OpenAI Set to More Than Double the Price of ChatGPT Plus

OpenAI is preparing to start raising the price of ChatGPT Plus, with yearly increases reportedly bringing the price to $44 per month in five years.

OpenAI is the world’s leading AI firm, but the company is spending money at an extraordinary rate. As the company transitions from a nonprofit to a for-profit company, the pressure is on to become profitable and justify the billions of dollars being spent to develop AI models.

Catch our chat on OpenAI hiking the ChatGPT Plus price!

 

OpenAI is in the midst of a new round of funding, with the goal of raising “several billion dollars.” According to The New York Times, as part of its fundraising, OpenAI is sharing documents that detail its plans to achieve profitability.

Key to those plans is charging its 10 million paid ChatGPT users more per month. A ChatGPT Plus subscription currently costs $20 per month, but OpenAI plans to raise that by $2 by the end of 2024. Over the next five years, the company will continue to raise the subscription’s price until it reaches the target $44 per month.

While expensive, the price is certainly much less than the $2,000 per month ideas that were being floated within the company in early September.

AI Still Has a Value Proposition Problem

Ultimately, OpenAI’s plans to raise prices illustrates the problem companies are still trying to address: demonstrating that AI is enough of a game-changer to be worth paying what’s required to offset its cost.

As AI firms have burned through billions of dollars developing their models, the financial sector has begun to cool on the idea of continuing to invest at the same breakneck pace. In particular, AI’s relatively limited use cases—especially compared to the hype—are dampening investor enthusiasm.

“The expectations and hype around GenAI are enormously high,” Gartner analyst Arun Chandrasekaran said in August. “So it’s not that the technology, per se, is bad, but it’s unable to keep up with the high expectations that I think enterprises have because of the enormous hype that’s been created in the market in the last 12 to 18 months.”

“To be sure, Generative AI itself won’t disappear,” Chandrasekaran explained. “But investors may well stop forking out money at the rates they have, enthusiasm may diminish, and a lot of people may lose their shirts. Companies that are currently valued at billions of dollars may be sold, or stripped for parts.”

If OpenAI does raise prices at the rate its internal documents suggest, it could prove to be a litmus test for just how much people are willing to pay for something that still has limited usefulness.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/FGwY9hN

Amazon Employees Applying for Jobs As Experts Say RTO Mandate Is a ‘Negotiation Game’

Amazon employees are following through on threats, applying for new jobs outside of the company in the wake of CEO Andy Jassy’s RTO mandate.

Jassy announced employees would be required to come into the office five days a week, sparking major backlash. According to a survey by the anonymous professional forum Blind, some 73% of employees were considering applying for new jobs after the mandate.

Catch our talk on Amazon’s RTO mandate as a ‘negotiation game’!

 

Fortune is reporting that employees are beginning to do just that after coming to the conclusion that their days at Amazon are numbered.

“My months of struggling to make three days a week are over, and I know that my time at Amazon has to end,” an employee named Laura told the outlet.

Laura was hired remotely during the pandemic, and she was assured she would be able to continue working remotely. She views the company’s RTO mandates as a betrayal, with the company reneging on its promises. As a result, she has no desire to put forth the effort to comply with the mandate.

“Honestly, I’ve lost so much trust in Amazon leadership at this point,” she adds. “I’ve been updating my resume and portfolio, and rage applying to new jobs on LinkedIn.”

Adding to the sense of betrayal is the fact that Laura found out via news article, rather than from her manager.

“At first, I didn’t quite believe it,” she told Fortune. “After all, who expects to get career-altering news from a news article instead of your employer.”

“Which, to be honest, is a pretty horrible way to find out about something that’s going to impact your life in a huge way. I really, really would have liked a personal communication from my manager, but that didn’t happen for a couple of days.”

Amazon’s RTO Mandate May Be a Negotiating Ploy

Some are not convinced Amazon is really trying to force people back to the office five days a week, believing the mandate could be a negotiating ploy.

Amazon previously passed a three-day-a-week RTO mandate, but many employees were not cooperating.

“I was not complying,” an employee named Ben told Fortune, citing the three-hour commute he faced as the reason for not coming into the office three days a week.

“I decided not to make life choices as Amazon can fire me at will anyway, and I do not want to make long-term life changes because some manager decided I should start going to the office when I was hired virtual and promised I could work from wherever I want,” he added.

Experts have told Fortune that the five-day-a-week RTO mandate could be a negotiation ploy designed to get employees to commit to the three days a week management originally asked for.

Amazon’s Motives Are Unclear…And That’s a Problem

Ultimately, no one outside of Amazon’s senior management knows why the company is insisting employees return to the office, especially given how unpopular the RTO mandate has been and the backlash the company is facing.

Some have speculated that Amazon is using mandates as an elaborate scheme to thin the ranks of its workforce and maximize its profits.

“It’s not about collaboration,” said John McBride, a former AWS employee. “It’s about maximizing profit margins, minimizing tax liabilities, and cutting the workforce in the most strategic way possible.”

With experts now telling Fortune that they believe Amazon’s plans are a negotiation ploy, it’s clear that no one outside the company really knows what’s going on.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/62L1nqP

Valve and Arch Linux Collaborating to Further Linux Gaming

Valve and Arch Linux have entered into a direct collaboration agreement, with Valve supporting two projects that will help further Arch Linux and Linux gaming in general.

Valve is one of the leading game publishers and distributors, and is the main way many gamers access their favorite titles via its Steam platform. The company also makes the Steam Deck, a handheld console that can be docked for traditional console play. The Steam Deck runs SteamOS, which is based on Arch Linux, meaning it can also be used as a full-fledged Linux computer as well.

Catch our chat on Valve and Arch Linux boosting Linux gaming!

 

Given the role Arch Linux plays in Valve’s product line, it’s not surprising the two entities are collaborating. In an announcement on the Arch mailing list, Levente Polyak said Valve will provide backing for a build service infrastructure, as well as a secure signing enclave.

We are excited to announce that Arch Linux is entering into a direct collaboration with Valve. Valve is generously providing backing for two critical projects that will have a huge impact on our distribution: a build service infrastructure and a secure signing enclave. By supporting work on a freelance basis for these topics, Valve enables us to work on them without being limited solely by the free time of our volunteers.

This opportunity allows us to address some of the biggest outstanding challenges we have been facing for a while. The collaboration will speed-up the progress that would otherwise take much longer for us to achieve, and will ultimately unblock us from finally pursuing some of our planned endeavors. We are incredibly grateful for Valve to make this possible and for their explicit commitment to help and support Arch Linux.

These projects will follow our usual development and consensus-building workflows. [RFCs] will be created for any wide-ranging changes. Discussions on this mailing list as well as issue, milestone and epic planning in our GitLab will provide transparency and insight into the work. We believe this collaboration will greatly benefit Arch Linux, and are looking forward to share further development on this mailing list as work progresses.

Valve has emerged as a major force for good in the Linux community, doing a tremendous amount of work that benefits the community at large. This latest measure is an excellent example of a corporation that depends on Linux for some of its products giving back to the community and helping the foundation its products rely on.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/gJ0n4XW

Governor Gavin Newsom Vetoes California AI Bill SB 1047

Governor Gavin Newsom has vetoed California AI bill SB 1047, a bill that divided the AI community and drew both praise and criticism.

SB 1047 was designed to address some of the biggest issues with AI development, including establishing measures to ensure AI models are developed in a safe manner. For example, outside of specific circumstances, such as research and evaluation, developers would be prohibited from deploying or selling AI models that pose an unreasonable risk of causing harm. Similarly, the bill would require developers to retain a third party to perform an annual audit to ensure AI models are being developed safely.

Catch our chat on Newsom’s veto of California AI bill SB 1047!

 

A number of AI firms opposed the bill, although Anthropic had assisted with its final form by making suggestions for a number of amendments AI firms wanted. Ulitmately, despite the progress made, Governor Newsom decided to veto the bill, saying it was “well-intentioned,” but ultimately fell short.

“While well-intentioned, SB 1047 does not take into account whether an AI system is deployed in high-risk environments, involves critical decision-making or the use of sensitive data,” said Newsom. “Instead, the bill applies stringent standards to even the most basic functions — so long as a large system deploys it. I do not believe this is the best approach to protecting the public from real threats posed by the technology.”

A Good Start, but SB 1047 Fell Short

Ultimately, in his full message about the veto, Newsom raised concerns about the bill’s focus on only the largest AI models and the false sense of security that could cause.

SB 1047 magnified the conversation about threats that could emerge from the deployment of Al. Key to the debate is whether the threshold for regulation should be based on the cost and number of computations needed to develop an Al model, or whether we should evaluate the system’s actual risks regardless of these factors. This global discussion is occurring as the capabilities of Al continue to scale at an impressive pace. At the same time, the strategies and solutions for addressing the risk of catastrophic harm are rapidly evolving.

By focusing only on the most expensive and large-scale models, SB 1047 establishes a regulatory framework that could give the public a false sense of security about controlling this fast-moving technology. Smaller, specialized models may emerge as equally or even more dangerous than the models targeted by SB 1047 – at the potential expense of curtailing the very innovation that fuels advancement in favor of the public good.

Newsom also emphasized that he agreed with the bill in spirit but felt more needed to be done to ensure any such bill accomplished its goal.

Let me be clear – I agree with the author – we cannot afford to wait for a major catastrophe to occur before taking action to protect the public. California will not abandon its responsibility. Safety protocols must be adopted. Proactive guardrails should be implemented, and severe consequences for bad actors must be clear and enforceable. I do not agree, however, that to keep the public safe, we must settle for a solution that is not informed by an empirical trajectory analysis of Al systems and capabilities. Ultimately, any framework for effectively regulating Al needs to keep pace with the technology itself.

To those who say there’s no problem here to solve, or that California does not have a role in regulating potential national security implications of this technology, I disagree. A California-only approach may well be warranted – especially absent federal action by Congress – but it must be based on empirical evidence and science. The U.S. Al Safety Institute, under the National Institute of Science and Technology, is developing guidance on national security risks, informed by evidence-based approaches, to guard against demonstrable risks to public safety. Under an Executive Order I issued in September 2023, agencies within my Administration are performing risk analyses of the potential threats and vulnerabilities to California’s critical infrastructure using Al. These are just a few examples of the many endeavors underway, led by experts, to inform policymakers on Al risk management practices that are rooted in science and fact. And endeavors like these have led to the introduction of over a dozen bills regulating specific, known risks posed by Al, that I have signed in the last 30 days.

Just One Bill of Many

Newsom’s office also took the opportunity to highlight the many other bills Newsom has signed in the last 30 days to regulate AI. The list includes:

• AB 1008 by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda) – Clarifies that personal information under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) can exist in various formats, including information stored by AI systems. (previously signed)
• AB 1831 by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) – Expands the scope of existing child pornography statutes to include matter that is digitally altered or generated by the use of AI.
• AB 1836 by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda) – Prohibits a person from producing, distributing, or making available the digital replica of a deceased personality’s voice or likeness in an expressive audiovisual work or sound recording without prior consent, except as provided. (previously signed)
• AB 2013 by Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks) – Requires AI developers to post information on the data used to train the AI system or service on their websites. (previously signed)
• AB 2355 by Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo (D-Los Angeles) – Requires committees that create, publish, or distribute a political advertisement that contains any image, audio, or video that is generated or substantially altered using AI to include a disclosure in the advertisement disclosing that the content has been so altered. (previously signed)
• AB 2602 by Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D-San Jose) – Provides that an agreement for the performance of personal or professional services which contains a provision allowing for the use of a digital replica of an individual’s voice or likeness is unenforceable if it does not include a reasonably specific description of the intended uses of the replica and the individual is not represented by legal counsel or by a labor union, as specified. (previously signed)
• AB 2655 by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) – Requires large online platforms with at least one million California users to remove materially deceptive and digitally modified or created content related to elections, or to label that content, during specified periods before and after an election, if the content is reported to the platform. Provides for injunctive relief. (previously signed)
• AB 2839 by Assemblymember Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz) – Expands the timeframe in which a committee or other entity is prohibited from knowingly distributing an advertisement or other election material containing deceptive AI-generated or manipulated content from 60 days to 120 days, amongst other things. (previously signed)
• AB 2876 by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) – Require the Instructional Quality Commission (IQC) to consider AI literacy to be included in the mathematics, science, and history-social science curriculum frameworks and instructional materials.
• AB 2885 by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda) – Establishes a uniform definition for AI, or artificial intelligence, in California law. (previously signed)
• AB 3030 by Assemblymember Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier) – Requires specified health care providers to disclose the use of GenAI when it is used to generate communications to a patient pertaining to patient clinical information. (previously signed)
• SB 896 by Senator Bill Dodd (D-Napa) – Requires CDT to update report for the Governor as called for in Executive Order N-12-23, related to the procurement and use of GenAI by the state; requires OES to perform a risk analysis of potential threats posed by the use of GenAI to California’s critical infrastructure (w/high-level summary to Legislature); and requires that the use of GenAI for state communications be disclosed.
• SB 926 by Senator Aisha Wahab (D-Silicon Valley) – Creates a new crime for a person to intentionally create and distribute any sexually explicit image of another identifiable person that was created in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to believe the image is an authentic image of the person depicted, under circumstances in which the person distributing the image knows or should know that distribution of the image will cause serious emotional distress, and the person depicted suffers that distress. (previously signed)
• SB 942 by Senator Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) – Requires the developers of covered GenAI systems to both include provenance disclosures in the original content their systems produce and make tools available to identify GenAI content produced by their systems. (previously signed)
• SB 981 by Senator Aisha Wahab (D-Silicon Valley) – Requires social media platforms to establish a mechanism for reporting and removing “sexually explicit digital identity theft.” (previously signed)
• SB 1120 by Senator Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) – Establishes requirements on health plans and insurers applicable to their use AI for utilization review and utilization management decisions, including that the use of AI, algorithm, or other software must be based upon a patient’s medical or other clinical history and individual clinical circumstances as presented by the requesting provider and not supplant health care provider decision making. (previously signed)
• SB 1288 by Senator Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) – Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to convene a working group for the purpose of exploring how artificial intelligence (AI) and other forms of similarly advanced technology are currently being used in education. (previously signed)
• SB 1381 by Senator Aisha Wahab (D-Silicon Valley) – Expands the scope of existing child pornography statutes to include matter that is digitally altered or generated by the use of AI.

Mixed Response to the Veto

Predictably, the response to Newsom’s veto was mixed. Nancy Pelosi was quick to thank Newsom for vetoing the bill, as she has been a vocal critic of it and the impact it would have on California’s place as the cradle of AI.

https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1840498822549528793

At the same time, the bill’s author, State Senator Scott Wiener, said the veto was “a setback.”

“This veto is a setback for everyone who believes in oversight of massive corporations that are making critical decisions that affect the safety and welfare of the public and the future of the planet. The companies developing advanced AI systems acknowledge that the risks these models present to the public are real and rapidly increasing. While the large AI labs have made admirable commitments to monitor and mitigate these risks, the truth is that voluntary commitments from industry are not enforceable and rarely work out well for the public. This veto leaves us with the troubling reality that companies aiming to create an extremely powerful technology face no binding restrictions from U.S. policy makers, particularly given Congress’s continuing paralysis around regulating the tech industry in any meaningful way.

“This veto is a missed opportunity for California to once again to lead on innovative tech regulation—just as we did around data privacy and net neutrality—and we are all less safe as a result.

“At the same time, the debate around SB 1047 has dramatically advanced the issue of AI safety on the international stage. Major AI labs were forced to get specific on the protections they can provide to the public through policy and oversight. Leaders from across civil society, from Hollywood to women’s groups to youth activists, found their voice to advocate for commonsense, proactive technology safeguards to protect society from foreseeable risks. The work of this incredible coalition will continue to bear fruit as the international community contemplates the best ways to protect the public from the risks presented by AI.

California will continue to lead in that conversation—we are not going anywhere.”

Ultimately, as both sides of the debate agree, the conversation about regulating AI is just beginning. Although SB 1047 has been killed, attempts to regulate the AI industry have only just begun.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/LrpOPdw

Farzad: Autonomous Driving Isn’t the Future; It’s Happening Now

Autonomous driving is no longer a distant promise; it’s a reality unfolding today, and Tesla is spearheading this technological revolution. As Farzad puts it on X, “Autonomous driving isn’t the future; it’s happening now, and Tesla is leading the charge.” With over a billion miles of real-world data collected from Tesla’s fleet, the company’s self-driving algorithms are evolving rapidly. While competitors are still experimenting with simulations, Tesla is leveraging data gathered from real-world driving conditions, continuously improving its Full-Self Driving (FSD) software.

Tesla’s advantage lies in its unique approach to data collection and machine learning. Farzad explains, “While others rely on simulations and limited testing, Tesla vehicles are gathering data from diverse driving conditions worldwide.” This method allows the system to learn by doing, making the AI smarter with every mile driven. The vast trove of driving data—from various terrains, weather conditions, and traffic scenarios—gives Tesla an unparalleled edge. Competitors relying solely on simulation models are unable to match this real-world learning, putting Tesla at the forefront of autonomous driving.

Catch our chat on how autonomous driving is already here!

 

Autonomous driving isn't the future; it's happening now, and Tesla is leading the charge.

With over a billion miles of real-world data collected from its fleet, Tesla's self-driving algorithms are learning at an unprecedented rate. While others rely on simulations and limited…

— Farzad (@farzyness) September 29, 2024

The benefits of Tesla’s approach resonate with many of its users. One Tesla owner, @Hoofz, shared on X, “I really enjoy being one of the many real-world testers, when it works perfect and when it doesn’t. When it doesn’t, I try to keep doing it as much as I can so it becomes perfect for the next adopter.” This willingness of users to engage with Tesla’s evolving FSD technology enables rapid feedback and continuous improvement, a critical factor in accelerating its development.

Data-Driven Learning: The Heart of Tesla’s Autonomy

Tesla’s emphasis on data-driven learning is what sets it apart from the rest of the industry. As Farzad noted, Tesla’s real-world data is a game-changer. Teaching its vehicles to navigate through real-world complexities gives the company a learning curve that’s unmatched. Farzad likens the process to teaching a child how to navigate a maze: “You could describe it in words, or let them explore it themselves.” Tesla’s approach is the latter—its cars are constantly learning through experience, allowing them to refine and adapt their responses to challenging driving situations.

This relentless focus on real-world data means that Tesla’s Full-Self Driving system is continuously improving. As @MrGeary08 succinctly put it, “Data is the key to everything.” Tesla’s algorithm learns from a constantly expanding dataset, which allows for swift software updates that enhance the performance of FSD. For instance, FSD 12.5.4, which many users recently received, shows marked improvements. According to @7thGeneration, who recently completed a long road trip with the latest update, “This is the real deal. FSD drove me from Houston to Dallas and back today. I set it to ‘aggressive’ and it was amazing.”

However, challenges persist. As @MikeRayHenry highlighted, “FSD 12.5.4 does a lot right and is smooth and confident! But here’s where it falls short in my area around Tampa,” pointing to specific shortcomings like failing to prep for highway exits. Tesla’s strategy hinges on addressing these incremental challenges with user feedback. The software updates, while not perfect, are continually refined through data from users like Mike and @KeithInKeyWest, who recounted an incident where his FSD tried to pass another car in a risky maneuver, forcing him to take over.

Robotaxis: A New Paradigm for Commuting

Tesla’s autonomous vehicle fleet isn’t just about personal self-driving cars—it’s about redefining the entire transportation paradigm. Tesla’s robotaxi vision is positioned as a game-changer in public and personal transportation. The prospect of autonomous taxis could revolutionize urban planning, making commuting more efficient and freeing up time for passengers to work, relax, or even game during their rides. As Tesla user Mason May highlighted, “An underappreciated aspect of robotaxis is allowing people to escape the cities and live farther away from work. People can work from their taxi, game, do homework, etc. on their commute.”

The long-term implications of Tesla’s robotaxis are profound. With a network of autonomous vehicles operating 24/7, Tesla could significantly lower the cost of transportation. Musk himself has pointed out that private vehicles sit idle 90% of the time, whereas robotaxis could operate almost non-stop, vastly improving utilization rates and reducing costs per mile. This economic shift has the potential to redefine car ownership, pushing more people toward ridesharing and away from traditional car ownership.

However, achieving full autonomy—what’s often referred to as Level 5—remains a critical hurdle. Many Tesla enthusiasts are eagerly awaiting this breakthrough. As @RealtorZeanna pointed out, “Show me a Level 5 car, and I will buy it!” Tesla’s approach, focusing on real-world data and vision-based AI, is steering it closer to that goal, but competitors like Waymo are also making strides. The pressure is mounting, but Tesla’s head start in data collection and AI development gives it an edge.

The LiDAR Debate: Tesla’s Vision-Only Strategy

One of Tesla’s more controversial stances has been its decision to reject LiDAR in favor of a camera-based vision system. In 2019, Elon Musk famously called LiDAR “a crutch.” At the time, this statement was met with skepticism, as many believed LiDAR to be essential for autonomous driving. However, as Farzad reposted from Ray’s X thread, Tesla’s bold approach appears to be paying off. “Now 5 years later, companies like Bosch, Mobileye, and Chinese NAV makers are starting to exit or scale back their LiDAR R&D,” Ray noted, underscoring Tesla’s foresight.

Musk’s rationale is grounded in Tesla’s ability to teach its neural networks to interpret the world using camera-based systems, just like human drivers do. By avoiding LiDAR’s expense and complexity, Tesla has been able to scale its autonomous fleet much more efficiently. “Tesla has proved vision-based end-to-end approaches are the ideal solution to autonomy without the use of LiDAR,” said Ray, highlighting how other automakers like Li, NIO, and XPeng are now adopting similar strategies.

Another X poster added an important insight, suggesting that Musk didn’t come to this conclusion on a whim. “It was likely a conclusion that a lot of extremely intelligent people all came to,” he said. Indeed, Tesla’s decision to abandon LiDAR is part of a larger engineering philosophy that relies on scalable, data-driven solutions to solve complex problems, rather than expensive and niche technologies.

FSD: Progress, Challenges, and Continuous Improvement

Tesla’s Full-Self Driving (FSD) software continues to evolve, with users experiencing both improvements and challenges in the latest versions. Many Tesla users have reported significant advances in FSD 12.5.4, with smoother performance and more decisive maneuvers. @HansCNelson remarked, “Smoothness is improved. Decision-making is improved. It just feels like a much more refined product so far.” These updates demonstrate Tesla’s commitment to iterating and improving its technology based on user feedback and real-world data.

However, challenges remain. Some users still experience phantom braking, where the car abruptly slows down for no apparent reason. As @HunterNewberry8 pointed out, “Use it more, and you realize the phantom braking is catastrophically bad. It’s worse than v11 when it happens.” These incidents, while frustrating, provide critical data for Tesla’s engineers to refine the system further. Additionally, Tesla has introduced features like “Actually Smart Summon” in its latest update, which allows the car to autonomously navigate parking lots—a significant step forward, though users like @HansCNelson advise caution when testing this feature near public roads.

Conclusion: Tesla Leading the Way into the Autonomous Future

Farzad’s assertion that “Autonomous driving isn’t the future; it’s happening now” captures the essence of Tesla’s rapid advancements in the field of self-driving cars. With over a billion miles of real-world data, Tesla’s FSD system continues to improve at an unprecedented rate, while its robotaxi vision promises to redefine urban transportation. Despite the challenges, Tesla’s commitment to learning from real-world data gives it an edge over competitors relying on simulations and LiDAR.

As the technology improves, the prospect of fully autonomous driving is no longer a far-fetched dream. Tesla’s vision-based, data-driven approach is turning that dream into reality, inching closer to a future where self-driving cars dominate our roads. As Farzad and many others in the Tesla community believe, the future of transportation has already arrived—it’s just getting better with every mile.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/BVyTLpQ

WeRobot: Tesla’s Biggest Reveal Since the Model 3 That Could Redefine Everything

Tesla is gearing up for what could be its most transformative event since the launch of the Model 3. With the “WeRobot” unveiling set for October 10th, this event promises to redefine the company’s trajectory. Elon Musk has teased that this will be “one for the history books,” and anticipation is mounting across the tech, automotive, and investment sectors. But this isn’t just about cars. The event will likely delve into groundbreaking advancements in autonomous robotaxis and humanoid robotics, positioning Tesla as a leader in the AI-driven future. Experts and analysts alike are already dubbing it the “biggest reveal in Tesla’s history,” suggesting seismic shifts for both robotics and transportation.

Tesla’s upcoming “WeRobot” event has ignited speculation about the company’s future beyond electric vehicles. Industry insiders believe that this event could signify Tesla’s leap into a broader technological realm—spanning AI and robotics at an unprecedented scale. Many are betting that we’ll see multiple robot and robotaxi designs, possibly marking the beginning of a new era in autonomous transportation and humanoid robotics. “It’s a pivotal moment,” remarked one analyst. “This isn’t just about Tesla; it could redefine the entire industry.”

Catch our take on Tesla’s WeRobot event—this reveal could change everything!

 

---

Hints from the Invite: A New Dawn for Robotics

The invitation to Tesla’s “WeRobot” event has spurred excitement, with its cryptic imagery generating buzz throughout the tech world. The circular design featured in the invite resembles a camera lens, which analysts believe could be a nod to Tesla’s AI vision systems. Others suggest that it signals developments in Tesla’s robotaxi and humanoid robotics programs. Elon Musk’s assertion that this will be a historic event adds to the speculation. As Herbert from Brighter with Herbert explained, “It’s not just the products Tesla will reveal, but their overarching vision for AI and autonomy. Tesla is no longer just a car company.”

Musk’s reference to Isaac Asimov’s “I, Robot” further deepens the intrigue surrounding the event’s title, “WeRobot.” Cern Basher, Co-founder and Chief Investment Officer at Brilliant Advice, reflected on this connection during a recent discussion. “Musk is tipping his hat to one of the great science fiction minds, but Tesla’s take is making this sci-fi future a reality. We’re about to enter an era where robots will be an integral part of daily life.” This sentiment aligns with Musk’s broader vision, where robots, whether in the form of autonomous vehicles or humanoids, will serve vital roles across industries and households.

YAAAASSSS! We are going to the #Robotaxi #WeRobot event #Tesla is presenting on October 10! pic.twitter.com/Uudub2O6cf

— Sue McLean (@dccwrules) September 25, 2024

The invite has been scrutinized down to its smallest detail. Basher noted that the circular shape could signify more than just one concept: “It could symbolize Tesla’s roots in the automotive world while hinting at AI and autonomous technology, or even broader robotic applications.” The lens-like design also suggests Tesla’s focus on AI vision systems and real-time data processing, both critical to robotaxis and humanoid robots.

“The phrase ‘WeRobot’ also signals that Tesla could be unveiling multiple types of robots beyond its current projects,” added Basher. “We may be looking at different form factors for both humanoid robots and autonomous vehicles, each serving specific industries or consumer needs.” In this sense, Tesla’s goal may go far beyond transportation, venturing into a wide array of use cases across multiple sectors.

---

The Evolution of Robotaxis: A New Paradigm in Transportation

Tesla’s robotaxi program has been years in the making, and the “WeRobot” event is expected to push it to the forefront. Elon Musk has called robotaxis “the biggest shift in transportation since the car itself,” and the October 10th event promises to showcase new developments that could fundamentally alter transportation. The unveiling of Tesla’s robotaxi fleet could be a transformative moment not just for the company but for urban mobility worldwide.

Cern Basher sees the event as an opportunity to redefine how we think about cars. “We’re moving past the era of personal car ownership,” he said. “Tesla’s robotaxis are essentially robots on wheels. The future isn’t just autonomous cars; it’s an entire ecosystem of AI-driven transportation.” He emphasized that Tesla’s technology could revolutionize logistics, urban planning, and even fleet management.

Tesla to live up to the hype of “We, Robot,” Wall Street anticipates the company will unveil a prototype of its Cybercab Robotaxi

Also expect Tesla to reveal advancements in Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD), & artificial intelligence capabilities $TSLA pic.twitter.com/G9duQ79G0O

— Technocrat  (@itechnosmith) September 28, 2024

The expectation is that Tesla will not limit itself to a single robotaxi design. Analysts predict multiple form factors, each catering to different needs—from individual commuters to ride-sharing services to goods transportation. “This isn’t just a one-size-fits-all robotaxi fleet,” Basher noted. “Tesla will likely introduce various vehicle types, each optimized for a different use case. This flexibility is key to addressing different market needs and ensuring the broad adoption of autonomous systems.”

Musk has often spoken about the economic potential of robotaxis, arguing that they could drastically lower the cost of transportation. By utilizing cars that can operate almost 24/7, Tesla’s autonomous fleet would minimize downtime and maximize efficiency. “Most cars are idle 90% of the time, but with robotaxis, Tesla can flip that equation,” Musk explained in a previous AI Day event. “It’s not just about mobility but about making it a profitable endeavor for Tesla and individuals using the service.”

This will be one for the history books pic.twitter.com/qQ0HZyGMZE

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 26, 2024

However, with all the excitement comes the question of safety. Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) program has faced scrutiny, and many are eager to see how the company plans to address these concerns with the rollout of its robotaxi fleet. “Safety will be paramount,” Basher acknowledged. “For the robotaxi vision to succeed, Tesla must show that its vehicles can navigate the complexities of the real world safely and efficiently, better than human drivers.”

---

Optimus: The Future of Humanoid Robots

While robotaxis may be the headline, Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot could steal the show. First introduced in 2021, Optimus has been positioned by Elon Musk as Tesla’s next major breakthrough. Musk has stated that Optimus could be more valuable than even the company’s car business. “We’re developing Optimus to perform repetitive, dangerous, or boring tasks,” Musk said, adding that humanoid robots would change the very nature of work.

Cern Basher believes the October 10th event could showcase a more advanced Optimus model with wider capabilities. “We’ve seen glimpses of Optimus handling basic tasks, but I think Tesla will show us much more this time,” Basher predicted. He noted that Optimus could be vital not just for manufacturing but for consumer applications like eldercare, household tasks, and beyond.

Tesla’s ambition with Optimus aligns with its broader AI strategy, leveraging its existing neural networks and FSD technology to create a robot capable of operating autonomously in complex environments. “Optimus could eventually become a household robot,” said Basher, “but it has far-reaching implications for industries like logistics, healthcare, and even space exploration.” This underscores Musk’s vision of robots as companions or assistants, not merely tools confined to factories.

---

Tesla’s Manufacturing Revolution: The Unbox Process

Tesla’s manufacturing process is at the core of its ability to innovate, and its “Unbox Process” is set to revolutionize the production of vehicles and robots alike. The Unbox Process is designed to streamline assembly, reduce costs, and allow Tesla to scale production more efficiently. Musk has described this new method as essential for Tesla’s next-generation vehicles, particularly its robotaxi fleet.

Andrej Karpathy:
Tesla is a robotics-at-scale company. A lot of technology components and expertise in building cars and FSD directly transfer to developing Optimus. pic.twitter.com/A4WKJpvPmi

— The Humanoid Hub (@TheHumanoidHub) September 5, 2024

The Unbox Process eliminates many of the inefficiencies that plague traditional car manufacturing. “Tesla’s approach simplifies the entire production process,” Basher noted. “They’re able to build cars and potentially robots faster, at a lower cost, and with fewer resources. This is going to be key for scaling products like the robotaxi or Optimus.”

The modular nature of the Unbox Process allows for rapid adjustments in production, which is vital for producing multiple form factors. “Tesla could switch between different models without having to shut down production or retool entire lines,” Basher explained. This flexibility could be crucial as Tesla introduces new robot types, from vehicles to humanoids.

---

Elon Musk’s Vision for the Future: Tesla as a Robotics Powerhouse

Elon Musk’s vision for Tesla extends far beyond electric vehicles. With the “WeRobot” event, Musk is positioning Tesla as a global leader in AI and robotics. “Tesla is already the biggest robotics company in the world,” Musk remarked. “Our cars are robots on wheels, and now we’re taking that technology and expanding it into other areas.”

Cern Basher echoed this sentiment, stating that Tesla’s future could lie in robotics even more than in cars. “Tesla’s expertise in AI and automation gives it a significant edge in this space,” Basher said. “Optimus is just the beginning.” Musk has made it clear that Tesla’s ambition is to make robots as commonplace as cars, with applications that extend far beyond manufacturing and into everyday life.

---

A Historic Moment for Tesla and the World

As the “WeRobot” event approaches, it’s evident that Tesla is preparing for a monumental shift in its business model. This event is not just about unveiling new products but about Tesla’s evolution into a robotics and AI leader. “Tesla’s ambitions are grander than we ever thought,” said Basher. “They’re not just revolutionizing transportation—they’re redefining the future of work and everyday life.”

Musk’s vision of a robotics-driven world isn’t just about industrial applications; it’s about integrating AI and robotics into all aspects of human life. Whether it’s robotaxis reshaping urban transportation or Optimus revolutionizing labor, Tesla is poised to lead in this new era of human-machine collaboration.

As Cern Basher concluded, “This is the future we’ve been waiting for, and Tesla is making it a reality.”

Cool https://t.co/6n1s1yo3HJ

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 28, 2024

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/VQFl91I

OpenAI in Turmoil: Leadership Exodus and the Shift Toward Profit at Any Cost

The ongoing shifts at OpenAI are raising eyebrows, not just because of the company’s growing dominance in the AI space but because of the internal chaos accompanying it. Since its founding in 2015, OpenAI has evolved dramatically—from a non-profit research lab focused on advancing artificial general intelligence (AGI) for the public good to a profit-driven tech giant. Today, it’s mired in leadership turbulence, existential questions about its mission, and a strategic pivot toward monetization that’s shaking the foundation of its original purpose.

At the center of this evolution is Sam Altman, the CEO who survived a coup in late 2023. The move to oust Altman came from concerns within the organization’s board that he was drifting too far from OpenAI’s core values. While the coup failed within days, Altman has since consolidated power, restructuring the leadership team and driving the company toward commercial goals. Former Chief Technology Officer (CTO) Mira Murati’s recent exit, alongside key researchers like Ilya Sutskever, illustrates the broader unrest within the organization.

Catch our chat on the chaos at OpenAI as profits take priority!

 

Leadership Shifts Post-Coup

The failed attempt to remove Sam Altman from OpenAI’s helm was a turning point in the company’s recent history. When the board initially ousted Altman, it was seen as an internal revolt driven by concerns over transparency and decision-making. Former CTO Mira Murati and co-founder Ilya Sutskever reportedly raised concerns over Altman’s leadership style, describing him as pitting executives against each other. “Altman’s leadership had become divisive,” an insider revealed, adding that “he had lost the trust of those most committed to the mission of safe AI.”

However, the decision to oust Altman backfired almost immediately. Within days, as investors and employees rallied behind Altman, Murati and Sutskever reversed their positions, calling for Altman’s reinstatement. While the immediate coup ended with Altman back in control, the tension didn’t dissipate. In the months following, the company saw a string of high-profile departures, including Sutskever and safety researcher Jan Leike, both critical of the company’s evolving priorities.

Murati’s sudden departure in late September 2024 was another shock to the system. Known for her technical prowess and operational leadership, Murati’s exit signaled a deeper shift in OpenAI’s corporate culture. Altman acknowledged the abrupt nature of her resignation but framed it as part of a natural transition for a company in rapid growth mode: “I won’t pretend it’s natural for this to be so abrupt,” he said in a company-wide message, “but we are not a normal company.”

The Shift from Research to Profit

At its core, OpenAI was founded on principles of AI safety, research, and transparency. When Elon Musk, Sam Altman, and others launched OpenAI in 2015, it was heralded as a nonprofit organization with a clear mission: “Our goal is to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return.” But as OpenAI’s ambitions and the scale of its research grew, so did its need for funding.

In 2019, OpenAI transitioned to a capped-profit model, creating a for-profit subsidiary to attract the billions of dollars required for advanced AI development. With investors like Microsoft pumping in billions, the stakes—and the expectations—skyrocketed. Yet the hybrid structure of a nonprofit overseeing a profit-driven arm created tension. According to former researcher Jeffrey Wu, who worked on models like GPT-2 and GPT-3, “Restructuring around a core for-profit entity formalizes what outsiders have known for some time: OpenAI is seeking to profit in an industry that has received an enormous influx of investment in the last few years.”

This shift culminated in recent reports that OpenAI would restructure into a full-fledged for-profit company, allowing investors to reap unlimited returns. “This is a complete break from the original ethos of the organization,” commented Sarah Kreps, director of Cornell’s Tech Policy Institute. She added that the move signaled a departure from OpenAI’s “founding emphasis on safety, transparency, and an aim of not concentrating power.”

Rushed Product Launches and Safety Concerns

One of the most contentious points within OpenAI has been the balance between rapid commercialization and AI safety. The company has developed a reputation for rushing product launches to outpace competitors like Google and Anthropic. One former employee described the internal culture as increasingly “product-first,” noting that safety protocols are sometimes bypassed in the rush to deploy new AI models. A key example is the launch of GPT-4o, an AI model released earlier this year.

Safety staffers working on GPT-4o were reportedly given just nine days to complete safety checks before launch—a deadline some found impossible to meet. “We were pulling 20-hour days,” said one safety researcher, “but there was no way we could properly assess the risks in such a short time frame.” After the launch, concerns were raised about the model’s ability to create persuasive content, which could potentially lead users toward dangerous behaviors. Yet, the company pressed forward, citing competitive pressures.

This focus on rapid product cycles has worried many within the AI safety community. Jan Leike, who left OpenAI to join competitor Anthropic, remarked in a statement: “Over the past years, safety culture and processes have taken a back seat to shiny products.” These concerns are echoed by others, who fear that OpenAI’s focus on commercializing AI tools, like its widely-used ChatGPT, may come at the expense of longer-term safety initiatives.

The Financial Pressure Behind OpenAI’s Transformation

OpenAI’s rapid shift toward commercialization is driven in part by the enormous financial pressure the company faces. With billions of dollars invested by Microsoft, Thrive, Apple, and other entities, OpenAI has been burning through capital as it scales up its models. Current estimates suggest OpenAI is losing billions annually despite projected revenues of around $4 billion. “We can’t sustain this level of growth without significant investment,” Altman reportedly told staff in an internal meeting.

The latest funding round, expected to close at $6.5 billion, values the company at a staggering $150 billion. Yet even with that influx of cash, OpenAI is expected to shift toward a more traditional for-profit model, potentially going public within the next few years. “There’s simply no other way to attract the level of capital we need to compete in this space,” a senior executive told Fortune.

But with this shift comes a significant risk. OpenAI’s original nonprofit foundation will likely be reduced to a minority stakeholder, and with it, the company’s mission of developing AI in the public interest could fade. “If you remove the profit cap, you’re fundamentally changing the nature of the organization,” said Jacob Hilton, a former OpenAI employee. “This isn’t just a legal issue—it’s an ethical one.”

A Leadership Crisis

As OpenAI transitions into its next phase, one thing remains clear: the leadership crisis has only deepened. In addition to the departures of key figures like Murati and Sutskever, the company is grappling with internal discontent. President Greg Brockman, a long-time Altman ally, has taken a sabbatical, and other senior researchers have defected to competitors like Anthropic.

“When I think about OpenAI, I think about Greg, and I think about Ilya,” said one former employee. “With no Ilya, it’s a different company. With no Greg, it’s a very different company.” Even Altman has acknowledged the challenges of retaining top talent, but he remains optimistic about the company’s future: “I hope OpenAI will be stronger for it, as we are for all of our transitions,” he said during a recent appearance in Italy.

OpenAI’s transformation may be inevitable given the scale of its ambitions, but the costs—both ethical and operational—are mounting. For investors, this shift may bring financial returns, but for those who joined the company with the goal of advancing AGI for the benefit of humanity, it feels like a betrayal. As one former researcher put it, “We were supposed to be building the future—now it just feels like another tech company chasing profits.”

OpenAI’s journey from a nonprofit AI research lab to a profit-driven tech giant reflects broader tensions in the tech industry as companies seek to balance innovation, safety, and financial returns. Sam Altman’s leadership has brought the company to the forefront of AI development, but at what cost? With key figures departing, safety concerns growing, and the company’s mission shifting, the question remains: What is the future of OpenAI? Will it continue to lead the AI revolution, or has it lost sight of its original purpose?

This article includes quotes from social media posts, corporate blogs, and various news sources, including The Financial Times, The Verge, Vox, Fortune, and the Wall Street Journal.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/As2hReX

Intel’s Struggles Are Deep, But U.S. Security May Demand a Rescue Anyway

In recent years, Intel has faced harsh scrutiny for what many view as a steady decline from its once-dominant position in the semiconductor industry. However, as Intel’s troubles mount, a new narrative is emerging—one where the company’s survival is crucial not only for its stakeholders but also for the geopolitical stability of the United States and its competitive edge in the global semiconductor race.

The U.S. might have no choice but to rescue Intel, regardless of the company’s past missteps.

Catch our talk on Intel’s struggles—Is it too big to fail for national security?

 

From Tech Titan to Troubled Waters

Intel’s fall from grace began in the early 2000s, a period marked by key strategic mistakes. The company missed the explosion in demand for mobile chips, failing to secure critical contracts like the one Apple handed to Samsung for its iPhone processors. Worse yet, Intel failed to capitalize on the AI revolution. Competitors like Nvidia designed chips optimized for AI and machine learning, leaving Intel’s processors technologically lagging by several years. As a result, by 2021, Intel’s chips had fallen two generations behind, a humiliating position for a company once considered the industry leader.

Despite these failures, Intel remains vital to the U.S. semiconductor ecosystem. In an interview with Fortune, CEO Pat Gelsinger acknowledged the immense challenge the company faces: “Thirty years of poor economic policy cannot be fixed in a three- to five-year CHIPS One program” . He’s referring to the government’s $52 billion CHIPS and Science Act, which was passed to boost domestic chip manufacturing and of which Intel is a primary beneficiary.

A Geopolitical Lifeline

The importance of semiconductors to national security cannot be understated. Semiconductors power everything from smartphones to defense systems, and the U.S. is currently dependent on foreign manufacturers, particularly Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) and South Korea’s Samsung. This reliance has become a significant geopolitical risk, particularly as China continues to ramp up its efforts to produce its own chips and has been saber-rattling about invading Taiwan, a key player in global semiconductor production.

Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo emphasized this concern earlier this year: “We cannot allow ourselves to be overly reliant on one part of the world for the most important piece of hardware in the 21st century”. The CHIPS Act is a direct response to these concerns, with Intel set to receive up to $20 billion in direct funding and loans to construct new fabs (fabrication plants) in Arizona and Ohio. While TSMC and Samsung are also building facilities in the U.S., Intel’s domestic presence offers a critical advantage in insulating American interests from potential supply chain disruptions in Asia.

The Cost of Catching Up

Even with government support, Intel’s journey back to competitiveness is steep and expensive. In 2024, Intel’s capital investments reached nearly $16 billion annually, and the company plans to lay off 15% of its workforce as part of a broader restructuring effort. Gelsinger has made it clear that Intel’s rehabilitation won’t be complete until 2030 or later, acknowledging that the company’s financial health is still years away from recovery.

A critical element of Intel’s strategy is its foundry business—making chips for other companies. Historically, Intel has struggled in this area. The foundry business lost $5.3 billion in the first half of 2024, after losing $7 billion in 2023. Many analysts remain skeptical of Intel’s ability to compete in this space, especially against industry giant TSMC. Citigroup’s semiconductor analyst Christopher Danely offered a blunt assessment: “Their biggest problem is foundry. There’s a very small chance it will succeed” .

Still, Gelsinger believes that Intel’s foundry and product businesses are “better together,” a strategy he believes will allow Intel to innovate faster by co-developing technology across multiple platforms. Whether this strategy will pay off remains to be seen, but it’s clear that Intel is placing big bets on its ability to catch up.

Geopolitics and the Semiconductor Race

While Intel’s commercial competitiveness is in question, its geopolitical significance is not. The semiconductor race has become a proxy for the broader U.S.-China technological rivalry, and Intel sits squarely in the middle. If China achieves its goal of becoming self-sufficient in leading-edge chip production by 2027, or worse, if it invades Taiwan and takes control of TSMC, Intel’s role as a U.S.-based chipmaker will become even more critical.

The implications of such a scenario are far-reaching. As Fortune noted, “If China were to take over Taiwan, it would presumably take control of TSMC” . What happens then? Would the U.S. take over TSMC’s operations in Arizona? Or would Intel benefit from an influx of government contracts and funding as America seeks to shore up its domestic supply?

The reality is that Intel’s future is tied to broader national security concerns. Peter Orszag, CEO of Lazard, highlighted this growing trend in a recent Foreign Affairs article, noting that corporations like Intel have become “both the objects and instruments of foreign policy” . Intel is no longer just a company—it is a strategic asset.

The Path Forward: Does Intel Have a Chance?

Given the geopolitical stakes, the U.S. may have no choice but to continue supporting Intel, regardless of its commercial success or failures. Yet, there are reasons for cautious optimism. Bob Rogers, Intel’s former chief data scientist, pointed to the company’s AI accelerators as a potential game-changer. Intel’s Gaudi chips are specifically designed for AI workloads and could offer a lower-cost alternative to Nvidia’s GPUs, which currently dominate the AI hardware market .

Still, the road to recovery will be long, and the stakes are high. Intel needs to regain trust with investors, customers, and the broader market. Its recent stumbles—most notably its issues with Raptor Lake CPUs and its ill-fated decision to pass on a $1 billion investment in OpenAI—have hurt its credibility. The company has also been hit with class-action lawsuits over defective chips, adding to its list of woes.

A Company Too Big to Fail?

The question is no longer just about Intel’s future—it’s about America’s future in the semiconductor industry. Like the financial institutions deemed “too big to fail” in 2008, Intel might have reached a point where its collapse would pose too great a risk to national security and technological dominance.

Pat Gelsinger may not have the luxury of time or easy fixes, but he seems to understand the magnitude of Intel’s current position. As he noted earlier this year, “We’re not just fighting for Intel, we’re fighting for the country” .

In an era where semiconductors are the most important hardware in the world, Intel may be too important for the U.S. to let fail. Whether that results in further government intervention, private equity investments, or even a partial breakup, Intel’s survival has now become a matter of national interest.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/2L51RNr

Oracle Owns 29% of Ampere, Could Become Majority Owner In 2027

Oracle dropped a bombshell in a proxy statement, revealing it owns a 29% stake in Ampere Computing, with the option to become a majority owner in 2027.

Ampere is a semiconductor firm that was founded by former Intel President Renée James. The company has garnered significant attention, with Microsoft, Google, HPE, and Oracle among the company’s customers, with the latter being a major investor.

In an SEC filing, Oracle revealed the extent of its investment in the semiconductor startup.

Oracle is an equity and convertible debt investor in Ampere. Renée J. James, an Oracle director who is not standing for re-election, is the Chairman and CEO of Ampere and Oracle has appointed one director to Ampere’s board. From time to time since 2017, we have made investments in Ampere in the form of equity and convertible debt instruments. The total carrying value of our investments in Ampere, after accounting for losses under the equity method of accounting, was $1.5 billion as of May 31, 2024.

Our equity investments in Ampere represent an ownership interest of approximately 29% as of May 31, 2024.

Even more of a revelation is Oracle’s option to become majority owner of Ampere in the near future.

We also own convertible debt investments in Ampere which, under the terms of an agreement with Ampere and other co-investors, will mature in June 2026 and are convertible into equity securities at the holder’s option under certain circumstances. During the fiscal year ended May 31, 2024, we invested an aggregate of $600 million in convertible debt instruments issued by Ampere. In accordance with the terms of an agreement with other co-investors, we are also a counterparty to certain put (exercisable by a co-investor) and call (exercisable by Oracle) options at prices of approximately $400 million to $1.5 billion, respectively, to acquire additional equity interests in Ampere from our co-investors through January 2027. If either of such options is exercised by us or our co-investors, we would obtain control of Ampere and consolidate its results with our results of operations.

Oracle has been making waves in the cloud industry, especially as the industry pivots to AI. Once criticized for being well behind the cloud leaders—AWS, Microsoft, and Google—Oracle’s products are suddenly in high demand, with the company struggling to keep up.

With semiconductors to drive AI innovation quickly shaping up to be the next tech goldmine, not to mention the two companies’ close ties, Oracle acquiring a majority stake in Ampere looks like a solid bet.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/3QBoNJG

Dell Mandates RTO for Global Sales Team

Dell has joined Amazon, telling members of its global sales team they must return to the office five days a week.

According to Reuters, Dell informed global sales team member that they must work from the office if they are able in the interests of collaboration and to “grow skills.”

“Working remotely should be the exception rather than the routine,” the memo said.

Interestingly, employees who are unable to go into the office—such as those who live too far from a Dell office—are allowed to remain remote.

“Remote sales team members who can’t go into a Dell office should continue to work remotely,” the memo added.

Dell has traditionally been one of the more aggressive companies pushing for a return to the office, a stance that has put it at odds with its workforce. The company forced employees to classify themselves as hybrid or remote, with remote workers ineligible for promotions, as well as consideration for new roles. Needless to say, the move was not a popular one.

“My team is spread out around the world. Almost 90% of the team did the same as in our case there was no real advantage going to the office,” one worker said at the time.

“I benefited a lot from being WFH since 2020 and had a lot of personal growth. I’m not willing to give that up if I don’t have to,” another employee said.

“The more time I have to spend in the office, the less time, money, and personal space I have for all of that,” said another worker, speaking of family time, hobbies, and other qualify of life benefits they have enjoyed. ”I can do my job just as well from home and have all of those personal benefits as well.”

“With the salary that we are receiving, a return to the office would leave a huge hole in our budget,” thanks to commuting and meal purchases, said another employee.

In the wake of Dell’s efforts, nearly half of employees opted to remain remote and forgo advancement rather than return to the office.

In Amazon’s case, its RTO mandate has been a disaster, with 73% of employees considering leaving the company. Only time will tell if Dell’s approach is as disastrous as Amazon’s.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/4OIRJ5a

FTC Cracks Down on Deceptive AI Products

The Federal Trade Commission is cracking down on “deceptive AI claims and schemes,” specifically companies that tout AI as capable of doing something it cannot do.

The FTC is taking various forms of action against five companies, all of which promoted AI-based services that failed to live up to the hype and were never able to deliver what was promised. The five companies are DoNotPay, Ascend Ecom, Ecommerce Empire Builders, Rytr, and FBA Machine.

DoNotPay

DoNotPay is a company that touted its AI assistant as “the world’s first robot lawyer,” promising customers they could avoid costly attorney fees by using its services.

According to the FTC’s complaint, DoNotPay promised that its service would allow consumers to “sue for assault without a lawyer” and “generate perfectly valid legal documents in no time,” and that the company would “replace the $200-billion-dollar legal industry with artificial intelligence.” DoNotPay, however, could not deliver on these promises. The complaint alleges that the company did not conduct testing to determine whether its AI chatbot’s output was equal to the level of a human lawyer, and that the company itself did not hire or retain any attorneys.

DoNotPay has agreed to pay $193,000 to settle the FTC’s claims, as well as provide a warning to customers about the limitations of the service.

Ascend Ecom

Ascend Ecom promised customers that its AI tools could help them quickly generate online storefronts for passive income opportunities.

The scheme is run by William Basta and Kenneth Leung, and it has operated under a number of different names since 2021, including Ascend Ecom, Ascend Ecommerce, Ascend CapVentures, ACV Partners, ACV, Accelerated eCom Ventures, Ethix Capital by Ascend, and ACV Nexus.

According to the FTC’s complaint, the operators of the scheme charge consumers tens of thousands of dollars to start online stores on ecommerce platforms such as Amazon, Walmart, Etsy, and TikTok, while also requiring them to spend tens of thousands more on inventory. Ascend’s advertising content claimed the company was a leader in ecommerce, using proprietary software and artificial intelligence to maximize clients’ business success.

The FTC’s lawsuit has resulted in “a federal court issued an order temporarily halting the scheme and putting it under the control of a receiver.”

Ecommerce Empire Builders

Similar to Ascend Ecom, Ecommerce Empire Builders promised users an easy way to make millions, either through its $2,000 training programs, or through buying one of its “done for you” online storefronts.

The complaint alleges that EEB’s CEO, Peter Prusinowski, has used consumers’ money – as much as $35,000 from consumers who purchase stores – to enrich himself while failing to deliver on the scheme’s promises of big income by selling goods online. In its marketing, EEB encourages consumers to “Skip the guesswork and start a million-dollar business today” by harnessing the “power of artificial intelligence” and the scheme’s supposed strategies.

In social media ads, EEB claims that its clients can make $10,000 monthly, but the FTC’s complaint alleges that the company has no evidence to back up those claims. Numerous consumers have complained that stores they purchased from EEB made little or no money, and that the company has resisted providing refunds to consumers, either denying refunds or only providing partial refunds.

Much like Ascend Ecom, a federal court has temporarily halted the scheme until its fate can be decided in court.

Rytr

Rytr advertised an AI “writing assistant” that was designed to generate reviews based on minimal input. As with the other companies on this list, Rytr’s services failed to deliver what was promised.

According to the FTC’s complaint, Rytr’s service generated detailed reviews that contained specific, often material details that had no relation to the user’s input, and these reviews almost certainly would be false for the users who copied them and published them online. In many cases, subscribers’ AI-generated reviews featured information that would deceive potential consumers who were using the reviews to make purchasing decisions. The complaint further alleges that at least some of Rytr’s subscribers used the service to produce hundreds, and in some cases tens of thousands, of reviews potentially containing false information.

The FTC’s proposed order that would settle the complaint would prohibit the company from ever selling or marketing any service that generates reviews or testimonials.

FBA Machine

Like Ecommerce Empire Builders and Ascend Ecom, FBA Machine promised users guaranteed income via AI-powered online storefronts, taking them for more than $15.9 million.

The complaint alleges that Bratislav Rozenfeld (also known as Steven Rozenfeld and Steven Rozen) has operated the scheme since 2021, initially as Passive Scaling. When Passive Scaling failed to live up to its promises and consumers sought refunds and brought lawsuits, Rozenfeld rebranded the scheme as FBA Machine in 2023. The rebranded marketing materials claim that FBA Machine uses “AI-powered” tools to help price products in the stores and maximize profits.

The scheme’s claims were wide-ranging, promising consumers that they could operate a “7-figure business” and citing supposed testimonials from clients who “generate over $100,000 per month in profit.” Company sales agents told consumers that the business was “risk-free” and falsely guaranteed refunds to consumers who did not make back their initial investments, which ranged from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Like the other two companies, a federal court has ordered a temporary halt to FBA Machine’s operation until the matter is decided permanently.

“Using AI tools to trick, mislead, or defraud people is illegal,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “The FTC’s enforcement actions make clear that there is no AI exemption from the laws on the books. By cracking down on unfair or deceptive practices in these markets, FTC is ensuring that honest businesses and innovators can get a fair shot and consumers are being protected.”

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/R6pJLYS

How Enterprise Browsers Are Shaping the Future of Security

Enterprise-focused web browsers emerge as digital threats intensify. These specialized tools outpace traditional browsers in security and management. Organizations seek advanced solutions to safeguard data and infrastructure. Tailored browsers provide better protection and control. They meet businesses’ unique needs in a changing threat landscape.

Advanced browsers are revolutionizing cybersecurity. These tools provide better protection and unique features, changing how we protect digital data. While they promise significant advantages, they also face obstacles. The world of browser security is changing, and it’s both hopeful and uncertain for users and developers.

Understanding Enterprise Browsers

An enterprise browser is a specialized browser that addresses an organization’s security and management needs. They have advanced security, and strong admin controls, and work well with enterprise systems. These advanced tools are vital for businesses. They have strong security, and admin controls, and work with enterprise systems. They boost security and efficiency.

As cyber threats grew more sophisticated, browser development shifted. Speed and user experience, once paramount, gave way to security and administrative control. This evolution birthed specialized browsers. These new tools combine old functions with strong safeguards. They address a pressing need to protect data and systems in a dangerous digital world.

Differentiating Enterprise Browsers from Traditional Ones

Specialized browsers differ from traditional ones in several significant ways. Browsers like Chrome, Firefox, and Edge seek to be fast and user-friendly. Their enterprise counterparts focus on security, manageability, and compliance.

Enterprise-specific browsers revolutionize web security for organizations. Unlike traditional options, they provide centralized control and advanced threat protection. These browsers fit with existing security systems. They enforce policies and manage user access. A controlled browsing environment reduces risks from web threats and intrusions. This approach helps businesses keep strong digital defenses. They must navigate a more complex online world.

Unique Features of Enterprise Browsers

Tailored web browsers have features to meet businesses’ specific needs. Key features include:

1.  Customization and Control

IT admins wield powerful control through these browsers. They can fine-tune settings, manage extensions, and set user permissions. This customization aligns with company policies and security needs. It also maintains efficiency.

1. Enhanced Management Tools

Centralized management dashboards are a hallmark of these browsers. These tools let admins monitor and manage browser use across the organization. They can track user activity, enforce policies, and deploy updates efficiently.

1. Specialized Security Features

These browsers have advanced security features. They protect against cyber threats. They have real-time threat detection, data encryption, and sandboxing to isolate harmful content.

1. Adoption Trends in Business

More businesses are adopting specialized browsers to boost security. Research shows a rise in organizations using these tools. They aim to fix security issues and boost efficiency.

Statistics show a growing market for advanced browsers. Businesses cite better security and compliance as key reasons. Case studies and reports highlight the benefits. These include a lower risk of data breaches, improved control, and easier management.

Enhancing Security with Enterprise Browsers

Enterprise-customized browsers play a crucial role in enhancing organizational security. They provide several layers of protection designed to address various cyber threats:

1. Advanced Security Enhancements

These browsers have built-in security features. They include real-time threat detection, automatic updates, and secure browsing modes. These features help safeguard sensitive data and ensure a secure browsing experience.

1. Mitigation of Common Security Threats

They address common threats, like malware and phishing. They use features such as content filtering and sandboxing. By isolating potentially harmful elements, they protect against data leakage and unauthorized access.

1. Integration with Existing Security Protocols

These browsers work well with current security systems and protocols. They easily connect with enterprise authentication, firewalls, and endpoint protection, enhancing security.

Role of User Authentication in Security

User authentication is a fundamental component of security in specialized browsers. It ensures that only authorized personnel can access sensitive information and resources. These browsers support various login methods. They include multi-factor authentication (MFA), single sign-on (SSO), and biometrics.

Strong authentication practices fortify security defenses. They thwart unauthorized access and shield against identity theft. Advanced browsers empower organizations with robust support for these methods. By embracing stringent measures, companies safeguard their data from breaches. Enhanced authentication acts as a crucial barrier, bolstering cybersecurity posture.

Benefits of Enterprise Browsers for Organizations

Adopting specialized browsers provides many benefits for organizations, including:

1. Improvements in Security

Enhanced security features protect against many cyber threats. They reduce data breach risks and ensure a safe browsing environment for employees.

1. Data Protection

These browsers need strong data protection, like encryption and secure storage. They protect sensitive data from unauthorized access and theft. They ensure compliance with data protection laws.

1. Enhanced Employee Productivity

These browsers improve employee productivity. They do this by providing a secure, controlled browsing environment. Features like quick access to resources and tools cut downtime. They also support better workflows.

1. Support for Regulatory Compliance

Specialized browsers help organizations meet regulations. They support data protection, privacy, and compliance with industry standards. This includes comprehensive audit trails, access controls, and reporting capabilities.

Challenges and Technical Hurdles

Advanced browsers are very beneficial. However, their implementation can pose challenges and technical hurdles.

1. Implementation Challenges

Integrating these browsers into an IT environment may need much planning and resources. Organizations must ensure compatibility with current systems and address any potential conflicts.

1. Technical Hurdles

Technical issues may arise during deployment. These include compatibility with legacy systems, performance concerns, and network configurations. We must plan and work with IT teams to fix these issues, which will ensure a smooth integration.

1. User Resistance

Introducing new technologies often faces resistance from employees accustomed to traditional browsers. To succeed, we must use effective change management strategies. These include user training and clear communication. They help us overcome resistance and ensure a smooth transition.

1.  Maintenance and Support

Ongoing maintenance and support are critical for the effective operation of advanced browsers. Organizations must allocate resources for regular updates, security patches, and technical support. A strong support system and training for IT staff and users are vital. They will maintain the browser’s effectiveness and fix any issues.

The Future of Enterprise Browsers and Security

As technology leaps forward, specialized web browsers evolve in lockstep. These digital guardians will boost their defenses. They’ll use new features to counter threats. Their future is linked to our changing security landscape. It must adapt quickly to protect users in a complex online world.

AI, machine learning, and encryption breakthroughs will reshape secure browsers. These innovations promise smarter threat detection, streamlined security, and faster performance. As technology evolves, users can expect more robust protection and seamless browsing experiences. The future of online safety hinges on these cutting-edge developments.

As digital threats evolve, organizations must adapt swiftly. Staying informed on emerging trends is crucial. Invest in cutting-edge technologies and embrace security best practices. Regularly assess and upgrade browser solutions. This proactive approach helps maintain a strong defense against new risks. By remaining vigilant and flexible, companies can safeguard their digital assets effectively.

Conclusion

Specialized Enterprise Browsers are revolutionizing digital security. These tailored solutions meet today’s complex business needs. They provide strong defenses and protect data. They help organizations protect their virtual assets by ensuring compliance and enhancing security. As cyber threats evolve, these browsers are key to a safer future for companies.

Organizations should assess their security needs before adopting these browsers. They should evaluate available solutions and create a detailed implementation plan. Using these advanced tools can help businesses boost security, improve productivity, and tackle growing digital threats.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/jMGfrDi

IBM CEO’s Plan to Replace People With AI Is Backfiring

IBM CEO Arvind Krishna rocked his company and the industry when he said AI could replace many back-office jobs, but his plan isn’t living up to the hype.

In May 2023, Krishna said he anticipated AI replacing thousands of IBM jobs.

“I could easily see 30% of that getting replaced by AI and automation over a five-year period,” he said at the time, speaking specifically of back-office roles. With 26,000 employees, 30% translates to roughly 7,800 jobs.

Krishna later backtracked, at least somewhat, saying he didn’t plan on axing any programming or development roles.

“I don’t intend to get rid of a single one,” he said. “I’ll get more.”

Unfortunately, it seems Krishna’s plans may not be going quite the way he anticipated. According to The Register, the company’s AI has not been up to the task of replacing people. To make matters worse, despite Krishna’s promise not to lay off developers and programmers, IBM has evidently done just that.

“I always make this joke about IBM,” said Alex, one of three pseudonymous sources for The Register’s report. “It is: ‘IBM doesn’t want people to work for them.’ Every six months or so they are doing rounds of [Resource Actions – IBM-speak for layoffs] or forcing folks into impossible moves, which result in separation.”

“With AI tools writing that code for us … why pay for senior-level staff when you can promote a youngster who doesn’t really know any better at a much lower price?” he added. “Plus, once you have a seasoned programmer write code that is by law the company’s IP and it is fed into an AI library, it basically learns it and the author is no longer needed.”

IBM’s strategy appears to be backfiring, with it no longer having the right personnel it needs to fix the issues it’s having with AI.

“The whole outsourced to AI thing is a myth that somehow our upper echelon of execs believes exists right now,” Casey, the second source, told The Register. “The truth is that Watsonx [IBM’s generative AI offering] isn’t even available to employees to attempt to try and help automate some meaningless task. It’s so far behind OpenAI and ChatGPT that it’s not even close.”

“A WatsonX chatbot is years behind ChatGPT,” Blake, the third source, said. “Its web interface was horribly broken to the point of being unusable until July 2024, and no one in the entire organization uses it.”

“Watsonx Code Assistant technically knows PHP, but it is very inferior to GitHub Copilot,” added. “Still, it’s better than nothing. The CEO keeps imploring developers to use it. No one does, except maybe one or two people.”

IBM’s troubles illustrate the issues companies are facing in their efforts to make their AI investments pay off.

IBM’s Issues Exacerbated By Shifts In the Industry

IBM’s challenges are made worse by a fundamental shift in the industry. According to The Register’s sources, senior software engineers are no longer being developed around the world, with retirees outpacing up-and-coming ones.

“Senior software engineers stopped being developed in the US around 2012,” Blake said. “That’s the real story. No country on Earth is producing new coders faster than old ones retire. India and Brazil were the last countries and both stopped growing new devs circa 2023. China stopped growing new devs in 2020.”

“Senior software engineers stopped being developed in the US around 2012,” he added. “That’s the real story. No country on Earth is producing new coders faster than old ones retire. India and Brazil were the last countries and both stopped growing new devs circa 2023. China stopped growing new devs in 2020.”

Given IBM’s penchant for letting senior programmers go, and its insistence on replacing personnel with AI, the company may simply not be able to solve the issues it’s currently facing anytime soon.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/Juda3sT