform running long, multi-step sessions across entire repositories. The old premium request unit model no longer matched reality. GitHub Blog laid out the rationale on April 27.

Under the new structure, code completions and next-edit suggestions stay unlimited. Everything else draws AI Credits priced according to published per-model API rates. Pro subscribers receive an allotment equivalent to roughly $15 in value. Pro+ gets about $70 worth. Copilot Max pushes that to $200. Unused credits do not roll over. GitHub introduced spending limits, usage dashboards and model selection options to help users control costs. It also launched Copilot Max for those needing extra capacity. A GitHub spokesperson told The Register, “Usage-based billing is now in effect. Pricing for GitHub Copilot now reflects actual usage with spending limits, usage dashboards, and model selection available to help manage costs. We’re also introducing Copilot Max for users who need more capacity.”

But dashboards and limits have not calmed the storm. Recent discussions on X show developers sharing screenshots of rapid credit depletion. One reported 14 percent usage on the second day after months of 50 percent monthly consumption under the old model. Others described the pricing as “diabolical” and a “tax on the developers who need it most.” Some have already canceled subscriptions and migrated to direct API access through providers like OpenRouter or tools such as Cursor.

The backlash arrives at a delicate moment for Microsoft and GitHub. Copilot once stood as the flagship example of AI boosting developer productivity. Its rapid adoption helped normalize coding assistants across enterprises. Now the billing pivot risks eroding trust among the very power users who drove its growth. Enterprise and Business plans receive pooled credits per seat. They appear better positioned to absorb the change through centralized budgets and oversight. Individual developers and small teams feel the pain more acutely.

GitHub prepared users with preview reports based on April usage data. The company positioned these as directional signals rather than exact forecasts. It advised strategies like choosing lighter models for simple queries, breaking down large requests, and monitoring context size. Yet many forum posts suggest the gap between preview estimates and live consumption has proven wider than expected. One detailed Reddit analysis projected a monthly bill jumping from $38 to $847 for identical usage patterns. The poster called it a 22x markup and cited GitHub’s role as a high-margin middleman reselling model access.

And the complaints extend beyond price. Developers point to opaque context handling. Copilot often injects substantial workspace data without explicit user direction. Every token counts against the credit pool. This architecture decision now carries direct financial weight. “They control the input, you pay the output,” one analysis noted. Such mechanics turn routine coding sessions into exercises in token anxiety.

Alternatives have gained traction fast. Users mention routing requests through OpenRouter inside the same VS Code environment. Others point to local setups with LM Studio or entirely different platforms like Anthropic’s Claude or OpenAI’s offerings accessed directly. These paths often deliver comparable or superior models at lower effective cost once credits roll over or usage stays flexible. One user who switched after the change said the move restored predictability without sacrificing capability.

Microsoft has not yet released updated adoption figures or financial impact statements tied to the billing transition. The company maintains that the model delivers better long-term sustainability. It allows continued investment in more powerful agents and infrastructure. Still, the immediate reaction from the developer community suggests a potential subscriber contraction among individuals. Enterprise uptake may offset some losses. The coming weeks will reveal whether the shift stabilizes or accelerates defections.

TechCrunch captured the mood days before the switch went live. Its report quoted developers calling the token-based approach “what a joke.” The article noted the potential for significantly higher rates compared to the flat subscription many had grown accustomed to. TechCrunch highlighted how the golden age for smaller users appeared to be ending.

GitHub’s own documentation now directs users to new billing overviews and cost management guides. The FAQ addresses common questions around annual plan migrations, Actions minutes consumption for code reviews, and the decision to pause trials due to abuse concerns. It acknowledges short-term usage limits during the transition but promises greater reliability once the metering infrastructure fully activates. Whether those assurances satisfy the current wave of discontent remains uncertain.

One thing looks clear. The era of treating AI coding assistance as an inexpensive utility has closed. Developers must now treat it like any other cloud resource. Monitor consumption. Optimize prompts. Choose models deliberately. Some will adapt and find the alignment between cost and value worthwhile. Others have already voted with their wallets. The next chapter for Copilot will be written by how many stay and how the company responds to their feedback.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/iB6yjvQ