As AI continues to encroach on every aspect of our lives, there is a persistent fear or hope, depending on your angle: AI will someday take over art. The internet is full of quizzes showing that most lay people cannot tell the difference between AI-generated art (digital pictures of paintings, prose) and the real thing. Multiple studies have shown that when people are shown AI-generated art and human-made art, but are not told which is which, they tend to prefer the AI-generated art, whether it be images, poetry, or prose.
Tech
Is AI-generated art really art? Here’s what the history says.
Yet what’s striking is that despite this disparity, people still consistently say that human-made art is what they want.
In one study published in 2023, participants were shown a series of images, each randomly labeled “AI-made” or “human-made.” Participants rated the images they thought were machine made as worse than the images they thought had been created by a human artist — even when those were actually human-made.
A natural experiment in how difficult it can be for people to tell the difference between AI-generated art and human-made art occurred last month, when the prestigious Commonwealth Foundation awarded its short story prize to “The Serpent in the Grove,” which a bears some of the hallmarks of AI-generated prose. In a statement to New York magazine, the Commonwealth Foundation said that the prize committee does not use AI checkers, but that “all shortlisted writers have personally stated that no AI was used.”
The big “tell” for “Serpent in the Grove” was that it is riddled with metaphors that are rhythmic and evocative at first glance but fall apart when you try to figure out what they mean: “The girl smiled like sunrise over a sink”; “She had the kind of walking that made benches become men.” If art is about connecting with another human mind, we might say that “Serpent” fails if, when you read it, you find it almost impossible to tell what the mind behind that story is trying to say.
One conclusion you might draw here is that the widespread disdain for AI-generated art is empty snobbery. If human-made art were so much better, the argument goes, then people would be able to see a real difference.
This line of thinking relies on the belief that “good” art is something that many people find appealing, at least in a vacuum. At this point, AI has automated that generation fairly successfully. At some point, it may get even better at it.
But I don’t think those study participants were lying when they said they wanted human-made art, even if they couldn’t tell the difference. Even if we get to a future in which AI’s persistent glitches are ironed out, so that there are no more missing fingers and garbled sentences, and AI-generated images and music and poetry and prose and film are completely indistinguishable from the best a human can produce, even to highly trained experts — even then, I think people would still keep saying they would rather experience art made by humans. And even in such a world, I don’t think they would be lying.
The pleasure of art is specifically related to the human mind on the other side of the product. When we’re told that the mind on the other side is a machine, many of us don’t want to engage anymore.
That loss of interest matters. It is consistent. It has happened before in the history of art.
Two hundred years ago, another new technology emerged that was capable of automating the technical skills many people at the time would have considered one of art’s fundamental functions: the camera. It could capture a likeness perfectly and very quickly, in a moment when almost all of visual arts were organized around capturing a likeness.
The camera changed the way paintings were produced and ultimately valued, but it did not replace the medium entirely — and the reasons why can help explain why AI-generated art won’t replace human-made art, either.
“Art’s most mortal enemy”
In 19th-century Europe, one of the major ways people decided whether a painting was good was by asking the question, “How closely does this match what I can see with my eyes?” It was important for painters to be able to create something that we would now describe as photorealistic.
What people wanted from art at the time, says Richard Meyer, a professor of art history and director of American studies at Stanford University, was what people expect from a good Hollywood movie now: “You suspend your disbelief that you’re looking at a flat surface with pigment built up on it, and you fall into the fiction of, here are these beautiful bodies before you, or here is this landscape, or here’s this bowl of fruit.”
An artist’s skill was in large part defined by how faithfully they were able to recreate reality. Many artists were able to make a living painting relatively affordable portraits, which allowed people who weren’t aristocrats or nobility to commission a permanent record of their appearance, says Anju Lukose-Scott, a curator and master’s student at the University of Chicago.
As inventors began to develop early versions of photography in the middle of the 19th century, it started to seem like artists might become redundant. A camera can create an exact record of the way the world looks far faster and more easily than any painter can, no matter how skilled they are with their brush. The new technology, French poet Charles Baudelaire wrote darkly in 1859, was “art’s most mortal enemy.” By the 20th century, as it became possible to reproduce an old masterpiece on a postcard, philosopher Walter Benjamin feared that original works of art had lost their unique aura.
The immediate implications for a large class of skilled craftspeople were catastrophic. “Portraiture was a huge commercial business,” Lukose-Scott says. The camera made such work nearly obsolete. Some artists went out of business; others pivoted to making daguerreotypes for their clients instead of paintings.
But the effect on painting as a fine art form was different, Meyer says. Painters began to focus on what they could accomplish with their brushes that a camera could not. Instead of trying to capture reality, they began to use colors and textures to convey emotions.
Artists in the new impressionist movement would deliberately show their brushstrokes in their paintings, making the texture of the paint and canvas part of the artistic effect they were developing. Since photography was still a black-and-white medium, the impressionists made vivid colors more and more central to their work. They moved away from trying to duplicate the shapes and lines that cameras could record so well, and instead began to explore the way unnatural shapes and lines could provoke a visceral response from a viewer.
To the modern eye, it’s these discrepancies between paintings and reality that make these impressionist paintings so exciting and pleasurable to look at. They show us a way of perceiving the world that photography cannot.
As painting evolved, photography took over where trade portraiture left off: It was considered a craft, not an art. When people began to take photography seriously as its own medium in the 20th century, it wasn’t because of photography’s exceptional ability to capture a likeness, Meyer says. The ability to do that could now be taken for granted. Instead, the art of photography was about the choices made by the human using the camera: what to shoot, how to frame the subject, how to light it, how to edit it.
Today, almost all of us carry cameras around in our pockets. But most of us would not describe the quick, functional photographs we take with our smartphones as art, no matter how accurately they capture the world around us. People can and do make art with their phones, but doing so requires a human mind working with intention and craft behind the machine of the camera.
We no longer consider the ability to create a perfect replica of reality to be the main prerequisite to making a piece of visual art. Technology has made it easy enough to do that the skill has lost value. People still care about visual art, but we use different criteria to evaluate it than we did in 1800.
AI’s arrival may very well devalue the ability to create smoothly readable text and pleasant visual compositions, and that could mean bad things for a lot of industries, including journalism. But that doesn’t mean we’ll stop caring about whether or not a human being made a piece of art.
“Art offers us a way of looking”
I keep thinking about something Meyer told me about what happened to the 19th-century portrait painters who lost their jobs to daguerreotypists. Meyer argues that there was something about the nature of middle-class portraiture that made people willing to cede it to cameras, in a way that they didn’t feel happy to do with the types of paintings that live on in museums.
In portraiture, Meyer says, “you’re going not so much for the individual expressive perspective of the artist but for a likeness. It’s really about oneself, the person portrayed, rather than the person portraying.” In contrast, Meyer says, fine art is about the artist, and the way that the artist sees the world.
It’s worth spending a bit of time on the distinction Meyer is drawing. One thing that people who love playing with AI sometimes say is that the pleasure of prompting comes from watching a stray thought become concrete in the blink of an eye: It is a piece of your mind made external, so that you can look at it. An AI prompt is about the person prompting, in much the same way that the average hired portrait was about the person being painted.
If I consider an image or a piece of text to be a reflection of myself, I might not mind using soulless technology to create it — it’s already interesting to me, because it’s about me and for me. But when an image or a piece of text is about something else, I feel differently. I want to connect with another person, not something mechanical.
That seems to be the thing that most humans crave from art: an encounter with another human mind. Someone expresses how it feels to be alive in a human body, with a human soul, and another one sees it, reads it, hears it, and grasps at it. That is the experience that moves us.
“It’s about wanting to understand how an individual sees the world differently from how we can see it on our own,” Meyer says. “Art offers us a way of looking.”
So when we think about whether AI-generated content has the potential to be art, to replace art, the question that matters is not whether it can create entertaining or realistic images and text out of nothing. The question is whether the machine allows us to experience the way a different person lives in the world.
For Lukose-Scott, the possibility is unlikely, because today’s LLMs are trained on a corpus of existing art. ”What’s retained in the invention of photography is a kind of artistic identity. People are using the technology through their own artistic voice, which from my perspective is lacking in AI,” Lukose-Scott says. “My perception of AI art is that it’s just a self-gratifying loop, because it’s taking from what we already know, and it’s putting it back in the world.”
When a person uses ChatGPT to spit out a Studio Gibliflied replication of their family snapshots, they are not showing us a new form of subjectivity. They are mimicking the subjectivity of Hayao Miyazaki, without bringing Miyazaki’s intention or skill to bear on the finished product — and they’re able to do so because OpenAI trained its model on Miyazaki’s work without his permission. Unlike the camera, AI is built on a foundation of what is arguably intellectual theft.
This is not to say that it would be impossible for an artist to use AI as a tool to produce new artistic ideas, just as it is not impossible for an artist to use an iPhone camera as a tool to make art. But it would look different from slapping a prompt into Midjourney, for the same reason that most people’s iPhone selfies are not very artistically interesting: Because they are about and for you, not about sharing your embodied experience with the world.
The context matters enormously. The context is what tells me that when I reach out to art with my human mind — my human soul — another mind is on the other side, reaching back.
Tech
Is gaming better value than movies? New study shows US gamers think it’s a better use of their cash
- A new Entertainment Software Association study found that most Americans think video games provide the most entertainment value for their money compared to other forms of entertainment
- 75% of parents are actively play video games each week, while 81% enjoy playing with their children
- The majority of players across all age groups are also spending money on in-game content
A new Entertainment Software Association (ESA) study has found that the majority of gamers in the United States prefer to spend their money on video games because they think they provide more entertainment value than other forms of media.
As detailed in its annual Essential Facts About the U.S. Video Game Industry report conducted in partnership with YouGov, video games are more popular than ever among most age groups.
According to the ESA, 67% of Americans between the ages of five and 90 are now playing video games one or more hours per week, which equates to 212.3 million. This is up by 3% (7.2million) compared to 2025, and split fairly equally between men and women, with 53% of men and 46% of women actively playing.
The latest stats show that parents actually like their children playing video games and enjoy gaming with them, with 75% actively playing video games each week, and 81% saying they also game with their children (52% at least weekly).
Nearly half (49%) of parents also believe that their children playing games teaches important skills, such as problem solving and creative thinking, while the majority of American adults recognize the positive benefits of play.
85% find games to be fun, 78% say they offer stress relief, and 79% say they provide mental stimulation. Younger gamers in the Gen Z category (88%) also believe gaming brings people together and builds relationships (87%).
Gaming is a billion-dollar industry, and the cost of consoles and software has been increasing over the past few years, with most AAA first-party games now costing upwards of $80 to $90.
However, according to the study, most Americans (63%) believe games offer the most value for their money compared to other forms of media like video streaming services for music, TV, movies, books, and magazines.
The majority of players across all age groups are also spending additional money on in-game content, with 69% of Gen Alpha, 78% of Gen Z, and 67% of Millennials typically spending $20 per month.
54% of parents are even purchasing in-game content for their children, although we don’t know which games. 93% of them also said they require approval for in-game purchases made by their kids.
Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button!

The best gaming consoles
Tech
Daily Deal: LabsDigest | Techdirt
from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept
LabsDigest is built for those who learn best by doing. Whether you’re preparing for a CompTIA certification or diving into Python development, our platform offers interactive labs that simulate real-world tasks—no passive watching or reading, just real experience. Work through performance-based exercises for CompTIA A+, Network+, Security+, and more, or sharpen your coding skills with hands-on Python projects. Learn by solving problems, fixing bugs, and applying your knowledge in practical scenarios that prepare you for the real world. It’s on sale for $30.
Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackSocial. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.
Filed Under: daily deal
Tech
Lovable makes Google Cloud a primary partner to win over corporate buyers
The Swedish app-builder, processing a million new projects a week, is making Google Cloud a primary partner, with Gemini models and a security layer aimed at corporate buyers.
The pitch behind Lovable has always been that anyone can build software by chatting with an AI. The harder pitch, the one that turns a viral tool into a durable business, is that a large company can trust what gets built.
On 3 June, at Google Cloud’s Nordics summit in Stockholm, Lovable set out to make that second case, announcing an expanded multi-year collaboration with Google Cloud aimed squarely at enterprise buyers.
The deal makes Google Cloud one of Lovable’s primary technology partners, anchoring its platform on Google’s AI infrastructure and Gemini models. Lovable says its users are now processing more than one million new projects every week, a volume that has outgrown the scrappy infrastructure a consumer tool can run on and needs the secure, enterprise-grade backing a hyperscaler provides.
Lovable is one of the more remarkable growth stories in recent software. Founded in Sweden and built around what the industry has taken to calling “vibe coding,” turning natural-language prompts into full-stack applications, it raised a $200M Series A in mid-2025 at a $1.8bn valuation and was reported to be valued at around $6.6bn by the end of the year. The company says builders created more than 25 million projects in its first year, and that Lovable-built applications now draw 600 million visits a month.
The collaboration is built on three pillars, and they read as a checklist of what enterprises demand before they let an AI tool near production. The first is a verified agent: Lovable has launched its Lovable Agent in Google Cloud’s Gemini Enterprise Agent Gallery, a vetted catalogue of third-party agents that corporate customers can adopt with some assurance about what they are running.
The second is security, reinforced by a new integration with Wiz, the cloud-security company Google is acquiring, to identify and remediate vulnerabilities in AI-generated code in real time, alongside continuous scanning, dependency checks, permissioning and audit trails.
The third pillar is the least glamorous and arguably the most telling: simplified procurement and billing through Google Cloud Marketplace and Gemini Enterprise.
Enterprises buy software through approved channels with predictable invoicing, and being available where a corporate buyer already has a billing relationship removes a quiet but real barrier to adoption. The pillar exists because procurement, not capability, is often what stalls enterprise deals.
The security emphasis is the substantive part of the announcement, because it speaks to the central anxiety about AI-generated code. Tools that let non-engineers ship applications also let them ship vulnerabilities they cannot see, and for a regulated enterprise that risk is disqualifying.
Wrapping Lovable’s output in continuous scanning and remediation is the company conceding that “anyone can build” needs “and it will be checked” attached before a serious buyer signs on.
There is a competitive subtext worth noting. Lovable sits in a crowded vibe-coding field alongside Cursor, Replit and Bolt, and the AI model providers themselves are building rival app-creation tools.
Tying tightly to Google Cloud, and to Gemini, gives Lovable a hyperscaler’s distribution and infrastructure at a moment when its rivals are racing for the same enterprise budgets. It also slots into Google’s broader campaign to win the “agentic enterprise,” the same push behind its $750M partner fund for agentic AI.
As a Google Cloud announcement, the framing is naturally Google’s, and the deeper commercial terms, what each side pays and commits, are not disclosed. What the partnership establishes is direction.
Lovable has decided its next phase runs through the enterprise, and that getting there means less talk of how easy building is and more proof that what gets built is secure, governed and accountable. The million projects a week are the easy part. Convincing a Fortune 500 compliance team is the part this deal is for.
Tech
Hydraulic Drive For Your Lawn Tractor
Most larger ride-around landscaping machinery has a similar transmission, a transaxle containing a gearbox, or in some cases, a continuously variable drive. [Made In Garage] has a Toro lawn tractor with just such a setup, and when the transaxle failed he replaced it with a hydraulic drive.
The video below is a classic bit of workshop porn, as he fabricates both the hubs and the rear frame to fit a pair of hydraulic motors. The throttle pedal is a hydraulic valve with the lever swapped for a pedal, and the hydraulic reservoir, in a nice touch, is an old fire extinguisher.
We’re not so sure about the pipework in such an exposed position under the machine as we think it would inevitably be damaged, but you can’t argue with the results. Having used a rough service mower with a hydraulic drive in the past, we appreciate always being exactly at the right ratio for the engine.
We think perhaps he should complement it with a loader.
Thanks [Keith Olson] for the tip!
Tech
CISA warns of active attacks exploiting Android, Linux bugs
The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is warning that hackers are exploiting vulnerabilities in the Linux kernel and Android operating system.
The most recent flaw the agency added to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog, CVE-2025-48595, is a high-severity integer overflow vulnerability in the Android Framework, which can be leveraged for increased privileges.
According to Google’s recent security bulletin, the security issue impacts Android 14 through 16, and requires no user interaction to exploit.
Google indicated that CVE-2025-48595 may be under limited targeted exploitation in the wild, but provided no specific details about the activity or technical information about the flaw or the incidents.
The issue has been addressed with the release of June 2026 security patches (2026-06-01 and 2026-06-05 security patch levels).
The second vulnerability CISA added to KEV is tracked as CVE-2022-0492, a high-severity privilege escalation flaw that impacts multiple Linux kernel branches, from 2.6 through 4.20, and from 5.5 through 5.17.
The flaw lies in the ‘cgroup_release_agent_write()’ function of the cgroups v1 subsystem, which, due to insufficient authentication checks, can be abused by a local attacker to bypass namespace isolation, escalate privileges, and potentially escape from a container to gain root-level access on the host system.
According to past reports from Aqua Security and Palo Alto Networks, the issue primarily impacts containerized environments using cgroups v1, and is especially dangerous when containers are granted elevated capabilities.
The Linux kernel versions that address the issue are:
- 4.9.301+
- 4.14.266+
- 4.19.229+
- 5.4.177+
- 5.10.97+
- 5.15.20+
- 5.16.6+
- 5.17-rc3+
By including the two flaws in KEV, all federal agencies bound by the BOD 22-01 directive are required to apply the vendor-provided security updates and mitigations, or to stop using the impacted software. CISA set the deadline for June 5.
However, the KEV also serves as a notice board for critical infrastructure entities and large organizations in general, who should take security measures against these flaws with the same urgency.
Neither of the flaws is marked as exploited by ransomware groups, which is a specific flag CISA uses on its KEV entries to highlight additional severity and patching urgency.
Automated pentesting tools deliver real value, but they were built to answer one question: can an attacker move through the network? They were not built to test whether your controls block threats, your detection rules fire, or your cloud configs hold.
This guide covers the 6 surfaces you actually need to validate.
Tech
School Phone Bans: Great Politics, Mediocre Education Policy
from the there-is-no-magic-wand dept
Before the current wave of laws banning mobile phones in schools, we had published a piece from some researchers who had looked at how similar bans had worked in Australia, with the conclusion that… they didn’t. At best, the research showed the evidence on school phone bans to be “weak and inconclusive.” Those authors suggested that rather than doing outright bans, politicians should leave the issue to the schools themselves to determine what’s best.
So it should come as little surprise that two years later, after many similar bans have gone into effect in the US that… the studies are showing up as (you guessed it) weak and inconclusive. The new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) has some people shaking their heads because it can find no evidence of better student performance in schools.
Schools that adopted strict bans — requiring students to keep their devices in locked pouches throughout the school day — saw a meaningful decline in student cellphone use. But test scores have not increased in those places on average. And at first, banning phones led to higher suspension rates.
That’s not to say there should be a free for all in schools. But, once again, it would be nice if politicians, the media, and other commentators could finally (for once) recognize that blanket bans of technology are almost never the answer. The relationship between students and technology is complex and nuanced and doesn’t have a single effect in a single direction. Instead, it’s highly context and individual dependent.
A reasonable, nuanced approach is (1) better equipping teachers with tools to be flexible, (2) better educating students on the tradeoffs of technology use, and (3) improving the overall education environment with an actual recognition that context matters.
Obviously, if kids are just sitting in class all day staring at their phones instead of paying attention to the teacher, that’s a problem. But there are ways to deal with that specific scenario that don’t require a full ban. For some schools a full ban could absolutely make sense, and for others it doesn’t.
We’re going through this in our own local school district where, starting a few years ago, the high school (after studying and then testing different solutions) put boards in every classroom with pockets, where students were asked to deposit their phone at the beginning of every class. This created some challenges, such as when some teachers used the phones in pockets as an attendance-taking short-cut and some students (including my own kid) did not have a phone with them at all in school (by their own choice at the time). But it also meant kids could have phones on them between classes and at lunch.
It’s not a perfect solution, but that’s an important point: nothing is a perfect solution, and pretending otherwise is a problem.
But then California passed a new law, which required schools to come up with plans to ban phones. While the law was not nearly as strict as many other school phone ban laws and does actually give schools more freedom in creating a policy for their own community, it already has resulted in a bunch of wasted time where our school district feels they need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new phone ban plan, even though the old one appeared to be working decently well.
At the last minute, California has even scaled back its original law, giving schools even more freedom — but also more confusion.
But this whole episode reeks of the usual political and media reflex of “we must do something, this is something, therefore we will do it.”
Letting communities and schools decide how best to handle in school distractions seems like a much more appropriate approach. And part of that is teaching everyone that there is no magic bullet solution to problems. Kids are in school to learn, and part of that learning should be “hey, you shouldn’t be staring at your phone all day, but also it shouldn’t take a law to get you to put down the phone.”
The new study just confirms what the earlier research already showed. Blanket bans make for good press releases. They don’t make for better students.
The hard, unglamorous work of actually improving education — better-equipped teachers, more engaged classrooms, students who’ve been taught to think critically about their own technology use — doesn’t fit on a campaign mailer. So we keep getting laws instead of solutions.
Filed Under: california, education, phones, school phone bans, schools, teens
Tech
Google offers Android app developers cash in exchange for code to train AI
![]()
According to a report from 404 Media, Google has emailed some Android app developers with a “confidential content offer pilot,” inviting them to share their codebases with the company to help train its AI coding tools. Google said the program would provide participating developers with an additional way to monetize…
Read Entire Article
Source link
Tech
Suno raises at a $5.4bn valuation, more than doubling its worth in six months
Eighteen months ago Suno was the AI company the music industry wanted to destroy. Every major record label had sued it, accusing it of training its models on copyrighted songs without permission. Now the labels are its partners, and investors have repriced the company accordingly. Suno has raised new capital at a $5.4bn valuation, more than double the $2.45bn it was worth just six months ago.
Bond Capital led the round, a Series D that had been reported to be closing for several weeks. The step-up is steep: a little over 2x in roughly half a year, the kind of re-rating that usually reflects either explosive growth or a fundamental change in a company’s risk profile. In Suno’s case it reflects both, and the second may matter more than the first.
The growth is real enough. Suno says more than 100 million people have now used the service, with around 2 million paid subscribers, and it reported roughly $150M in revenue in 2025.
By the measure investors care about, it is one of the breakout consumer-AI products, turning text prompts into finished songs for a mass audience rather than a niche of producers.
But the more important shift is legal. When Suno last raised, it did so under an existential cloud: lawsuits from Universal, Warner and Sony, any of which could in principle have ended the business if the courts found its training data infringing. That cloud has substantially lifted.
Warner settled in November 2025 and struck a partnership to build licensed models, and Universal settled in October, its deal pairing a payment with a licensing arrangement for a joint AI platform. Two of the three majors that wanted Suno gone are now commercial partners.
That is the change investors are paying for. A company facing three industry-ending lawsuits is priced for the possibility of zero. A company that has converted two of those plaintiffs into licensors, and is rebuilding its models on authorised catalogue with artist opt-in, is priced as a going concern with a path to legitimacy. The valuation jump is less a bet on more users than a re-rating of the chance that Suno survives to keep them.
The terms of the settlements point at what Suno becomes on the other side. It has said it will launch new, licensed models in 2026 and deprecate the current ones, give artists and songwriters control over whether their names, voices and compositions are used, and require a paid account to download audio.
That is a more constrained, more expensive product than the free-for-all that built its user base, and the strategic question is whether 100 million users trained on the old model accept the new one.
The truce is also incomplete. Sony, the last of the three majors still litigating, has settled with neither Suno nor its rival Udio, and its fair-use cases are expected to produce a pivotal ruling in summer 2026. That decision could shape the copyright ground rules for the entire generative-music field, and a result unfavourable to Suno would complicate the legitimacy narrative this valuation rests on. The risk has shrunk, not vanished.
What the round captures is a company mid-transformation, from insurgent to licensee, from sued to partnered, from free tool to paid platform. The $5.4bn says the market believes the transformation is working. Sony’s lawyers, and a courtroom this summer, still get a say in whether it finishes.
Tech
ASUS Unveils Ascent QN10 Mini PC Powered by Snapdragon X2 Elite
ASUS has unveiled the Ascent QN10, a new mini PC that brings premium desktop capabilities into a compact form factor. This device comes equipped with all the benefits of a desktop computer, packed in a compact design. ASUS has managed to pack the device with all the essential functionalities through its integration with the powerful Snapdragon X2 Elite processor. The compact size of the product also allows users to use it in any residential or office setting.
Asus Ascent QN10 Specifications
As for the hardware specifications, the ASUS Ascent QN10 comes with the powerful Snapdragon X2 Elite processor from Qualcomm to deliver contemporary computing capabilities. The on-board NPU offers up to 80 TOPS computing capabilities. The processing unit also performs various tasks and runs everyday applications easily. ASUS calls this device the first mini PC to feature this chipset and run both versions of Windows 11.
It supports a range of AI models, agents, and orchestration tools. Compatible applications include OpenClaw, Hermes, Cursor, Claude Desktop, OpenAI Codex, and OpenCode. Running AI tasks locally helps reduce delays and keeps more data on the device. This can benefit users who work with coding, content creation, and AI development.

The mini PC features a silver finish and a space-saving 0.75L chassis. ASUS says the design is 86% smaller than a conventional 5L mini PC. The front section includes the ASUS branding and power button, while side vents support cooling. The mini PC measures around 130×130×39.96mm and weighs only 0.75kg, along with ventilation vents along the side to improve cooling.
ASUS places multiple USB Type-A and Type-C ports on the device, including USB 4 Gen 2 connections. The front panel provides easy access to frequently used ports. The mini PC also features an HDMI port, Ethernet connection, and a 3.5 mm audio connector. ASUS provides the Ascent QN10 with an 180W power supply along with a sleek design. The mini PC is ideal for use in offices, content creation, coding, and AI-based tasks. The small form factor not only decreases desktop clutter but also ensures desktop-like performance.
Price And Availability
The ASUS Ascent QN10 has yet to be officially announced regarding pricing and availability. ASUS is expected to provide more details about the mini PC’s launch in the coming days. As of today, ASUS has simply introduced it as part of their mini PC range.
Tech
God of War Laufey Sends Kratos’ Wife Into the Everywhen in New Gameplay Reveal

Santa Monica Studio chose the latest State of Play to deliver an extended look at God of War Laufey, the next mainline entry in the series. The footage immediately made clear that this chapter belongs to Faye. Known as Laufey the Just in her lifetime, she served as wife to Kratos and mother to Atreus. Her funeral opened the 2018 God of War. Now she returns as the protagonist in a story that picks up right after that moment.
Faye awakens in a place called Everywhen. It’s a bizarre location to wake up, like the afterlife of gods or the genesis of all magic. It is also the final resting place for gods and creatures from all over the world, who come for a variety of reasons. The location is a magnet for power-hungry gods and beasts from throughout the fabled world, and Faye must deal with them all, including the Egyptian lioness goddess Sekhmet and Mongolian war deity Begtse. Meanwhile, her plans to keep Kratos and Atreus safe are unraveling, so she fights to get everything back on track.
PlayStation®5 console – 1TB
- PlayStation 5 Console – 1TB, includes wireless controller, 1TBSSD, Disc Drive, 2 Horizontal Stand Feet, HDMI cable, AC power cord, USB cable, printed…
- 1TB of Storage, keep your favorite games ready and waiting for you to jump in and play
- Ultra-High Speed SSD, maximize you play sessions with near instant load times for installed PS5 games
Combat in God of War Laufey expands on what you’ve seen in previous installments in the series, but it also integrates some ancient DNA from the game’s Greek origins. Faye moves rapidly and fluidly; she can effortlessly switch between the ground and the air, providing her a plethora of new offensive and defensive options. She keeps momentum even after a succession of attacks, and you suddenly have possibilities for knock-out hits that kill an enemy for good. You’re wielding a sword that Faye earned by gaining the trust of a new ally, as well as a trick up her sleeve from her days as the Golden Hand of the Jötnar, which allows her to control people’s souls and use it to her advantage in battle, as you can pull out a soul, hit it with all your might, or chuck it at other enemies to cause them to stumble.



Faye is joined by two other characters, including Phranque, a cosmic cube voiced by Jack Quaid who has a soft spot for Faye’s pals and the creatures that inhabit the Everywhen. Rue is a supernatural ribbon with a sword hidden inside; Perlina Lau voices her, and she provides consistent counsel throughout the plot and action. Despite the cofusion, this is not a prequel, but rather a continuation of the story that will take it to new and exciting places. You can already wishlist it on the PlayStation Store, but there is no indication of when it will be released on the PS5.
[Source]
-
Tech6 days agoWaymo dominates autonomous vehicle registrations as Tesla trails behind
-
News Videos5 days agoThis is BROKEN! INSANE 5x MONEY CAR WASH WEEK! The NEW GTA Online UPDATE Today! (GTA5 New Update)
-
Tech4 days agoSpaceX just won a second Golden Dome contract. This one is $4.16 billion.
-
News Videos5 days agoSHE IS KILLING XRP!!! WATCH URGENT AND ACT FAST
-
Business2 days agoJade Biosciences, Inc. (JBIO) Discusses Positive Interim Results From JADE101 Phase I Healthy Volunteer Study and Development Plans Transcript
-
NewsBeat5 days agoFIRST NIGHT REVIEW: Take That bring the Circus back to life in spectacular sun-soaked style
-
Crypto World5 days agoCFTC Has Approved the First Regulated Bitcoin Perpetual Contract in the U.S.
-
Business4 days agoIs the Spurs Phenom Already Better Than Prime Diesel?
-
NewsBeat5 days ago
Novak Djokovic v Joao Fonseca LIVE: French Open latest scores and results after Jannik Sinner’s shocking collapse
-
Crypto World5 days ago
Snowflake (SNOW) Stock Rallies on Strong Q1 Results and AI Product Growth
-
Entertainment5 days agoWeak ‘Supergirl’ Box Office Tracking Amid Milly Alcock Backlash
-
Business4 days agoDemand Conditions Improve In Chemicals Sector In April 2026
-
Crypto World5 days agoMicroStrategy Moves $30 Million in BTC to Coinbase Prime: Is the Bitcoin Sell-Off Already Here?
-
Politics4 days agoThe House | Inside Andy Burnham’s Makerfield Campaign: “Nobody Thinks This Is In The Bag”
-
Tech5 days agoThis Week In Security: Ubiquiti Fixes, And FreeBSD Joins The Club You Don’t Want To Join
-
Entertainment4 days agoOne of the Greatest Sitcoms of All Time Shoots Up Apple TV’s Charts 11 Years Later
-
Entertainment5 days agoMaddox Jolie-Pitt Legally Requests to Drop Brad’s Surname
-
Crypto World1 day ago
Seagate (STX) Stock Surges to Record High on AI Boom and Legal Settlement
-
Entertainment4 days agoBritney Spears Shares Troubling Update After Hard Year
-
Entertainment5 days agoBruce Willis’ Generosity Resurfaces Amid His Dementia








You must be logged in to post a comment Login