Google to Charge for Gemini Pro AI in App and Search Features

Google has announced plans to introduce a paid tier for its Gemini app that grants access to the more advanced Gemini Pro model, a move that signals the company’s intention to monetize its artificial intelligence offerings more aggressively. This development, first reported by Android Central, suggests users who currently enjoy free access to enhanced AI features may soon face subscription fees if they wish to continue using the higher-performance version of the model in both the dedicated Gemini mobile application and certain Google Search integrations.

The shift represents a significant change in strategy for Google, which has positioned Gemini as a central part of its consumer AI experience since the model’s public launch. Previously, the company offered Gemini Pro capabilities without charge to attract users and gather feedback while competing against rivals like OpenAI’s ChatGPT Plus and Anthropic’s Claude. Now, the plan appears to mirror the freemium approach taken by many AI companies, where basic functionality remains free but premium performance requires payment.

According to details shared in the report, Google intends to restrict the Gemini Pro model behind a paywall within the Gemini app itself. Users who want the full capabilities of this more sophisticated version, which offers improved reasoning, better context understanding, and more accurate responses across various tasks, will need to subscribe to a monthly plan. The exact pricing has not been officially confirmed, though speculation points toward alignment with existing Google One AI Premium tiers that already provide access to advanced Gemini features in other Google products.

This decision extends beyond the standalone app. The article from Android Central indicates that Google may also limit certain Gemini Pro-powered features in Google Search for non-paying users. Search has long served as the company’s flagship product, and integrating advanced AI directly into search results has been a major focus. Features such as more nuanced query understanding, comprehensive follow-up question handling, and detailed explanatory responses generated by Gemini could become exclusive to subscribers. This approach risks frustrating users who have grown accustomed to these enhancements appearing automatically in their search experience.

The timing of this announcement comes as Google faces increasing pressure to generate revenue from its substantial investments in AI infrastructure. Training and running large language models requires enormous computational resources, with costs that can quickly escalate into the millions for each major update or deployment at scale. By creating a clear distinction between free and paid tiers, Google aims to offset these expenses while still maintaining a broad user base through limited free access to a lighter version of the model, likely Gemini Nano or a restricted variant of Pro.

Industry observers have mixed reactions to the move. Some analysts argue that charging for premium AI access has become inevitable as the technology matures beyond experimental stages. Companies need sustainable business models to continue advancing their systems, and advertising revenue alone may not cover the specialized hardware and energy demands of frontier AI development. Others express concern that introducing paywalls too aggressively could slow adoption rates and give competitors an advantage in the race for user attention.

For individual users, the implications vary depending on how heavily they rely on AI assistance in daily tasks. Casual users who occasionally ask the Gemini app for quick explanations or simple creative help may find the free tier sufficient. However, power users who depend on the AI for research, writing assistance, coding support, or complex problem-solving will likely feel the impact most strongly. These users have come to expect consistent performance from the Pro model, and any reduction in capability could disrupt established workflows.

The Gemini app has gained considerable traction since its introduction, particularly after Google rebranded its earlier Bard chatbot and integrated it more deeply with other services like Gmail, Docs, and YouTube. The mobile application offers conversational interactions, image analysis, and personalized recommendations that many find valuable. Restricting the underlying model could diminish the overall experience, potentially leading some users to explore alternatives from Microsoft, Perplexity, or independent developers who continue offering strong free options.

Google’s approach differs somewhat from direct competitors. OpenAI provides GPT-4o access through ChatGPT Plus while maintaining a free GPT-4o mini tier. Anthropic offers Claude 3.5 Sonnet to paid subscribers but provides a more limited free experience. Google’s decision to potentially gate features within its core Search product marks a bolder step, given how central search remains to the company’s identity and revenue. The company must balance its desire for AI monetization against the risk of alienating the massive audience that uses Google Search daily without any subscription.

Technical differences between model versions help explain why Google believes users will pay for upgrades. Gemini Pro typically demonstrates superior performance on benchmarks measuring reasoning ability, factual accuracy, and creative output compared to lighter models. It handles longer context windows more effectively, maintains coherence across extended conversations, and produces more refined responses to complex prompts. For tasks requiring deep analysis or specialized knowledge, these improvements translate into noticeably better results that many professionals and enthusiasts value enough to justify a subscription.

The announcement also reflects broader trends in the AI industry toward tiered access models. As foundational models grow more expensive to operate, companies increasingly look for ways to distribute costs among users who derive the greatest benefit. This pattern appears across various sectors, from cloud computing to productivity software, where basic functionality is offered freely while advanced features command premium prices. Google has successfully applied similar strategies with products like Google One storage plans and Workspace business subscriptions.

Privacy considerations add another layer to the discussion. Users who opt for paid tiers may receive enhanced data protections or clearer controls over how their interactions train future models. Free tiers sometimes involve more aggressive data collection to improve the system, though Google maintains strict policies across all its AI products. The company has emphasized responsible development practices, including safeguards against harmful content and mechanisms for user feedback on model behavior.

Looking ahead, this pricing adjustment could influence how other technology companies structure their AI offerings. If Google’s experiment proves successful in converting free users to paid subscribers without significant backlash, competitors may accelerate their own monetization efforts. Conversely, if adoption of the paid tier remains low, the industry might reconsider the balance between free access and premium features to sustain user growth.

Developers and businesses that have built applications on top of Gemini through Google’s APIs face their own set of challenges. Many have assumed continued free or low-cost access to capable models when designing their products. Changes in availability or pricing could force costly adjustments or force them to pass increased expenses along to their customers. Google has typically provided advance notice for such transitions, but the pace of change in AI development often leaves little time for comprehensive adaptation.

Educational users represent another group that could feel the effects. Students, teachers, and researchers who have incorporated Gemini into learning activities may need to reconsider their approach if advanced features become paid-only. While Google offers special programs for educational institutions, individual users outside those arrangements might find themselves limited in their ability to use the AI for homework assistance, research projects, or creative assignments.

The competitive environment adds urgency to Google’s decisions. Microsoft has integrated Copilot across its product line with various pricing structures, while Apple prepares its own Apple Intelligence features with different access models. Meta continues offering open-source alternatives that appeal to users wary of subscription fees. In this crowded field, each company’s approach to balancing innovation costs with user accessibility will significantly impact market share over the coming years.

Google has built its reputation on providing free, high-quality services supported by advertising. Introducing direct consumer payments for core AI capabilities requires careful communication to avoid perceptions of reduced generosity. The company will likely emphasize the additional value provided by paid tiers, such as priority access during peak times, faster response speeds, and exclusive features not available in the free version. Early testing of these paid experiences will play a crucial role in determining the final implementation details.

As the rollout progresses, user feedback will guide refinements to the pricing structure and feature distribution. Google has demonstrated willingness to adjust course based on reception, as seen with previous product launches. The success of this paid Gemini Pro model may determine not only the financial viability of the company’s AI initiatives but also set expectations for what users consider reasonable costs for advanced artificial intelligence assistance in their daily digital interactions.

This evolution in Google’s AI strategy reflects the maturation of consumer-facing artificial intelligence from novel experimentation to established utility. What began as free access to showcase technological prowess has transformed into a product category with real operational costs and revenue potential. How effectively Google manages this transition while preserving user goodwill will influence the trajectory of AI adoption across its vast array of services and applications. The coming months will reveal whether users embrace paid AI assistance or resist the shift away from previously free capabilities.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/UNJxF91

Zero-Click Spyware Now Hides in Plain Sight Inside Targeted Online Ads

Journalists at Al Jazeera opened apps. They browsed news sites. Nothing seemed unusual. Yet at least 45 of their devices became compromised. No taps. No suspicious links. Simply the act of loading a page or app delivered sophisticated mercenary malware.

This marks the first documented case of zero-click spyware funneled through the digital advertising system. Researchers at the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab named the operation AdFection. Their report, released Thursday, exposes how an Israeli firm turned routine ad auctions into a stealth pipeline for state-grade surveillance tools.

The findings send ripples across newsrooms, governments and the ad industry. Ordinary digital ads, the ones funding much of the internet, now carry hidden risks. And the targets? Media organizations top the list.

Discover-Tech, the company at the center, presented itself as a standard advertising player. It bid on billions of ad impressions. Its platform, called Controlium, let partners profile users at massive scale then deliver custom code to specific devices. The code connected targets to servers run by Candiru, the Israeli spyware maker now operating as Integrity Labs. Once connected, exploits installed full device compromise. Data exfiltration followed. All without any visible sign.

From Ad Impression to Full Infection

The process unfolded in seconds. An ad slot appeared on a website or in an app. Discover-Tech won the auction. The ad rendered. For most users, it showed a benign creative. For selected targets, JavaScript in the ad beaconed back with identifiers – mobile ad ID, IP address, browser fingerprint. Servers checked the profile against a watch list.

If matched, the response changed. An invisible 1×1 pixel frame loaded. It pointed to a Candiru validator. The validator confirmed the device. Then came the exploit server. Code executed. Malware installed. Command-and-control traffic began within minutes. Victims saw nothing.

Citizen Lab traced this exact sequence in network logs from Al Jazeera. The infections hit in 2024 and 2025. A recovered Windows DLL matched a newer version of Candiru’s known implant, first exposed years earlier. The lab linked the spyware delivery to Discover-Tech ads with high confidence.

Bill Marczak, senior researcher at Citizen Lab, explained the simplicity. “AdFection allows operators to automatically hack specific individuals with mercenary spyware as they use apps or browse the internet.” He added that victims “would not see anything amiss. In fact, they might not even see any ad at all.”

Wolfie Christl, another senior researcher on the project, called the implications stark. “The risk of having your device infected with spyware simply by using a website or app that displays ads is a nightmare scenario.”

But the operation extended far beyond one outlet. Analysis of nearly four billion bidding records from Discover-Tech’s own exposed data showed ads placed across more than 120,000 websites and 70,000 mobile apps between March and June 2026 alone. Those impressions reached networks tied to NATO, the European Parliament, U.S. Department of Defense sites, the International Atomic Energy Agency and critical infrastructure operators.

Parallel research from ad security firm Confiant, published the same day, reinforced the scale. Its monitoring detected roughly 10 million Discover-Tech impressions daily across 228 countries. The firm’s investigation aligned closely with Citizen Lab’s technical evidence. (WIRED covered both reports in detail.)

Candiru wasn’t alone. Discover-Tech’s platform also connected to Bindecy, another Israeli firm known for zero-click mobile exploits, and Intelos, a surveillance intelligence outfit. Corporate records showed overlapping ownership in some cases. Login credentials for accounts belonging to employees of these spyware vendors leaked from Discover-Tech’s own targeting console. Anyone could access them for a time.

The company bid aggressively yet recorded virtually no legitimate sales. Its primary business, researchers concluded, centered on facilitating espionage. Google listed Discover-Tech as an approved vendor since 2020. So did IAB Europe. Both removed the firm after being shown the evidence.

Yet the ad ecosystem’s design makes such abuse hard to stop. Real-time bidding happens in milliseconds. Ad creatives can include JavaScript that loads additional payloads. Targeting data flows freely between demand-side platforms, supply-side platforms and publishers. Fingerprinting happens constantly. Deanonymization becomes straightforward when one company controls the bidding logic.

News organizations face particular danger. Journalists interact with sources across borders. Their devices hold sensitive contacts, documents and communications. Mercenary spyware vendors sell access to governments seeking to monitor press freedom. Al Jazeera’s experience serves as the concrete proof. “This investigation should serve as a clear warning signal to news organizations around the world that they may be being actively targeted via this new threat,” the Citizen Lab team wrote.

Defenses remain limited. Standard antivirus rarely catches these implants. The attacks bypass user interaction entirely. Forensic tools can detect them after the fact, but prevention demands blocking ads at the network or browser level. Many security experts now recommend ad blockers as essential, not optional.

The report also highlights how advertising infrastructure has quietly become dual-use technology. What began as a system to deliver relevant commercials now doubles as reconnaissance and infection infrastructure. Millions of devices were directed to Candiru servers for profiling even if only a fraction received the full exploit.

Regulators and platforms face pressure to respond. Ad exchanges must improve scanning of JavaScript in creatives. Better vetting of demand-side partners is needed. Yet the financial incentives pull in the opposite direction. Billions flow through these auctions daily. Speed trumps security in most decisions.

Citizen Lab stopped short of naming specific government customers. Attribution at that level remains challenging. Still, the infrastructure ties point to state interest. Candiru has a documented history of selling to governments. The U.S. blacklisted the firm in 2021.

Similar techniques surfaced in rumors and partial reports before. A 2023 Haaretz story hinted at Israeli firms using ads for spyware delivery. Today’s evidence makes those claims concrete. The technical logs, domain overlaps, recovered malware and bidding data create a chain few can dismiss.

So what comes next? More scrutiny of adtech vendors with unusual bidding patterns. Greater transparency requirements for who buys what inventory. And wider adoption of ad blocking among those at risk – journalists, activists, government employees.

The internet runs on ads. That fact just became a security liability on a new scale. Organizations can no longer treat ad delivery as benign background noise. The delivery mechanism for tomorrow’s headlines may also carry the exploit that steals them.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/Fsqd9r2

Polymarket CEO Challenges Crypto Speculators: Why Prediction Markets May Outperform Volatile Token Bets

Shayne Coplan stood before a crowd of crypto enthusiasts at TOKEN2049 in Singapore this month. The Polymarket chief executive delivered a message few wanted to hear. Chasing tokens that might deliver 100-fold gains amounts to little more than a game of hot potato fueled by irrational exuberance.

“People think they’re buying something, it’s worthless, but they’re buying it,” Coplan said, according to a report in Cointelegraph. “If it can go to 100X, they want to sell it before it goes back to zero.” Short. Direct. And backed by numbers that make his case hard to dismiss.

But anyone who has watched crypto markets over the past few years recognizes the pattern. Prices surge on narrative and momentum. Then they collapse just as fast. Coplan argues that prediction markets offer a different path. One grounded in probability, information, and outcomes that resolve with clear yes or no answers. No endless bag-holding. No reliance on the next buyer to show up and take the tokens off your hands.

His platform’s performance lends weight to the argument. Polymarket recorded $1.21 billion in trading volume during the week leading into the October 7 conference. It generated $26 million in fees over those seven days and $103 million across the prior 30 days. Those figures come from Crypto Briefing. For context, the entire 2024 U.S. presidential election cycle produced roughly $3 billion in volume on the platform. This year the activity has accelerated well beyond politics.

Crypto investors face a market dominated by speculation. Altcoins promise life-changing returns yet often deliver losses when sentiment shifts. Prediction contracts, by contrast, tie payouts to verifiable events. Will Bitcoin rise 20 percent in the next month? Traders can take a position based on analysis rather than pure hope. Early bets on Bitcoin climbing from $60,000 levels have already paid off as the asset trades near $85,000. The Motley Fool explored this dynamic in its coverage of Coplan’s remarks.

And the edge goes further. Spot crypto tends to reward participants only during sustained bull runs. Prediction markets allow profits in both directions. Correctly forecast a decline and the contracts deliver. That flexibility appeals to traders tired of one-way momentum plays. Coplan highlighted this contrast at the Singapore event, positioning his platform as a venue for more measured, information-driven decisions.

Yet Polymarket itself sits at an inflection point. The company has grown from a 2020 startup into a major force without launching a native token. Coplan recently teased an “onchain asset with real programmable utility” during his fireside chat with Balaji Srinivasan. He stopped short of announcing any launch, timeline, or airdrop mechanics. Crypto.news reported the comments sparked immediate speculation across social channels. Traders wondered whether past activity on the platform might qualify users for future rewards.

Valuation talks have intensified alongside the token chatter. The firm commanded roughly $9 billion last year. By April it reached $15 billion, with discussions exceeding $20 billion by August. Intercontinental Exchange, parent of the New York Stock Exchange, stands as its largest backer after committing up to $2 billion. Bloomberg noted the strategic tie-up in a mid-October newsletter, highlighting Polymarket’s consideration of both equity paths and potential token issuance.

Regulatory progress has helped. Polymarket US operates through QCX, a CFTC-designated contract market approved in July 2025. That structure opened the door to American users after earlier setbacks. The platform captured about 85 percent of online election wagers during the 2024 cycle. Its influence now stretches into the 2026 midterms.

More than $220 million has already been wagered on congressional races this year. The total dwarfs the $92 million seen across the entire 2024 congressional cycle. Reuters detailed the surge in a report published October 14. Focus has narrowed on key contests. The Texas Senate race between Democrat James Talarico and Republican Ken Paxton draws particular attention. Markets in Maine, Michigan, and South Carolina follow close behind.

Trading behavior has evolved too. In 2024 most bets targeted outright winners. This cycle, 58 percent of congressional markets center on victory margins. Only 16 percent focus solely on who prevails. The shift reflects greater sophistication among participants. They seek precision rather than binary outcomes. Data from the Anti-Corruption Data Collective, cited by Reuters, shows concentration as well. The top 1 percent of wallets on Polymarket’s international platform account for 70 percent of congressional betting volume.

Coplan envisions prediction markets expanding far beyond elections and crypto prices. He described the act of assigning a price to previously unpriced risks as transformative. “The moment you put a price on a question or a risk that had no price, that price becomes a reference point for much larger financial transactions,” he told the TOKEN2049 audience, per coverage in the Seoul Economic Daily. Such prices could inform over-the-counter deals, block trades, and broader risk management.

The platform already supports markets on sports, weather, and macroeconomic events. Users buy YES or NO contracts that resolve at $1 or $0. A contract trading at 32 cents implies a 32 percent probability. Accurate forecasters profit. Those who misjudge lose their stake. The mechanism creates incentives for research and careful assessment. It stands in sharp contrast to token launches where narratives often outpace fundamentals.

Critics still raise concerns. Some view prediction markets as thinly veiled gambling. New York Attorney General Letitia James has pursued legal action against aspects of Polymarket’s operations. South Korea blocked access over similar worries. Yet volume continues to climb. DefiLlama data shows Polymarket trailing only Kalshi in certain weekly tallies. Combined activity across major platforms hit records in recent months.

Founders like Coplan see this as validation. He launched Polymarket at age 21. By late 2025 he had become a billionaire on paper following heavy investment inflows. His background includes early internships and a computer science degree from New York University. The company now employs the infrastructure to handle billions in monthly flows while navigating regulatory hurdles.

So what does this mean for crypto investors? Coplan’s thesis challenges the dominant mindset. Instead of hunting the next moonshot, participants might allocate capital to contracts with defined time horizons and measurable probabilities. A well-researched view on Federal Reserve policy or corporate earnings can translate into steady gains. No need to wait for retail FOMO to push valuations higher.

Of course, risks remain. Manipulation attempts surface in smaller markets. Liquidity varies. Resolution disputes occasionally arise. Still, the information aggregation function appears powerful. Prices on Polymarket often proved more accurate than traditional polls in 2024. That track record draws institutional interest and retail capital alike.

Recent midterm activity underscores the trend. Bettors aren’t simply expressing opinions. They put money behind forecasts that update in real time. The $220 million figure from Reuters reflects genuine conviction. It also signals that prediction platforms have moved beyond niche status. They now influence how observers gauge political and economic probabilities.

Coplan’s comments at TOKEN2049 weren’t mere marketing. They reflected a strategic pivot. Polymarket wants users who value edge through analysis over those chasing hype cycles. The platform’s fee generation demonstrates that such users exist in growing numbers. Over $100 million in 30-day revenue changes the conversation from experimental curiosity to sustainable business.

Token speculation around Polymarket itself adds another layer. Should the company launch an asset with genuine utility, it could tie rewards to accurate forecasting or liquidity provision. Coplan has avoided specifics. That silence fuels debate on X and in crypto circles. Yet the core business case doesn’t depend on a token. The prediction market model stands on its own merits.

Investors face a choice. They can continue the hot potato routine. Or they can explore venues where outcomes rest on observable facts rather than narrative momentum. Coplan bets the latter group will expand. Early evidence from volume and fee data suggests he may be correct. The coming months will test whether more capital follows the logic he laid out in Singapore.

Prediction markets won’t replace spot crypto trading. They offer a complementary tool. One that rewards precision and punishes guesswork. For an industry long criticized for excess speculation, that distinction carries weight. Coplan has drawn the line clearly. The data now decides who crosses it.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/W5uvaqN

Building to Sell: How to Factor Digital Marketing into Your Online Store Design

When you start planning a new business venture, it’s easy to get caught up in the visual details. You might spend hours agonizing over color palettes, logo placement, and checkout button shapes. While a beautiful design certainly matters, a great-looking website won’t generate revenue if nobody can find it. Design and digital marketing aren’t separate phases of a project; they need to be deeply intertwined from day one. If you wait until after the site goes live to think about search engine optimization or ad conversions, you’ll end up retrofitting solutions that slow down your site and frustrate your customers.

To truly succeed, treat marketing as a foundational element of your build. Every layout choice and technical decision should directly support how you plan to attract and convert traffic. Whether you’re selling custom apparel through an online store or launching a boutique lifestyle brand, your digital storefront must be optimized to capture attention and drive sales immediately. Here’s how to implement digital marketing directly into your ecommerce design.

Structure Your Site for Search Engines

Search engine optimization is the most cost-effective way to drive long-term traffic, but it requires a solid structural foundation. If your site architecture is a mess, search engine crawlers won’t understand what you sell, and your pages won’t rank.

Before building, map out a logical hierarchy for categories and products. Your URL structure should be clean and descriptive. Instead of a messy string of numbers, a product page URL should read clearly, telling both the user and the search engine exactly what the page contains. Your design must accommodate optimized meta titles, descriptions, and header tags. Make sure your product templates include space for detailed, keyword-rich text. A layout that only allows for two sentences of text might look minimalist, but it gives search engines very little context to index.

Design Landing Pages Built for Paid Traffic

When you run paid social media ads or search campaigns, sending that expensive traffic straight to your homepage is a quick way to waste your budget. Your homepage is a general directory. Paid traffic needs a highly specific destination that matches the promise made in the ad.

Your store design needs flexible landing page templates that allow you to highlight specific product collections or seasonal promotions. These pages should feature strong hero banners, clear value propositions, and an immediate call to action. Remove unnecessary navigation links on these specific pages to keep the shopper focused on the product you want them to buy. When your design allows your marketing team to spin up targeted, distraction-free landing pages in minutes, your ad conversion rates will naturally improve.

Prioritize Speed and Mobile Performance

Digital marketing relies on capturing short attention spans. If your latest email campaign sends a thousand eager shoppers to your store, but the page takes six seconds to load, many will simply leave. Slow load times kill ad performance and ruin your organic search rankings.

Your design choices directly impact page speed. Avoid uploading uncompressed image files or relying on clunky background videos that drag down performance. Work with clean code and choose a responsive design that automatically adapts to any screen size. Mobile shopping makes up a huge percentage of all ecommerce traffic. If your mobile layout forces users to pinch and zoom just to read a description or makes it difficult to tap checkout, your bounce rate will soar. A fast, mobile-first design ensures you don’t waste the traffic your marketing efforts work so hard to generate.

Build the Infrastructure for Data Tracking

You can’t run a successful digital marketing campaign if you don’t know where your sales are coming from. To optimize your ads and understand customer behavior, you need accurate data. This means your store design must seamlessly integrate with tracking pixels and analytics platforms.

Make sure your platform allows for easy installation of tracking codes without breaking the site’s functionality. You need to track exactly when a customer views a product, adds an item to their cart, initiates checkout, and completes a purchase. If your checkout flow spans multiple confusing domains or uses outdated redirects, tracking that customer journey becomes incredibly difficult. A clean, linear checkout design ensures your marketing tags fire correctly, giving you the accurate data you need to calculate your return on investment.

Seamlessly Integrate Lead Capture

Not every visitor is ready to buy the first time they land on your site. Capturing their email address or phone number allows you to market to them later, turning a passing visitor into a long-term customer. However, clunky pop-ups that appear the millisecond a page loads usually just annoy people.

Your design should include natural, unobtrusive lead capture points. Offer a modest discount code or free shipping in exchange for joining your newsletter, but time the pop-up to appear only after the user scrolls down the page or shows intent to leave. You should also include static email signup forms in your site’s footer and during checkout. Integrating these capture points smoothly into the overall aesthetic builds your marketing list without ruining the browsing experience.

Building a successful ecommerce presence takes more than just uploading product photos and picking a nice font. By incorporating search engine optimization, page speed, targeted landing pages, data tracking, and lead capture into the initial design phase, you create a powerful sales machine. Your store becomes an active participant in your marketing strategy, turning the traffic you generate into reliable, consistent revenue.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/pB4C5eA

Google Hands Frontier AI Tools to 200 European Scientists in Bid to Close Compute Gap

BRUSSELS — Google DeepMind and Google Cloud just handed a select group of European researchers the keys to some of the tech giant’s most powerful artificial intelligence systems. The move comes with $3 million in compute credits. It targets up to 200 scientists chosen by the European Commission.

The announcement landed Tuesday at an AI summit in Dublin. It aligns with the EU’s push to boost homegrown scientific work through artificial intelligence. But it also highlights a persistent sore point: many researchers on the continent lack the massive processing power needed to run the latest models.

Google’s official blog post lays out the details. The company will grant direct access to frontier models. These include AlphaFold 3 for protein structures. WeatherNext handles advanced forecasting. AlphaGenome targets DNA analysis. AlphaEvolve and AlphaEarth Foundations round out the list.

Maureen Costello, vice president for the UK, Ireland and Sub-Saharan Africa at Google Cloud, authored the post. She frames the pledge as direct support for the European Union’s AI for Science agenda. The tools flow through the Resource for AI Science in Europe, or RAISE. That program exists to shrink the compute divide that sometimes holds back continental teams.

Short and simple. Researchers get both the models and the cloud credits to run them. Split evenly, the money equals roughly $15,000 per person. Not a fortune in AI terms. Enough, though, to test ideas that would otherwise stall.

Yet the timing carries weight. Europe has poured resources into its own AI infrastructure. The Horizon Europe program commits €600 million to expand computational access for scientists and startups. It promises dedicated time on AI Gigafactories. Annual investments in AI research are set to double past €3 billion. Data curation efforts aim to fill gaps that models need to thrive.

Unite.AI reported on these parallel EU steps. They show Brussels wants self-reliance. Google’s offer doesn’t replace that. It supplements it. The American company positions itself as a partner. Critics might see dependence. Proponents argue speed matters more than origin when breakthroughs hang in the balance.

Consider AlphaFold. Earlier versions already transformed biology. Nearly 190,000 UK researchers alone tapped similar tools to probe crop resilience, antimicrobial resistance and other puzzles. The new AlphaFold 3 promises even sharper predictions of molecular interactions. Drug discovery could accelerate. So could materials science.

WeatherNext targets another urgent domain. Extreme weather events grow more frequent. Accurate, rapid forecasts save lives and money. European meteorologists armed with these systems might spot patterns hidden from traditional models. The same logic applies to genomics and earth systems modeling.

But. Access remains selective. The Commission picks the winners. Not Google. That buffer aims to keep choices merit-based and free of commercial bias. Still, it funnels some of the world’s most advanced proprietary technology through a public process. The implications stretch beyond any single grant.

Reuters noted the announcement coincides with fresh calls for tighter AI oversight. Its coverage points to a letter signed by roughly 400 researchers from 34 countries, including Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio. They want an international body to set containment standards and require reporting of security incidents involving advanced models.

The tension is real. Industry offers tools that promise faster science. Regulators and ethicists worry about unchecked power, data privacy and unintended consequences. Europe feels this pull acutely. It champions both innovation and strict rules. The AI Act stands as testament.

Google’s move echoes its recent UK partnership. There, DeepMind pledged priority access to similar models for British scientists. It even plans an automated laboratory focused on materials science. The European pledge broadens the geographic reach. It signals the company sees strategic value in embedding its technology across the EU’s research fabric.

Compute remains the bottleneck. Frontier models demand graphics processing units by the thousands. Training runs cost millions. Inference, while cheaper, still scales poorly for ambitious simulations. The $3 million helps. It won’t level the field against labs backed by hyperscalers or sovereign funds. It buys time. It buys experiments.

And results could come quickly. Past AI applications in science delivered surprises. Protein folding went from decades-long challenges to near-instant predictions. Similar leaps in climate modeling or genetic interpretation aren’t fantasy. They require the right data, the right questions and enough cycles to iterate.

European science carries a proud history. From quantum mechanics to the World Wide Web, the continent shaped modern understanding. Yet in the current AI wave, it sometimes appears a step behind the U.S. and China. Initiatives like RAISE, combined with private offers, seek to change that equation.

Success depends on execution. Selected teams must integrate these tools into existing workflows. They need training. They need to avoid the trap of treating AI as a black box. Transparency in how models reach conclusions will matter for peer review and regulatory acceptance.

Google, for its part, gains goodwill. It collects indirect feedback on model performance in diverse scientific settings. It strengthens ties with policymakers. And it demonstrates that its technology serves public goals — a useful narrative as scrutiny intensifies.

The broader picture includes competitors. NVIDIA recently highlighted 35 new AI supercomputers across Europe. Those systems deliver exaflops of performance for climate science, healthcare and clean energy. They run on different software stacks. Yet the hardware race and the model race intersect. Researchers will mix and match where they can.

So the Google pledge fits into a mosaic. Public money builds infrastructure. Private firms supply specialized models. Scientists stand in the middle, hoping the combination yields discoveries that justify the investment.

Whether $3 million and selective access prove transformative remains to be seen. Early wins in weather prediction or molecular design could quiet skeptics. Persistent gaps in compute or data quality could reinforce them. Either way, the announcement marks another concrete step in AI’s migration from tech labs into the heart of European science.

One thing is clear. The tools are here. The researchers are coming. The experiments will follow. Outcomes will shape not just publications but policy, industry and perhaps even climate resilience across the continent.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/ya1cWUf

Linus Torvalds Turns to AI to Untangle Obscure Kernel Code, Surfaces Bugs Lurking Since 2013

Linus Torvalds has long urged developers to reach for modern tools when code grows too tangled to follow. This past weekend he took his own advice. In a Git tag labeled assoc-array-fixes, the Linux creator described using large language model tools to clarify a patch he found impenetrable. The result? Confirmation of one reported defect and the discovery of three more. All four trace back to the library’s original 2013 introduction.

“Nils Ollrogge reported a bug in the assoc_array library and had a patch to fix it too, but that code was too obscure for me to follow, so I did what I preach: use modern LLM tools to help make sense of it all,” Torvalds wrote in the tag message. Phoronix first reported the development on October 12, 2026.

The work produced an LLM-assisted branch. It splits several larger, harder-to-read functions into smaller pieces. Readability drove the changes. Clarity came first. Then a user-space test harness ran against the revised code. It verified Ollrogge’s bug. And it exposed three additional problems that had persisted undetected for over a decade.

The assoc_array library and its hidden complexity

Developers rely on assoc_array for efficient lookups in the kernel. The generic associative array stores objects referenced by index keys of varying lengths. It supports iteration, insertion, deletion and destruction without forcing objects to embed linkage data. That design choice lets one object sit in multiple arrays at once. Clever. But the implementation packs subtlety into every layer.

Internally the structure builds a tree of 16-pointer nodes. Each level indexes on nibbles drawn from the key, much like a radix tree. Shortcuts prune paths through chains of single-occupancy nodes. Nodes even stash leaf pointers in spare slots to avoid extra allocations until a node fills. The official kernel documentation details these mechanics. The code that realizes them grew dense. Functions ballooned. Logic twisted across multiple levels of indirection. Torvalds, who maintains final say on what enters the kernel, hit a wall.

Ollrogge’s report arrived with a proposed fix. The patch alone proved insufficient. Without clear understanding of the surrounding functions, Torvalds could not judge its correctness or side effects. So he turned to LLM assistance. The models helped break apart the monolithic routines. Smaller functions emerged. Each handled a tighter scope. The refactored code became something a human could trace step by step.

But Torvalds did not stop at refactoring. He demanded verification. A test harness compiled to run in user space exercised the library outside the kernel’s constraints. That choice mattered. It allowed rapid iteration without reboot cycles or risk of system instability. The harness confirmed the original bug. Then it kept going. Three more defects surfaced. Each dated to the very first commit that brought assoc_array into the kernel in 2013.

Kernel observers noted the timing. The tag appeared alongside delayed release candidate work for Linux 7.3. Torvalds rarely hosts topic branches in his personal tree. Their presence signals active experimentation. The assoc-array-fixes tag points to patches not yet merged into mainline. They will likely head to the 7.4 merge window once reviewed further. NeoTeo covered the same events on October 13, 2026, confirming the patches remain outside master as of that date.

This episode follows days after another AI-assisted effort from Torvalds. He employed Anthropic’s Claude Code to draft patches and a test program aimed at tripling small-read throughput in the page cache. That work carries the branch name noref-filemap-read-with-llm. The suffix itself acknowledges the tool. Torvalds has grown more open about these experiments. He promotes LLMs as aids for comprehension, not replacements for human judgment.

Community reaction on X mixed appreciation with caution. One developer highlighted the user-space harness as the real win. “The part that matters,” they posted. Others saw validation for applying AI to legacy codebases. “Use it to understand complicated legacy code, make the logic easier to follow and build tests around it,” another wrote. Finding bugs dormant since 2013 underscored the value. But questions remain about how widely such methods will scale inside the strict review culture of kernel development.

The assoc_array fixes illustrate a practical pattern. LLMs excel at explaining dense logic. They can suggest decompositions that humans might overlook under time pressure. Yet the final authority stays with maintainers. Torvalds ran the tests himself. He evaluated the output. The models suggested. He decided. That sequence matters. It keeps accountability intact even as tools grow more capable.

Kernel history shows similar libraries accumulate complexity over time. What begins as elegant abstraction gains edge cases, performance tweaks and architecture-specific paths. The 2013 commit planted the seed. Subsequent patches layered on top. By 2026 the functions had become opaque to even their most experienced reader. Torvalds’ action may encourage others to revisit long-ignored corners of the codebase with fresh analytical help.

Whether these specific fixes alter performance or memory behavior remains unstated in the tag. The emphasis stayed on correctness and readability. Four bugs fixed. Code easier to audit. A test harness now exists for future validation. Small steps. But in a project measured in decades, removing defects from foundational libraries carries weight.

Torvalds continues to speak publicly about AI’s role. His experiments signal acceptance at the highest level of Linux maintenance. Other maintainers watch closely. Some already experiment with similar assistants for their subsystems. The assoc-array case offers a concrete template: identify impenetrable code, apply LLM to restructure for clarity, test exhaustively in user space, then integrate only after human review.

The patches sit ready. The kernel community will examine them in coming weeks. If accepted, they will ship in a future release. And the next time an obscure bug report lands, developers may remember how the project’s leader responded. He reached for the tools he had preached. The code grew clearer. Latent errors finally saw daylight. Progress, one clarified function at a time.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/zvX6gQ3

Agentic AI Exposes Data Debt as Critical Operational Risk: Time for Governance Overhaul

Agentic AI systems now operate with a degree of independence that exposes weaknesses hidden inside corporate data environments for years. Where human teams once reviewed outputs, caught inconsistencies, and applied judgment before any action took place, autonomous agents move directly from retrieval to decision to execution. The result is that accumulated data debt, long tolerated as a background cost of doing business, has transformed into immediate operational risk capable of triggering financial loss, compliance violations, or reputational damage at machine speed.

Data debt appears in many forms across large organizations. Metric definitions drift between departments. Customer records contain conflicting addresses or status codes. Policy documents sit in outdated repositories while newer versions circulate in emails or shared drives. Ownership of critical data assets remains unclear, so no single team feels accountable when problems surface. For a decade or more, these issues stayed manageable because people served as the final filter. Analysts noticed anomalies, managers asked clarifying questions, and governance committees met periodically to resolve disputes. That buffer has begun to disappear.

When an agentic system receives a request to optimize working capital, for example, it may pull data from the ERP, the CRM, a data lake, and several external market feeds. If those sources define “current liabilities” differently, the agent will still choose a path and act on it, perhaps by initiating vendor payments, adjusting inventory orders, or triggering treasury transfers. The absence of a human pause means errors compound before anyone notices. A single misrouted instruction can affect cash positions, supplier relationships, or regulatory reports within minutes.

Chief data officers now confront what amounts to an action-readiness gap rather than a pure artificial intelligence challenge. Traditional data quality programs that focus on accuracy, completeness, and timeliness remain necessary, yet they fall short when agents require explicit instructions about permissible uses, escalation paths, and conditions under which actions must halt. Without those layered controls, even high-quality data can produce harmful outcomes once placed inside an autonomous loop.

Consider a common scenario in financial services. An agent tasked with customer onboarding might retrieve identity data from multiple legacy systems that use different matching rules. One system flags an address change as high risk; another treats it as routine. A human compliance officer would reconcile the discrepancy and document the rationale. An agent without clear decision boundaries might approve the account, expose the bank to fraud, or reject a legitimate client and invite regulatory scrutiny. The data itself may be factually correct in each silo, but the lack of unified governance turns it into a liability.

Similar patterns appear in supply chain operations, healthcare record management, and human resources. Agents that schedule maintenance, adjust pricing, or route patient referrals depend on consistent definitions of terms such as “critical,” “eligible,” or “approved.” When those definitions exist only in tribal knowledge or conflicting policy documents, the systems improvise. The improvisation may look logical to the model but violate contractual terms, safety standards, or internal controls that were never translated into machine-readable rules.

The shift from passive analytics to active agents therefore demands a corresponding evolution in data governance. Organizations must move beyond scoring data sets for quality and begin certifying them for autonomous consumption. This involves creating explicit usage policies that specify which agents may access which domains, under what conditions, and with what override capabilities. It also requires mapping data ownership at a granular level so that accountability follows every automated action back to a responsible individual or team.

Some companies have started building what amount to digital contracts for data. These contracts record not only the source and freshness of a record but also the business rules that govern its application, the approval workflows that authorize changes, and the kill switches that can suspend downstream processes if anomalies appear. When an agent queries a certified data product, it receives both the value and the accompanying policy envelope. If the policy envelope contains contradictions or expired approvals, the agent is programmed to stop and escalate rather than proceed.

Implementing this level of control at enterprise scale presents real difficulties. Many legacy systems were built before anyone imagined autonomous digital workers. Their interfaces lack the metadata layers needed to convey intent or constraint. Integration layers that once served simple reporting needs now must support real-time policy enforcement and audit trails that survive across hybrid cloud environments. The technical work is substantial, yet the cultural and organizational changes may prove even harder.

Data teams accustomed to operating as service providers must now act as risk partners to every line of business that plans to deploy agents. They need to participate in product design sessions, not merely receive requirements after the fact. Business leaders must accept that data readiness will constrain their automation ambitions until foundational issues are resolved. This mutual accountability rarely existed when the primary output of data initiatives was a dashboard or a monthly report.

Executives who treat agentic AI as simply the next wave of productivity tools risk repeating mistakes made during earlier digital transformations. Many organizations rushed to adopt cloud analytics platforms without first rationalizing their master data or establishing clear ownership. The platforms delivered faster queries, yet underlying inconsistencies persisted and sometimes grew worse. With agents, the margin for such tolerance shrinks dramatically because the systems act rather than inform.

Forward-looking CDOs are therefore reframing their roadmaps around three core capabilities. First, they focus on making data not only clean but also interpretable by machines with embedded context and provenance. Second, they establish governance that travels with the data, so policies remain attached regardless of where an agent routes the information. Third, they design visible control surfaces that allow humans to monitor, pause, or redirect autonomous processes before small errors cascade into major incidents.

One global manufacturer recently completed an audit of its product master data ahead of deploying agents for demand planning and procurement. The audit revealed that more than 40 percent of active SKUs carried conflicting attributes between the ERP and the product lifecycle management system. Rather than simply correcting the records, the company created a reconciliation service that agents must query before taking action. The service returns both the best available data and a confidence score tied to governance metadata. If the score falls below a threshold, the agent must request human review. This approach slowed initial automation but prevented widespread ordering errors that could have disrupted supplier contracts worth hundreds of millions.

In parallel, the same manufacturer introduced machine-readable policy documents linked to every major data domain. These documents specify, for instance, that inventory adjustments above a certain value require finance approval and cannot be executed on weekends when control teams are offline. Agents attempting to violate those rules receive a structured refusal rather than an opportunity to find workarounds. The policy layer effectively restores some of the human buffer while preserving speed for routine tasks.

The transition also raises questions about liability and regulatory expectations. Auditors and regulators increasingly ask whether organizations can demonstrate that automated decisions rest on governed data and approved processes. Simply showing that source systems are accurate is no longer enough. Leaders must prove that the entire chain from data ingestion to action includes controls that prevent foreseeable harm. This standard mirrors concepts already established in areas such as model risk management, yet it now applies to a far broader set of systems.

Legal teams have begun drafting clauses that address data debt in contracts with AI vendors. These clauses require suppliers to disclose how their agents handle inconsistent inputs and to maintain audit logs that trace every decision back to specific data assets and policy versions. Procurement organizations that once focused on cost and functionality now treat governance readiness as a non-negotiable selection criterion.

None of these measures eliminate data debt overnight. Decades of accumulated inconsistency cannot be resolved with a single project or platform. Instead, organizations are adopting incremental strategies that prioritize the data domains most likely to be consumed by agents in the near term. Finance, customer master, product, and compliance data typically rise to the top of the list because they sit at the center of high-value autonomous workflows.

Progress requires sustained investment and visible executive support. Boards that once approved data initiatives based on promised efficiency gains must now also understand the downside risks of moving too quickly. The conversation shifts from “how fast can we automate” to “how safely can we automate given our current data foundation.”

The arrival of agentic systems therefore serves as a forcing function for long-deferred cleanup work. Companies that treat the moment as an opportunity to modernize their information backbone will gain a lasting advantage. Those that attempt to paper over existing problems with additional layers of AI risk amplifying the very issues they hope to escape.

Success depends on recognizing that data readiness for autonomous action rests on more than quality scores or governance committees. It requires clear, enforceable rules that travel with the data, ownership models that scale to machine speed, and control mechanisms that allow human intervention without destroying the benefits of automation. Only when those elements align can organizations confidently deploy agents across critical processes without turning yesterday’s data debt into tomorrow’s operational crisis.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/t4MpfkQ