AI and ML

Because what could be more appealing to humans than sharing virtual space with AI?

After cutting over 4,000 jobs due to AI, fintech biz Block is back with Buzz, a shared workspace where humans and bots can collaborate in ways that are more auditable, sovereign, and secure than what you can do in chat tools such as Slack.

Block’s human-bot co-op is built upon a turducken of tech jargon: The platform is free and open source. It’s based on the decentralized Nostr protocol, so there’s cryptographic identity. It’s “sovereign,” a naively optimistic term readers of Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash should recognize, which in this context means self-hostable. And it’s intended as a replacement for Slack, GitHub, and various other communication and collaboration tools.

If “Buzz” sounds familiar, that’s because Google used that name in a social media faceplant more than 15 years ago. For those who missed the first go-around, Google Buzz, a failed social media service, gave rise to Google+, also a failed social media service. Block appears to believe that a decade and a half is sufficient for a brand cleanse.

The project’s GitHub repo offers a more apologetic assessment: “Yes, it’s another AI-adjacent developer tool. We’re sorry. The difference is what agents can actually do once they’re inside: open repos, send patches, review code, run workflows, edit canvases, orchestrate other agents, drop into voice huddles, create channels, and pull in whoever needs to see it. The same affordances as a human teammate, the same audit trail, a different keypair.”

You can already sic software agents on collaborative workspaces. Block’s main insight is that it would be useful to link AI agents with cryptographic identities. Others have already arrived at that conclusion. Hence OWASP’s Agent Name Service, DNS for AI Discovery, Estonia’s digital IDs for agents, and so on. But Buzz’s badging of humans and bots with cryptographic key pairs is bound to tick governance boxes.

“Every company is going to need a place where humans and agents work together,” said Bradley Axen, head of AI capabilities at Block, in a statement. “The question is whether that place is proprietary or open. We built Buzz because we believe it should be open.”

Moat-seeking tech incumbents would probably disagree about the need for openness, even though they’re fond of using the word without applying it. We note that OpenAI sells closed AI. And Anthropic’s decision to disallow third-party tools from using Claude subscriptions highlights the seemingly inevitable path from openness to barriers when revenue is at stake.

What’s more, it’s not obvious that every company will need people and bots in the same space. There’s a strong case for keeping humans and agents apart because they work at different speeds. Git at least was built for handling many distributed code edits, pull requests, and merges. It’s hard to see how people and bots can share a text-based communication space unless the bots are rate-limited or just talk among themselves.

“The bet is that one community can do what teams currently fake with chat, forges, bots, CI dashboards, release tools, search indexes, and a pile of glue code,” Block’s Buzz developers state. “Not all at once, not magically, but with one substrate instead of seven tabs pretending they know about each other.”

If tools for these sorts of things didn’t already exist, and no large tech companies had designs on this space, Buzz might face less daunting odds. But it’s worth a shot. ®

Paul Hales does not do subtle. Fortunately, the Theory Audio Design founder is equally obsessive about sound quality, robust construction, long-term reliability, and making system integration less painful than the kidney stone currently trying to kill me. I have installed one of Theory’s systems in my own home, so I know the difference.

The new Theory Audio Design DLC-1500.8d and four-model PLC Series loudspeaker controllers add more channels, greater power density, Dante and AES67 networking, and advanced DSP for demanding residential, commercial, and professional audio installations.

Pricing has not been announced, but Theory Audio Design is now shipping five new amplified loudspeaker controllers: the eight-channel DLC-1500.8d and four models in its new Powersoft-based PLC Series.

The expansion gives Theory considerably more horsepower for large home theaters, distributed audio systems, outdoor installations, commercial venues, marine projects, and live sound applications. More watts will not rescue a poorly designed system, but the networking, DSP, power sharing, and deployment tools are arguably the more important parts of this announcement.

Related Reviews: Theory Audio Design 5.2.2 Surround Sound System Review

DLC-1500.8d Doubles Down Without Consuming More Rack Space

The new DLC-1500.8d is the larger sibling to the four-channel DLC-1500.4d introduced in 2024. The earlier model delivered a claimed 3,000 watts from a 2U chassis; the new version doubles both the channel count and total rated output while retaining the same 2U footprint. 

Theory rates the DLC-1500.8d at 6,000 watts, with up to 1,500 watts into 4 or 8 ohms available from any channel pair. It is also specified to deliver 800 watts into 2 or 4 ohms with all channels driven.

High-current Euroblock outputs accept speaker cables up to 10-gauge, while four channels of Dante and AES67 audio-over-IP digital I/O simplify deployment in larger networked systems.

Theory says one DLC-1500.8d can power up to 32 of its 16-ohm loudspeakers in low-impedance mode or more than 300 loudspeakers directly in high-impedance mode without requiring an internal transformer. That is less about building an unnecessarily loud living room and more about reducing amplifier count in large estates, hospitality spaces, outdoor systems, and commercial installations. 

Configuration is handled through an onboard web interface using wired Ethernet or the controller’s integrated Wi-Fi access point. DSP tools include:

• Matrix mixing
• Priority routing and ducking
• Parametric EQ
• Delay and gain adjustment
• Output limiting

Control modules are available for AMX, Control4, Crestron, Crestron Home, ELAN, Josh.ai, Q-SYS, RTI, and Symetrix.

PLC Series Brings Powersoft Inside the Rack

The PLC Series was first previewed at CEDIA Expo 2025, but Theory had not released complete model specifications or pricing at the time. The company has now confirmed four models built around Powersoft amplification and signal-processing technology. 

Theory did not specify the load conditions used for those PLC power ratings in its announcement, so installers should consult the complete technical documentation before designing a system around the headline numbers.

All four models fit into a 1RU chassis and incorporate Powersoft’s Class D amplification, SmartRail energy-management power supplies, Power Factor Correction, advanced DSP, linear-phase FIR filtering, and Active Damping Control.

The PLC platform also includes proprietary Theory loudspeaker presets, native Dante and AES67 networking, all-channel power sharing, three configurable Gigabit Ethernet ports with one PoE connection, USB-based amplifier configuration restoration, and maritime compliance. 

Why This Matters for Theory Owners

Theory Audio Design does not treat amplification and DSP as accessories to be selected after the speakers. Its loudspeakers are designed as part of a complete system using Theory’s dedicated amplified controllers and optimized DSP presets.

That approach has already produced some rather convincing results.

When I reviewed the Theory Audio Design 5.2.2 surround system, it completely reset my expectations for what a soundbar-based home theater could deliver. Its combination of dynamics, scale, dialogue clarity, and control made it unmatched below $20,000 at the time. 

Theory continued to impress during our CEDIA Expo 2025 coverage, earning eCoustics Best in Show recognition for both the compact ic5 architectural loudspeaker and the ic6 deployed in its outdoor bollard enclosure. Its 9.2.4 system was also selected for Best Home Theater Sound at AXPONA 2026. 

The common thread has been high efficiency, controlled dispersion, strong dynamic performance, and consistent voicing across different installation formats. The new controllers allow integrators to apply that same system-based approach to substantially larger and more complicated projects.

CEDIA Expo 2026

Theory Audio Design will demonstrate the DLC-1500.8d and PLC Series in Booth 1300 at CEDIA Expo 2026, which runs September 1 through 4 at the Colorado Convention Center in Denver. eCoustics will be there, and we will have the opportunity to try the new controllers inside a complete Theory system rather than merely admiring the power ratings on a rack sheet. 

The Bottom Line

The DLC-1500.8d looks like a logical and useful evolution of Theory’s existing controller platform, doubling the channels and claimed total output of the DLC-1500.4d without demanding additional rack space.

The PLC Series is the larger strategic move. Powersoft technology, substantially greater power density, Dante and AES67 networking, and more scalable system management could make Theory a viable option well beyond dedicated home theaters.

Sixteen thousand watts in a 1RU chassis certainly gets attention. Pricing, thermal management, network reliability, noise levels, and ease of deployment will determine whether integrators keep ordering them after the demonstrations are over.

For more information: theoryprofessional.com

Related Reading:

U.S. Lawmakers have written to President Donald Trump, hoping he will do something to help big tech companies being targeted by the E.U.’s Digital Markets Act.

The European Union’s Digital Markets Act has been a thorn in Apple’s side since its introduction. Lawmakers in the United States want something done to fight what they consider to be rules that target U.S. Big Tech firms unfairly.

A letter signed by 25 Republicans, including seven members of the House of Representatives Trade Subcommittee, has been sent to Trump, urging him to open trade investigations against the E.U. The letter, seen by Reuters on July 21, focuses chiefly on the Digital Markets Act as a tool that works against U.S. firms.

Describing the rules as “anti-competitive acts, policies, and practices,” the letter accuses the E.U. of using them as tools of “economic extraction and regulatory coercion against American firms.” Trump is urged to take action before Europe “further entrenches this anti-American regime.”

As an example, the letter proposes that the addition of the cloud units of Amazon and Microsoft under the Digital Markets Act would place “unprecedented regulatory burdens” on the companies. Burdens that European and Chinese rivals apparently wouldn’t face.

Apple’s designation as a gatekeeper under DMA rules is also raised, alongside Amazon and Meta’s inclusion. Meanwhile, China giants Temu and AliExpress are not classed as such, partly due to the rules relying on the number of European users who use them.

There’s also the apparent problem of firms in the E.U. having access to the U.S. market with less regulatory oversight than the U.S. firms in the E.U. This access should be limited if the E.U. continues to use discriminatory rules, it continues.

The letter said that the U.S. should use all available tools, including Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. This rule would combat perceived unfair trade practices by imposing tariffs, Trump’s favorite international economic weapon.

E.U. “innocence”

While lawmakers are insistent that the transatlantic relationship between the U.S. and Europe is very much one-sided and grossly unfair, the EU thinks otherwise.

Thomas Regnier, European Commission spokesperson, said the European Union has the sovereign right to regulate economic activities taking place within its borders. This also applies to digital regulation, he continued, insisting they are being enforced in a “fair and non-discriminatory manner.”

This enforcement has included continuing to fight Apple over the App Store and iMessages. For the App Store, this has led to the fairly lukewarm creation of third-party app storefronts on the continent.

Apple has also caught the occasional break from regulation, too. When it comes to Apple Maps and Apple Ads, the E.U. doesn’t believe they are large enough to be subject to regulation under the DMA.

The regulations have also led to Apple holding back from launching some products in Europe, because of DMA compliance concerns. While the rest of the world will get to use Siri AI this fall, the EU will miss out.

Reviving retaliation

The letter to President Trump and the reference to Section 301 is a carefully planned request, that effectively is a callback to a warning from September 2025.

At the time, Trump warned Europe that the U.S. would retaliate if the E.U. continued to fine U.S. companies and burden them with regulations. There was the same threat of invoking Section 301 to allow U.S. officials to investigate and respond to unfair foreign trade practices.

Trump insisted that Europe was unfairly targeting American companies, such as Apple. The penalties levied by Europe were deemed to be diverting money away from U.S. investment and jobs.

By spelling out that the lawmakers want Trump to do what he threatened in September, the letter could be enough to nudge the President into following through.

Four classic Xbox games are heading to PC as part of a new program from Microsoft. These older titles, which are currently available on Xbox Game Pass, will now be playable on desktops, laptops and handhelds such as the ROG Xbox Ally and Xbox Ally X.

On Wednesday, the Xbox Backward Compatibility preview went live, allowing owners of four titles first released for the original Xbox — Blinx: The Time Sweeper, Conker: Live and Reloaded, Crimson Skies: High Road to Revenge and Fuzion Frenzy — to play them on their Windows PC and handhelds. Microsoft says it will roll out more features for these games in the future, including Xbox Achievements.

Microsoft

The four games may be more than 20 years old, but Microsoft did add some options to improve the gaming experience. Players can change the graphics settings, including up to 4x resolution upscaling, VSync support, display mode options, anisotropic filtering, enhanced anti-aliasing and more customizations to improve the look of these older titles.

Each game is available for purchase for $10 from the Xbox Store, and once owned on Xbox, the games can be played on PC or handhelds via Xbox Play Anywhere or streamed with Xbox Cloud Gaming. The titles are also available on Xbox Game Pass.

In order to play these games on a desktop, laptop or handheld, it must meet certain hardware specs:

Minimum system requirements: 

• GPU: Nvidia GTX 950 or AMD Radeon RX 550 or Intel UHD 770 or Intel Arc A310  
• CPU: Min 4 Cores Intel Core i3-8100 or AMD Ryzen 3 1200 or AMD Ryzen™ Z2 A Processor  
• RAM: 8GB  
• OS: Windows 11   
• Drivers and Versions: Latest Version as of January 2026 

Recommended specifications: 

• GPU: Radeon RX 68005 or Nvidia GTX 1070 Ti or Intel Arc A770 
• CPU: 6 cores and 12 threads Intel Core i5-10400 or AMD Ryzen 5 3600 or AMD Ryzen AI Z2 Extreme 
• DirectX Version: DirectX12 API, Hardware Feature Level 11 
• GPU VRAM: 8GB 
• OS: Windows 11 
• Drivers and Versions: Latest Version as of January 2026 

Microsoft says the Xbox Backward Compatibility program is a form of game preservation, which has become a concern for gamers. With Sony announcing it will phase out physical discs and Nintendo’s Game-Key Cards that don’t contain the actual games, many worry that game ownership will become entirely dependent on publishers rather than having a physical medium to hold onto. There is a growing number of delisted games that are no longer available to those who purchased them, and with the future of gaming looking increasingly uncertain because of the current memory shortage, many fear their digital game collections could simply disappear from their accounts.

Oscar Gonzalez

Contributing writer

Oscar Gonzalez is a Texas native who covered video games, conspiracy theories, misinformation and cryptocurrency.

See full bio

Advertisement

from the this-must-not-happen-in-a-free-society dept

You’d think that watching multiple lawyers get caught red-handed using AI to file briefs full of made-up citations would cause everyone in the legal profession — especially prosecutors — to double-check their own. You would, of course, be wrong. And the latest offender is not just some random lawyer. It’s the DOJ itself, which cited a nonexistent Sixth Circuit case to argue that an ICE detainee shouldn’t be able to challenge a stay that prevented him from posting a bond that had already been granted, thereby leaving him in detention.

This story hits on two different threads we’ve been covering over the last few years separately. Having them collide somehow makes both worse.

We’ve covered plenty of cases where lawyers for one party (or both, or sometimes judges) are misusing AI to do their writing for them, generating fictitious cases in support of whatever argument they’re seeking to make. This is troubling on many levels, because one of the things any lawyer is supposed to do before submitting anything to a court is check the citations. Historically that has been to make sure the cases cited haven’t been overruled. In these cases, not only is that not happening, they’re literally putting in cases that don’t exist, citing precedents that are completely fictitious.

Our other line of stories touched on here is how ICE and the DOJ have been stomping all over detainees’ basic constitutional rights.

This is one of many cases in which lawyers for a detainee have filed a habeas petition — and it’s a clean example of those two threads colliding in practice. I’ll let Judge Hala Y. Jarbou summarize the basics of what happened:

Petitioner, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainee, initiated this action by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) An immigration judge had granted Petitioner a bond of $35,000, but the bond order was stayed pending appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(i) (2025). Petitioner argued that the 90-day automatic stay provision in § 1003.19(i) violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and sought an order requiring the Government to allow him to post bond. While this lawsuit was pending, the automatic stay of Petitioner’s bond order expired. The Government now represents that the bond order is back in effect and Petitioner will be released if he posts the $35,000 bond. (Status Report, ECF No. 10.) Accordingly, the Court finds that the habeas petition is moot and dismisses it without prejudice.

Already frustrating enough that the 90-day “automatic stay” that the detainee was challenging ended before the actual case could be decided, making the whole thing moot.

But… there’s something else the judge had on her mind. The DOJ appeared to have a totally fabricated citation in an earlier filing:

There is one additional issue in this case that the Court must address. In the Government’s response to the Court’s initial order to show cause, it stated the following:

More recently, the Sixth Circuit has reiterated that § 1226(e) bars challenges that “ask the court to reweigh the evidence underlying a bond decision or second-guess the Immigration Judge’s discretionary judgment.” See Taylor v. Hott, 724 F. App’x 387, 392 (6th Cir. 2018) (district court lacked jurisdiction to review IJ’s bond denial where petitioner challenged flight-risk determination) . . . .

(Gov’t’s Resp. 9, ECF No. 5.) The cited case, Taylor v. Hott, is not located at the identified page of the Federal Appendix. Indeed, page 387 is contained within a different opinion—Atkins v. CGI Techs. & Sols., Inc., 724 F. App’x 383 (6th Cir. 2018)—which is about commercial arbitration, not immigration bond determinations. In its research, the Court was unable to identify a Sixth Circuit case with the caption Taylor v. Hott, or any federal case containing the quoted language. Thus, it seems this citation was likely produced by generative artificial intelligence (“AI”).

Advertisement

It is already bad enough when you have a fabricated citation in a civil case between two private parties. But here we’re literally talking about a case involving someone’s freedom. And the government is filing AI-generated fake cases?!?

We should be livid. But the judge lets them off with a little slap on the wrist and a “please don’t do this again”:

It should be obvious that any attorney who uses AI must scrupulously review its work product to ensure that the cited cases exist and that the citations accurately and fairly represent the underlying case law. The duty of candor towards this tribunal demands no less.

Although the Court will not presently impose sanctions for this conduct, it goes without saying that the Government must ensure its future filings with this Court do not include nonexistent case law

And, yes, judges tend to be fairly restrained in issuing sanctions, often giving misbehaving lawyers many more chances than they probably deserve before rushing to punishment. But, again, this was someone’s freedom on the line. And the DOJ literally directly — whether intentionally or not — misled the court with a precedent that doesn’t exist. That should never happen.

We all know the DOJ is having trouble staffing lawyers. Over 10,000 lawyers have left the federal government since Donald Trump came back into office. They’re offering large bonuses for jobs that lawyers used to deliberately take massive pay cuts to get on their resume. Pretty much everyone agrees it’s a staffing crisis, to the point that earlier this year an apparently exhausted Assistant US Attorney, Julie Le, asked an angry judge to find her in contempt just so she could get some sleep:

Attorney Julie Le was representing the government at a hearing over ICE’s failure to follow court orders and immediately release people that it had wrongfully detained. When Judge Jerry Blackwell asked why the agency is not complying, Le said that the government was “overwhelmed” by the legal challenges to Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota, and that trying to get ICE to comply with court orders has required nonstop work for an office depleted by resignations. 

“I wish you would just hold me in contempt of court so I can get 24 hours of sleep,” Le said. “The system sucks, this job sucks, I am trying with every breath I have to get you what I need.” 

Given that kind of work environment, is it really any surprise that the few remaining DOJ lawyers would turn to hallucinating AI tools to “generate” their legal filings?

But if you’re starting to feel any ounce of sympathy for the DOJ here, let’s be clear: fuck that. If the DOJ can’t do their fucking job they shouldn’t be throwing people into jails, detainment centers, concentration camps, or anything of that nature. If they want to go around fighting habeas petitions, maybe don’t lock up so many people without any ounce of due process. And if they want to keep people detained then hire enough lawyers to handle the government’s case load.

And if that’s too difficult because good lawyers have no interest in working for a fascist regime that is stomping all over basic fundamental freedoms in every direction, well, maybe work on that rather than locking innocent people up with no due process. Donald Trump’s administration put this DOJ in this position and there’s simply zero excuse for judges letting the DOJ get away with this sort of absolute bullshit.

Judges should be issuing sanctions left and right. They should be reporting lawyers to ethics committees and the relevant bar associations. They should be demanding that the government actually obey the fucking law, and not deny anyone their rights.

Want to stop the DOJ from locking people up with fictitious cases? Start issuing actual consequences to those lawyers and anyone else at the DOJ who had anything to do with this.

Filed Under: ai, ai hallucinations, doj, hala jarbou, ice detentions, izzeddin daghra, julie le

The company is already preparing updates to the MacBook Neo, iMac, MacBook Air and more.