On its surface, the national revolt against data centers seems simple: They are a nuisance, and people do not want them in their proverbial backyards. But I haven’t been able to let go of the idea that there must be something much deeper driving the backlash against them, and few other subjects have confounded me more than trying to figure out what to think about it.
Tech
Why Americans are fighting AI data centers
These facilities — the massive suburban and exurban warehouses that power AI, along with much of what we do on the modern internet — spew noise, have been accused of guzzling electricity and water, and have a halo of general ugliness around them. And over the past year-and-a-half or so, many Americans have gone from barely knowing what a data center is to having fiercely held opinions about them. Seventy percent of Americans, according to a recent Gallup poll, now say they would oppose one being built in their area. The environment tops their list of concerns. They’re also disquieted by the idea of high-tech facilities buying up land from America’s farmers and ranchers. Anti-data center campaigns have swept communities across the country, producing dozens of local moratoria on their construction.
- Data centers have rapidly become a flashpoint in communities across the US, with many Americans opposing their construction over concerns about noise, water use, energy use, and other nuisances.
- But the backlash is probably about much more than data centers themselves — they’ve become a proxy for the public’s dread of AI and an uncertain future.
- Instead of fighting data centers one by one, the US needs a broader debate and policy agenda on how AI should be regulated and how to ensure it expands rather than diminishes human agency.
These objections sound public-spirited enough. But as Vox’s Eric Levitz and many others have written, many of the rationales for stopping the buildout of data centers, particularly the environmental case against them, have been overstated (more on that in a moment).
Yet grassroots anti-data center activists are hardly wrong to be worried about artificial intelligence — it is one of the most formidable policy problems we face today. AI’s ultra-wealthy makers promise a world of unprecedented progress and prosperity, but also say they might also eliminate everyone’s job and possibly annihilate humanity in the process.
If you are terrified that AI is ushering in a future that will be miserable to live in, I fully share in that feeling (and would personally prefer to go back to a world before ChatGPT). And I think this sentiment, rather than any ecological anxiety, explains much of why Americans are suddenly fighting to ban the physical infrastructure on which AI and tech more generally depends, why they’re so pessimistic about AI in general, and why college seniors graduating this spring have been booing the mere mention of AI off the commencement stage.
But it’s a problem that stopping a data center locally feels like the only policy lever that an ordinary person can pull right now to try to slow down AI, because it’s a blunt instrument that can’t give us the outcomes we really want. Canceling data center projects town by town is unlikely to meaningfully slow AI adoption, and it certainly doesn’t regulate AI use or protect us from its worst possible outcomes.
Instead, this approach traps us in a debate about relative trivialities rather than about one of our society’s most important questions: how we will manage a technological and economic transformation that’s already happening. And that dysfunction in turn prevents us from seeing any upside to AI and thinking about how we might broadly share it. It is, at bottom, a symptom of the same obstructionism that blocks us from addressing many of the biggest problems of our time, from green energy to housing and so much else, under similarly confused pretexts.
Where the data center revolt is coming from
The great US data center buildout is colliding with a national economic mood that appears to be historically, singularly bad. Americans are angry about the cost of living, afraid for their futures, increasingly mistrustful of each other, and don’t trust our institutions to solve the problems we face. They despise (it probably goes without saying) Big Tech. Majorities of the public say that AI will do more harm than good in daily life, that it will take away their economic opportunities, that government is not doing enough to regulate it. Young people are particularly fixated on the impacts of AI, and they seem positively miserable about it.
It’s little surprise Americans feel such a dread of AI; Congress has introduced dozens of bills to govern the technology but has failed to pass any comprehensive legislation. With no federal regulation apparently forthcoming that would, say, provide a measure of economic security to the tens of millions of workers who could be replaced by AI in the coming years, it’s perhaps no wonder that there’s been such vigorous backlash against the physical manifestations of the tech.
Surely, then, at least some of the reasons that data centers are being pigeonholed as an ecological issue is that people are searching for legitimate-feeling reasons to try to stop this runaway train. The tendency to fall back on reasons that can be metabolized by the policymaking processes that ordinary Americans can actually influence, like environmental review, has been inherited from the environmental protection laws embraced across the country beginning in the 1970s, when pollution had become a visible public crisis. But just as when environmentalism is weaponized to block new housing or high-speed rail or in support of whatever other garden-variety NIMBY cause, the ecological argument for shutting down AI mostly withers under scrutiny.
Like all economically important industries, data centers and AI certainly have real environmental impacts. These facilities use a lot of electricity, and much of it comes from fossil fuels because most US electricity is still derived from fossil fuels. Their electricity use will grow quickly as demand for AI tools increases.
But years of covering one of the world’s most underrated environmental menaces — agriculture, especially animal agriculture — have taught me to be skeptical of contextless claims about how much water or energy any particular industry uses. The planetary harms of data centers aren’t radically out of proportion to what we would expect from an industry that is increasingly important to daily life and the economy; computing is far less intensive in energy and physical resources than many other things we do and many of the activities it stands to replace, AI researcher Andy Masley has pointed out repeatedly. Data centers’ water use, meanwhile, amounts to a tiny fraction of all US water use, and there is not much evidence that they’re going to cause water scarcity issues even in arid parts of the country. In cases where a data center replaces, say, farmland growing water-intensive cattle feed crops in dry regions of the US, it might even benefit the environment.
I never want to sound glib about the future of our planet, nor do I want to take too far a detour into the political philosophy of how we decide whether an industry’s resource use is “worth it.” But I think it’s fair to say that campaigning against data centers on ecological objections is a dead end, if we are serious about finding a policy response to this technology that addresses the true concerns around it. An environmental frame may even be a gift to the AI industry, because the industry can defend itself on that ground pretty straightforwardly. Even data centers’ dependence on fossil fuels, one could argue not entirely unreasonably, is a problem for policymakers to solve by accelerating the buildout of renewable energy.
The AI debate we’re not having
So what, then, are we to with AI concerns if not taking them, converted into gigawatts and gallons, to the local planning commission meeting?
I wrestled with that question as I read Techno-Negative: A Long History of Refusing the Machine, Thomas Dekeyser’s recent book on the long human lineage of attempting to destroy the technologies that reshape the way we live, from the ancient Greeks, who, much like contemporary dread of AI, worried that machines could eclipse human agency, to computer arsonists in the 1980s. Dekeyser, who is a lecturer on human geography at the University of Southampton, writes that technological progress has always been a “political battlefield” where the purpose of human life is contested.
How can technology be used to make our society freer and more equal, and to augment human agency, rather than diminish it?
The fight to choke off data centers represents the latest expression of that struggle to define what it means to be human in the face of technological change, of what Dekeyser calls the “tenacious, fierce urge to negate life’s technologization.” What is AI, the technology that promises to replace the human mind itself, if not the apotheosis of our fears of being made obsolete? To the median American, data centers might feel like a manifestation of the forces that want to take all their power and relevance away from them.
Yet widespread cynicism about AI, I think, doesn’t stem from any inherent property of the technology itself, but rather from our politics. The public has not been offered any credible political vision of a future where AI could be deployed to support human flourishing, nothing that can offer a satisfying answer to the most important questions about our relationship with technology. As Dekeyser writes: “Do they constitute and expand, or undermine, human subjectivity?”
In this way, political possibilities shape the way we feel about technology: Imagine if, for example, instead of the prospect of widespread economic disenfranchisement, the productivity gains from AI could be harnessed to pass a four-day (or, hell, even three-day) work week, or to finance a generous universal paid leave policy. The US, as the richest country in the world and an undisputed leader in AI, certainly has the leverage to enact such policies. We could also give workers power over how AI is deployed in their workplaces, or incentivize AI development in a direction that expands, rather than replaces, human creativity. Or, as Sen. Bernie Sanders proposed this week, give the public a direct ownership stake in the technology itself, created by a tax on AI companies.
Whatever you think of these ideas, we’d be better off debating their merits and thinking through the particulars of how they might be implemented than fixating on individual data centers. But because an ambitious national AI policy feels unimaginable right now, and so of course people see AI as all downside and no upside. But simply channeling popular sentiment into local bans on physical infrastructure forecloses debate over the most important aspects of AI before we can even have them, as Holly Buck, an associate professor of environment and sustainability at the University of Buffalo, recently argued.
The politics of local veto has produced many of America’s other major governing failures, too: We can’t decarbonize the economy, solve a structural housing shortage, or absorb a technology as big as AI when local zoning hearings are the only places where the fight is happening and actionable decisions are being made. The essential difference with AI, though, is that on housing or climate change, we already mostly know the policy solutions we need. On AI, that terrain is still much less certain. We don’t yet know what we want from a potentially existentially transformative technology. That calls for real national confrontations with the most important questions: How can technology be used to make our society freer and more equal, and to augment human agency rather than diminish it?
Maybe that future still requires more data centers, many more of them (or maybe we should build fewer of them). Whichever outcome we choose, it should be downstream of a rational and deliberative policy process, rather than a poor simulacrum of the debate we all deserve.
Continue Reading
The most recent Hackaday event badge has been the Communicator, a handheld wireless terminal with a rather nice QWERTY keyboard. It’s good enough as delivered, but [makeTVee] has gone one better and made his Communicator keyboard into a fully RGB light-up experience.
The feat is achieved with the help of a new front panel holding some very thin side-emitting addressable LEDs. The keys are custom-printed, and there’s a TPU mat to hold them all together. The LEDs are driven from one of the device’s GPIOs.
We saw this badge in real life at the recent Hackaday Europe conference in Lecco, Italy. It really is as good as it looks in the video below, the care and attention which has gone into the build is extremely impressive.The original badge used a silicone cast set of keys, and we’d say if you are making a device with a keyboard then these might make a very good option.
If you’re not familiar with the Communicator, it’s worth having a look at the launch announcement.
HARMAN Luxury Audio Group has arrived at High End Vienna 2026 with several new high-end audio products, but the headline for JBL is the next generation of its Summit Everest and Summit K2 flagship loudspeakers.
Timed with JBL’s 80th anniversary, the updated Everest and K2 join the Summit Makalu, Summit Pumori, and Summit Ama, which debuted at High End Munich in 2025. Together, they complete the five-model JBL Summit Series for residential audio.
JBL describes the Summit Series as one of its most advanced loudspeaker efforts for the home, and only the fifth JBL loudspeaker family to carry the “Project” designation in the company’s eight-decade history. That label matters: JBL has historically reserved it for its most ambitious engineering platforms, not just another expensive box with prettier woodwork and a Sherpa-friendly name.
The JBL Project Legacy
Only a select few JBL loudspeakers have ever carried the “Project” designation since 1954, beginning with Project Hartsfield, followed by Project Paragon, Project Everest, and Project K2.
Each JBL Project loudspeaker reflects a particular stage in the company’s high-end engineering work, with changes in driver design, enclosure construction, horn geometry, crossover design, and system integration shaping each generation.
For nearly 40 years, Project Everest and Project K2 have been central to JBL’s high-end loudspeaker development. Successive versions have introduced updates to transducers, compression drivers, cabinet construction, waveguides, and overall system tuning.
The latest generation Summit Everest and Summit K2 carry that tradition forward with patented and proprietary technologies developed at JBL’s renowned Acoustic Center of Excellence in Northridge, California.
Summit Everest
Summit Everest, named after Earth’s highest mountain, is the flagship of the Summit Series and the successor to four generations of Project Everest loudspeakers released over the years.
Mid/High Frequency: The core of the latest Everest is a newly engineered mid/high-frequency system that combines the output of three patented JBL D2820 2-inch dual-diaphragm, dual-motor compression drivers with a custom-designed, patent-pending 3-into-1 expansion manifold, seamlessly mated to a custom large-format Sonoglass High-Definition Imaging (HDI) horn.
Mid-Bass/Bass: For mid-bass and bass, there are dual 10-inch cast-frame Differential Drive mid-bass drivers and dual 15-inch cast-frame Differential Drive woofers, each utilizing JBL’s triple-layer Hybrid Carbon Cellulose Composite Cone (HC4) for stiffness, low distortion, and exceptional power handling that define a true reference design.
3.5 Way Configuration: The result of its driver configuration, the Everest is a 3.5 Way floor-standing loudspeaker that is designed to support elevated resolution, dynamic authority, tonal precision, and spatial realism across a bandwidth extending from 20 Hz to beyond 23 kHz.
Summit K2
The Summit K2, named after Earth’s second-tallest mountain, is JBL’s most accomplished 15-inch 3-way floor-standing loudspeaker, built upon the legacy of four generations of Project K2 development. The K2 brings signature musicality forward with measurable advances in resolution, transparency, and tonal accuracy.
Mid/High Frequency: The latest K2 incorporates a newly engineered mid/high-frequency system pairing three patented D2815 1.5-inch dual-diaphragm, dual-motor compression drivers with a custom-designed, patent-pending 3-into-1 expansion manifold and large-format Sonoglass® HDI™ horn.
Mid-Bass/Bass A 10-inch cast-frame Differential Drive mid-bass driver and a 15-inch cast-frame Differential Drive woofer are included, both of which feature HC4 cones. This design anchors the K2’s sonic foundation, delivering the dynamic precision and emotional immediacy that have defined this speaker since its 1989 debut.
The Summit Standard
The Summit Everest and Summit K2 bring together the main technologies developed for the Summit Series, including updated transducers, horn/waveguide geometry, crossover design, and cabinet construction.
A MultiCap crossover network, supporting single-wire, bi-amp/bi-wire, and tri-amp/tri-wire connectivity, replaces traditional large capacitors with a greater number of smaller capacitors, reducing electrostatic resistance and minimizing energy loss for greater signal transfer, increased power handling, and ultra-low distortion.
The Everest and K2 are housed in a precisely engineered enclosure with internally offset, multi-braced, and damped pre-stressed pressed curved-wall construction designed to minimize internal standing waves.
Custom-designed JBL | IsoAcoustic isolation feet decouple the loudspeaker from the supporting surface, contributing to tighter bass performance, a more expansive soundstage, and imaging defined by greater clarity and spatial precision.
Finishes and Binding Posts
Summit Everest and Summit K2 are offered with a choice of high-gloss painted black with Summit Platinum accents or high-gloss Macassar Ebony wood veneer with Summit Gold detailing. The Everest and K2 employ sustainably sourced engineered wood cabinetry that reflects JBL’s commitment to materials and execution.
The speaker binding posts are rhodium-plated, wrapped in carbon fiber, with Ohno-Continuous-Cast (OCC) long-crystal oxygen-free silver-plated copper internal wiring.
JBL 2026 Summit Series Comparison
| JBL Summit Model | Everest (2026) |
K2 (2026) |
Makalu (2025) |
Pumori (2025) |
AMA (2025) |
| Speaker Type | 3.5-way floor-standing Floor-standing Reference Loudspeaker | 3-way floor-standing Floor-standing Reference Loudspeaker | 3-Way Bass Reflex Floor-standing Reference Loudspeaker | 3-Way, Bass Reflex Floor-standing Reference Loudspeaker | 2-Way, Bass Reflex Stand-mount Reference Loudspeaker |
| Price (pair) | $159,990 | $99,990 | $44,995 | $29,995 | $19,995 |
| High Frequency Control | HDI™ Sonoglass® Horn | HDI™ Sonoglass® Horn | HDI™ Sonoglass® Horn | HDI™ Sonoglass® Horn | HDI™ Sonoglass® Horn |
| Tweeter (HF Transducer) | D2820 2-inch dual-diaphragm, dual-motor compression drivers | D2815 1.5-inch dual-diaphragm, dual-motor compression drivers | D2830K: Dual 3-inch (75mm) Teonex® D2 Compression Driver | D2815K: Dual 1.5-inch (38mm) Teonex® D2 Compression Driver | D2815K: Dual 1.5-inch (38mm) Teonex® D2 Compression Driver |
| Mid-Bass (MB Transducer) | Dual 10-inch HC4, Differential Drive Motor | 10-inch HC4, Differential Drive Motor |
8-inch HC4, 2.5″ Voice Coil, Ferrite Motor, Cast Frame | 8-inch HC4, 2.5″ Voice Coil, Ferrite Motor, Cast Frame | N/A |
| Woofer (LF) | 15-inch HC4, 3″ Voice Coil, Differential Drive Motor | 15-inch HC4, 3″ Voice Coil, Differential Drive Motor | 12-inch HC4, 3″ Voice Coil, Differential Drive Motor | 10-inch HC4, 2.5″ Voice Coil, Ferrite Motor | 8-inch HC4, 2.5″ Voice Coil, Ferrite Motor |
| Ports | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Input Type | Bi-amp / Bi-wire Capable with Dual Sets of Binding Posts | Bi-amp / Bi-wire Capable with Dual Sets of Binding Posts | Bi-amp / Bi-wire Capable with Dual Sets of Binding Posts | Bi-amp / Bi-wire Capable with Dual Sets of Binding Posts | Bi-amp / Bi-wire Capable with Dual Sets of Binding Posts |
| Crossover | MultiCap™ with Bi-amp/Bi-wire and tri-amp/tri-wire | MultiCap™ with Bi-amp/Bi-wire and tri-amp/tri-wire | MultiCap™ with Bi-amp/Bi-wire | MultiCap™ with Bi-amp/Bi-wire | MultiCap™ with Bi-amp/Bi-wire |
| Finish | High-gloss black with Platinum accents
High-gloss Macassar Ebony wood veneer with Summit Gold detailing |
High-gloss black with Platinum accents
High-gloss Macassar Ebony wood veneer with Summit Gold detailing |
Black High Gloss / Ebony Veneer w/ Gloss | Black High Gloss / Ebony Veneer w/ Gloss | Black High Gloss / Ebony Veneer w/ Gloss |
| Dimensions (HWD) | 56.8″ x 39.1″ x 27.3″ | 50.4″ x 25.0″ x 18.1″ | 43.4″ x 18.3″ x 15.5″ | 41.6″ x 15.5″ x 14.7″ | Speaker: 18.6″ x 12.1″ x 13.2” Stand: 21.7″ x 16.2″ x 16.2″ |
| Weight | 523 lbs | 239 lbs | 152.6 lbs | 140.8 lbs | 58 lbs |
JBL Celebrates 80th Anniversary
JBL is celebrating its 80th anniversary in 2026, marking eight decades since James B. Lansing founded the company in 1946. That is not a small footnote in audio history. JBL has been part of professional studios, cinemas, concert venues, home audio systems, cars, portable speakers, headphones, and more than a few cultural moments where the sound system mattered as much as the crowd.
The brand’s reach is unusually broad. JBL Professional continues to play a major role in cinemas, studios, stadiums, houses of worship, clubs, and live venues, while JBL’s consumer division has become one of the most visible names in portable audio and headphones. Few audio companies can claim that kind of spread without sounding like the marketing department got loose with the espresso machine. In JBL’s case, the claim has some weight behind it.
Founded by one of the most important loudspeaker engineers of the 20th century, JBL built its reputation on high-output loudspeakers, studio monitors, professional sound reinforcement, and home audio products that helped define what American hi-fi looked and sounded like. The company’s history includes major technical achievements in loudspeaker design and recognition from both the film and recording industries, including Academy Awards for sound engineering achievements and a Grammy Award for its long-running contribution to concert, studio, cinema, and broadcast sound.
That legacy still matters because JBL is not just trading on old photographs and orange grilles. The company remains active across professional, luxury, portable, automotive, and personal audio, while also investing in spatial audio, adaptive sound, immersive listening, and more sustainable product design. Not every one of those phrases needs a parade, but they do point to where JBL thinks audio is going next.
“For 80 years, JBL has been defined by an uncompromising pursuit of acoustic excellence, and the Project loudspeakers have always represented the absolute summit of that pursuit,” said David Tovissi, Vice President & GM, HARMAN Luxury Audio. “With Summit Everest and Summit K2, we are honoring four generations of legendary engineering while introducing technologies that move the state of the art forward. These are reference loudspeakers built for listeners who refuse to compromise and who recognize what it means to own the very best.”
The Bottom Line
With Summit Makalu, Pumori, and Ama introduced in 2025, JBL expanded the Summit Series below its established Everest and K2 flagships. The arrival of the latest Summit Everest and Summit K2 completes the line at the top, giving JBL a five-model residential flagship range tied directly to its Project loudspeaker heritage.
What makes Everest and K2 different is not just scale or price. These are JBL’s statement platforms for horn-loaded compression-driver design, large-format woofers, advanced cabinet construction, and high-output, low-distortion playback in larger rooms. Everest remains the larger dual-15-inch statement model, while K2 continues as the more compact single-15-inch flagship. Both are built for listeners who want JBL’s studio, cinema, and professional audio DNA translated into a domestic loudspeaker system.
These are not lifestyle speakers, and they are not for casual background listening. They are for large rooms, substantial amplification, careful setup, and buyers who want the most ambitious version of JBL’s high-end sound at home. The Summit Ama, Pumori, and Makalu may be more realistic choices for many systems, but Everest and K2 exist for the customer who wants the top of the JBL mountain and has the room, budget, and patience to let them work properly.
Pricing & Availability
The JBL Summit Everest and JBL Summit K2 will be globally available later in 2026 through authorized JBL Summit dealers and partners, with the following prices:
- Everest: $159,990 USD (159,998 EUR / 139,998 GBP) per pair
- K2: $99,990 USD (84,998 EUR / 71,998 GBP) per pair
Previously released in 2025, the Summit Models that round out the prestigious speaker line.
- Makalu: $45,000 USD (43,998 EUR / 36,998 GBP) per pair
- Pumori: $30,000 USD (30,998 EUR / 26,998 GBP) per pair
- Ama: $20,000 USD (17,498 EUR / 14,995 GBP) per pair including stands
For more on the JBL Summit Series, visit jbl.com/summit-series
Related Reading:
Welcome to the era of the big three.
We’re not talking rappers here — although according to Kendrick Lamar, it’s “just big me” — we’re talking AI companies: Anthropic, SpaceX, and OpenAI.
These three leading artificial intelligence companies are all expected to go public this year. Elon Musk’s SpaceX, which recently acquired another Musk company, xAi, is on track to open up to investors later this month. Anthropic, the company behind the chatbot Claude, just filed confidentially with the States Securities and Exchange Commission for its own initial public offering. Reports say OpenAI could also go public as soon as September. (Disclosure: Vox Media is one of several publishers that have signed partnership agreements with OpenAI. Our reporting remains editorially independent.)
SpaceX’s IPO, when it happens, could be the largest in history and mint Musk as the world’s first trillionaire. With Anthropic and OpenAI, the combined value of AI IPOs could total over $3 trillion.
But it’s not as simple as going public and raking in cash. “There’s this race that’s been going on between SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic,” Liz Lopatto, a senior writer at The Verge said. “There’s this fear that if you don’t go public at the right time or you don’t go public first, investors aren’t going to wait for you.”
To understand why some of the world’s richest men, at the helm of some of the world’s richest companies, are now courting the public’s money, Today, Explained co-host Sean Rameswaram spoke with Lopatto.
She’s been deep in SpaceX’s public filings and has been covering the court drama between Musk and OpenAI’s Sam Altman. Her latest piece for the Verge is titled “The SpaceX IPO is great for Elon Musk and terrible for you.”
Sean and Lopatto chat about what each of the companies hope to gain from the public, why this moment could be like internet 1.0’s dot-com bubble, and whether these companies chasing shareholder profits will be good for us.
Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify.
Why do [these companies] need to go public right now?
Whoever goes public first is going to scoop up better investors or have an easier time convincing investors. That is fueling this rush toward the market. So that’s thing one.
But thing two is that AI is extremely expensive. And I think that’s something that people often forget about because right now we’re sort of in, like, the early days of Uber, where you’re using this very expensive tool for free and then they’re going to try to get you hooked on it so that you’ll pay real prices later on.
In order to get the money that you need for compute, to build all of these data centers, to do all of the things that you need to do in order to have these frontier models, that’s just an incredibly capital-intensive business. One way to get capital is to go public.
Anthropic has had some better discipline than the other companies in terms of behaving like actual adults. They might actually tell us a little bit less before it happens than we’ve heard from, for instance, SpaceX.
Tell me more about behaving like adults when it comes to IPOs, which feels like a very adult thing to do.
There are sort of a lot of things that come into play with an IPO. And basically what you’re doing is you are setting out what your company is, what the company’s vision is, how you plan to make money, and what you’re going to do with all the money that you’re raising in the IPO. And for SpaceX, there’s a bunch of nonsense about Mars in there that doesn’t really feel real to me. There’s nothing about the biological risks of going to Mars, for instance, and the risk factors, which, if that were a real thing, you’d see it.
One of the things that’s been notable is that both Anthropic and OpenAI seem to have better businesses, based on what we know. Anthropic is actually about to make a profit. Anthropic in particular didn’t make any images with its AI. It stuck to text and it focused specifically on programming. It’s not a sexy business, it’s enterprise software. But you don’t have to be sexy to make money.
Just looking at the difference between like the flash we’re seeing about, like, spreading the light of human consciousness among the stars and actually making money, which is the point of a company. I would say that Anthropic seems like it’s run by adults by comparison. And then I would put OpenAI somewhere in the middle.
Why? What is Open AI doing that isn’t very adult-like behavior?
OpenAI as a business is really scattered. They created and shut down Sora, which was AI-generated videos. They have these AI image generators that have created a whole new level of headaches for them. They’re embroiled in a number of lawsuits.
Sam Altman, the CEO, was running it effectively as a startup composed of little startups within it and was like, “Well, we’ll just see which one of them wins.” And that’s maybe not the best way to run a company. It’s a fine way to run a portfolio, but a company is not a portfolio.
Liz, you’re very tapped into this world out there in Silicon Valley and you were at the trial between Altman and Musk. It sounds like these companies are all being talked about in the same breath even though two of them are very specifically AI companies and one of them wants to colonize Mars. Why is that? Is it just because they all may IPO soon?
I think that’s part of it. I also think there’s been this investment thesis that frontier AI models are effectively going to be a boom on the scale of internet 1.0, if you remember 1999.
This is sort of the moment where we’re going to find out who’s Google and who’s Amazon and who’s Pets.com, right? And so I think that’s why people are talking about them in this way, because it’s not just these three companies that are AI companies. Obviously Google has an AI arm that is very good. But then you have companies like Databricks, which you maybe haven’t heard of.
Yeah. This is a perfectly fine company. It’s got a business. But it’s not in that conversation because I don’t think people expect it to be one of the behemoths in the way that they’re looking at these three as the potential behemoths of this generation of technology.
This reminds me that when social media companies went public, they started prioritizing things like shareholder profit rather than safety. I think Facebook — Meta — is probably the most prominent example of this.
Do we want the still mostly dudes holding our future in their hands to be beholden to market forces and profits above all else?
Arguably they already are.
This is one of the arguments that has been made about OpenAI: that the reason they’ve had some of these issues around safety has been because they are motivated by chasing the market and trying to raise money. Because unlike social media, this is a very capital-intensive business.
You need to be showing investors something. You need to be proving yourself out in a way that you didn’t necessarily have to with social media right off the bat. So I think that’s part of it. But I think that going public potentially makes that worse. The chatbot will try to keep you engaged. It will give you an answer and then it will ask a tag question. And that’s an engagement tool that keeps you engaged with the AI.
You see that also with some of the sycophantic behavior you see with these AI where they’re like, “Wow, that’s such a smart question. Gee, you’re so bright.”
And is that really good for us? I don’t think it is. But it does keep people involved, and it does keep people engaged with the AI, and if you need to be showing user numbers or otherwise showing metrics to investors, those are the ones you show.
It seems almost silly to ask if being a publicly traded company could make these companies more accountable or even safer. But then again, if you think about Anthropic and their whole dustup with the Pentagon, without being publicly traded, they said, you know, you guys are crossing the red line and we have to reassess our relationship.
Do you think something about being publicly traded post-IPO could make a company like Anthropic or OpenAI a little bit more conservative in their developments and their technology?
To the degree that you can say, “Hey, like I was misled by this company as a shareholder because they told me there were these safety practices that actually were not in play and then take them to court” — that is something that can be done, sure. Unless you’re talking about SpaceX, which has a governance structure that effectively bars shareholder suits, unless you have a specific percentage of holding.
So not SpaceX, but maybe Anthropic, maybe OpenAI have this additional measure of accountability where shareholder lawsuits can potentially move the needle.
But most likely of all we just start to see a lot more ads.
I think that’s right. I think you also see prices go up for the enterprise products — and maybe for all of the other products as well.
OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, is a federal body dedicated to overseeing safe working conditions wherever Americans ply their trade. OSHA operates as a regulatory agency with sanction power and plenty of muscle. The organization also produces guides and best practices for workers to ensure they’re always operating as safely as possible, aiming to limit the need for intervention.
OSHA’s internal documentation includes some key safety rules, and it has published what it calls “five basic safety rules” that can prevent hazards when using hand and power tools. These rules are essential for professionals working with tools on a daily basis, but they’re equally important for DIYers and other amateur tool users to follow.
There are obvious hazards to remain wary of while operating machinery. There’s also the important step of avoiding using gasoline-powered tools indoors (alongside some other power tools that should remain strictly outdoor-use only). But these basic frameworks extend to cover virtually all interactions you might have with tools of all sorts, and they can help keep you safe through all of the ambitious projects on your to-do list.
Maintain your tools to prolong their life
Proper tool maintenance is one of OSHA’s most important rules. Tools of all varieties get put through the wringer as they go about their business. Heavy-duty power tools like impact wrenches take a beating, and so do basic implements like utility knives and screwdrivers. To make matters worse, tool users often operate in dirty workspaces.
Home mechanics often seek to build entire tool sets that feature oil and solvent-resistant handles and sealed encasements for power tools that protect against the chemicals and other substances found within the workshop. But this doesn’t mean that these tools are impervious. A tool that has been hit with oil or water might become slippery, making it a little less safe to use. But if you leave those irritants on the tool, they can lead to rust or corrosion that degrades its long-term function. Wiping down your tools after use and scrubbing away debris that might have accumulated in grooves are just some of the key practices that all tool users should engage in regularly.
Always use the right tool for the job
No matter the job you’re facing, there’s probably a niche piece of equipment designed to handle that specific demand. For every obscure tool you might encounter, there’s a versatile alternative that can probably get the job done. For instance, there are plenty of alternatives to the angle grinder. But this one tool offers coverage for a wide range of tasks, making it a frequently useful inclusion. I’m a tool user with only a few niche solutions in my own collection, and the idea that has stuck with me for many years is that ‘every tool is a hammer.’ In a pinch, you can swing just about any implement at a fastener or workpiece. But this approach runs completely counter to one of OSHA’s critical safety rules.
The reality is that just because you can swing a wrench or even the back end of a drill at a target, this is rarely a good idea. In this example, alternative tools can easily be damaged when used this way, and you may even create more problems than you solve by kicking debris into the air. Using the wrong tool is frequently less efficient, often making your working conditions less safe while adding numerous complications.
Don’t use damaged tools
In the same way that using incorrect tools for a job can introduce wild variables into the mix, damaged tools are also a significant hazard. Broken bladed instruments may expose your hands or other body parts to a rapidly spinning cutting edge. This can introduce a grisly hazard to your workspace. Similar issues arise with striking and prying tools. Working with broken instruments can cause additional damage to workpieces, yourself, or the people with whom you share the space.
Damaged equipment will frequently operate in unexpected ways. This creates uncertainty and many unforeseeable potential problems. It’s entirely possible that a broken tool will continue performing the way you anticipate, with only small issues outside its primary function. But you can’t be certain that this is the case and that some kind of hidden structural issue isn’t lurking beneath the surface. The potential for harm or unexpected damage to other equipment or material is just too great. Therefore, damaged gear should be repaired or replaced instead of being used.
Use your tools as they’re intended
Sometimes, there is a case to be made for improvisation and augmentation of tools. Cutting away the top of a wrench’s box end, for instance, might provide just enough extra clearance for a tool user to handle work in a uniquely tight area. This should only be done by experienced tool users, however, as it’s reserved for rare situations where standard tools don’t fit. An augmented tool is typically one that has been altered to handle one hyper-specific task. This kind of modification may run afoul of OSHA’s advice.
By intentionally using your equipment outside of its operating guidelines, you place additional strain on the tool. This can also create working conditions vulnerable to new and unexpected hazards. One example that I’ve been guilty of, for instance, involves pushing a circular saw past its stated beveling capacity. My tool was inexplicably able to do it, but the entire experience of using the tool outside of its scope was harrowing to say the least. It felt incredibly dangerous, but I was only cutting a small segment of MDF baseboard material, so it wasn’t a particularly demanding task. Even so, it’s not something I’d recommend and goes directly against the OSHA guidelines for safe tool operation.
Use the correct personal protective equipment (PPE)
Lastly, if you’re using inadequate personal safety equipment, you’re placing yourself in harm’s way. Operating heavy machinery without ear protection can lead to tinnitus and other negative ear health issues. The same can be said for eyewear, which keeps flying debris out of your eyes and protects you from things like sparks and even dust that can irritate you or temporarily impair your vision. Masks are important, too. When painting, sanding, or using chemicals, wearing the correct type of mask to protect your lung health can make a huge difference.
Must-have jobsite protective gear isn’t just essential for those using power tools. When removing nails or hand-sanding, these same key protective elements remain at the forefront. Your health is the most important thing, and it stands far above the outcome you’re looking to create with any project. If you aren’t around to fully enjoy the fruits of your labor, these tasks will not have been worth much in the grand scheme of things. Protective equipment is typically fairly inexpensive, and most DIYers and other tool users have been guilty of overlooking these accessories. This is not something that any tool user can afford to do if they want to protect their health and the safety of the people working with them.
Contactless payments are great, but have you ever paid for your coffee with a magic wand?
Cash App, the digital payments service run by Block, has just launched the Cash App Wand – a pearlescent, star-shaped, NFC-enabled keychain accessory that lets you tap to pay at any contactless terminal. Yes, it is a real product that costs $25, and it is available right now for Cash App Card holders to buy in the app.
So how does this magical wand work?
The Cash App Wand is the first product under a new hardware line called Cash App Tags. Tags are NFC-enabled physical devices that require no Wi-Fi or Bluetooth connection to function. To set one up, you simply hold it to the back of your phone, and it links directly to your Cash App account.
After that, it works exactly like a debit card, except it clips onto your keychain or handbag like a charm bracelet. Block’s hardware lead Thomas Templeton says the whole idea is to make payments feel visible, fun, and expressive again.
He points out that digital payments have made buying things almost invisible, and even Cash App’s own cards spend 90% of their time sitting in people’s pockets. Cash App wants the wand to be the first thing you reach for when it is time to pay.
This is just the beginning of Cash App Tags
The wand is the first of many quirky tap-to-pay hardware designs coming down the line. Limited runs of new Cash App Tag designs will drop to Cash App cardholders in the coming weeks, with general availability opening up later this summer.
Whether you need a wand to pay for your morning coffee or just want to feel like a wizard at the checkout counter, Cash App has you covered.
And if a magic wand wasn’t enough to make you spend more money, Google is also making online checkout faster and easier than ever by removing OTP and replacing it with a simple biometric check.
The Nintendo Switch 2 is my favorite gaming handheld right now, but its battery life is still a weak point compared to older Switches. Belkin’s new $100 battery pack and grip combo accessory, called the Charging Grip, solves some of the battery issues and even handheld comfort. But it makes the Switch 2 a lot bigger in the process.
I’ve been trying an early review sample of the Charging Grip over the last week, and there’s stuff I appreciate. The 10,000-mAh battery has an LED screen to show charge amount, and generally resembles the battery that also came in an already-available battery pack-embedded Belkin Switch 2 case.
This time, the battery sticks onto the Switch 2 itself. A snap-on plastic shell has a magnetic panel the battery snaps onto, and then a little USB cable pops into the top to charge at 30W. The case I’m trying is black, but it also comes in lilac and olive. Belkin promises 1.5 Switch 2 recharges with the battery. So far, it’s been a helpful way to top off the Switch 2 over a day without redocking or plugging in.
With the Charging Grip on, the Switch 2 is basically Steam Deck size.
The plastic shell feels a bit flimsy, although it’s at least a little more protection for the Switch 2 body. There’s a cut-out on the back for the Switch 2’s kickstand to pop out.
Two large Joy-Con controller grips come in the package, sliding on easily and locking in place. The rubbery texture and their overall size does make holding the Switch 2 feel more comfy to me, more like the generous size of Steam Deck and Windows gaming handhelds.
I like it, but maybe not enough to keep it on all the time.
But the overall battery-plus-grip cosmetic change to the Switch 2 bulks it up a ton. It can still prop up with a kickstand on a table, and can technically narrowly slide into the dock without removing the grip case. But it definitely won’t fit into regular Switch 2 carry cases, although Belkin’s selling a new shoulder-carry travel bag for that.
One of my favorite parts of the Switch 2 versus Windows handhelds is how much more compact it is, and unfortunately Belkin’s grip case erases that advantage. But if you’re looking for a battery boost and a comfier grip no matter the cost or size, this might be for you.
A new series of images claiming to be the iPhone 18 Pro chassis have been leaked, showing black, blue, and dark cherry red.
It’s always suspicious when a leaker has just a single image of a purported device, but now a series of shots have shown off most of the colors expected for the iPhone 18 Pro.
On Yeux1122’s blog, fellow leaker Lanzk claims to have samples of the aluminum frame for the iPhone 18 Pro. They comprise the back and sides of the phone, and appear to be stamped with “2026” plus some unclear Chinese-language markings.
Dark Cherry looks ever more certain to be one of the iPhone 18 Pro’s colors – image credit: Lanzk
The leaker has shown off one Dark Cherry frame, two black ones, and three of the light blue version. There’s no distinguishable difference between the units when two or three are displayed.
There’s no indication of the source of the components. However, each of the black and light blue ones shown have a small plastic bag that appears to contain a SIM-card tray.
That would suggest that, however they got to the leaker, they may have come from manufacturers in China. There are other countries that still require a physical SIM card, however.
Even if the leak is as accurate as it appears, it may not be the complete set of colors due to be unveiled for the iPhone 18 Pro, and iPhone 18 Pro Max. While the current iPhone 17 Pro ships in three colors, previous rumors have said that the iPhone 18 Pro will return to the norm of having four.
Those four are the ones shown in this leak plus a light silver. If reports correct and there will be a Dark Cherry option, it’s predicted to become a hit just as the iPhone 17 Pro Max’s Cosmic Orange has been.
Black version of the same frame part – image credit: Lanzk
However, some users will be more pleased at the return of a black option. That was last seen with 2024’s iPhone 16 Pro.
In the course of this review, we examined the image in depth. While there was no EXIF data to speak of, there generally isn’t and that’s not a sign of a fake.
There are none of the hallmarks of a photo edit, or generative AI having fabricated the images. The chassis’ internal protrusions are not identical to that of the iPhone 17 Pro, either. We think these are the real thing, unlike data gathered from case manufacturers.
That all said, leaker Lanzk has not previously reported on iPhone colors. However, they have leaked accurately about Apple’s plans for what would ultimately become the MacBook Neo.
The big names in the artificial intelligence industry don’t always get along. We’ve seen lawsuits between AI companies and intense rivalries between leaders that turn into all-out feuds. But it seems that they generally agree on at least one thing: AI should not be used to create biological weapons.
CEOs of some of the world’s leading AI companies signed a public letter this week urging governments to address the risks that could come from bad actors using their technology. The letter encourages Congress to enact laws to improve the tracking of synthetic DNA sequences that could be used to create biological weapons.
Signed by OpenAI’s Sam Altman, Anthropic’s Dario Amodei, Meta’s Alexandr Wang, Microsoft AI’s Mustafa Suleyman, Google DeepMind’s Demis Hassabis and other scientists and AI lab leaders, the letter suggested legislation to require companies that sell synthetic DNA and manufacturers of synthesis machines to thoroughly check “sequences of concern and to verify customer legitimacy before shipping orders.”
The letter, also signed by leaders in the synthetic DNA industry and experts in national security, makes it clear that AI accelerates the threat of biosecurity threats.
“While the issue is not new, the pace of progress in artificial intelligence is. AI systems now outperform Ph.D-level virologists on questions about highly technical laboratory procedures in their own domains of expertise,” the letter states.
“AI systems are improving rapidly, and alongside incredible benefits to science and medicine, there is a real possibility that the knowledge barriers which have historically prevented bad actors from obtaining biological weapons will meaningfully erode.”
The letter has a distinct sense of urgency, requesting that lawmakers implement guardrails swiftly. “This is a rare moment of agreement across stakeholders that are often at odds,” it reads. “We hope policymakers will meet it with decisive action.”
It more than doubles your gaming time while giving you a better grip.
Belkin has introduced a new charging grip for the Switch 2 that lets you game longer and be more comfortable doing it. The Gaming Charging Grip for Nintendo Switch 2 comes with a 10,000 mAh power bank, built-in charging cable and modular grips for the Joy-Cons.
To use it, you slide your Switch 2 into the charger case and snap the modular grips onto the Joy-Con 2s. Once connected via the built-in 30 watt USB-C cable, the power bank can recharge the console 1.5 times, letting you play well over twice as long as without it (150 percent longer, of course). The charging level is shown in a digital display on the back.
Belkin
The grips are ergonomic and non-slip, Belkin says, and detach with the Joy-Con 2s when you remove them. They look pretty thick, so should support your hands well even if they get a bit slick after some hours of play. On the main charging case, there’s a slot at the bottom so it won’t interfere with the Switch 2’s kickstand.
Belkin also introduced the Travel Bag for Nintendo Switch 2, a cross-body everyday bag for gamers looking for a practical way to tote their console and accessories. It comes with a dedicated soft-lined pocket with a velcro strap, spacious storage, quick-access front pockets and a hidden compartment for trackers.
Belkin loves to experiment with Switch 2 charging, having already released a Charging Case that doubles as a tabletop stand and a Charging Case Pro. The Gaming Charging Grip is now available at belkin.com, Amazon and other retailers for $100 in black, lilac and olive, while the travel bag can be purchased in those same colors for $50.
Generalist hopes to make ‘general intelligence’ robotics a reality.
US AI robotics company Generalist has raised $400m at a reported $2bn valuation to accelerate its plans towards achieving “physical” artificial general intelligence (AGI).
The round was led by Radical Ventures, with participation from Nvidia’s venture arm NVentures, Jeff Bezos’ Bezos Expeditions, World Labs founder and leading AI expert Fei-Fei Li, and Zoom CEO Eric Yuan.
Other participants include 8VC, Union Square Ventures, Hanabi Capital, Norwest, Boldstart Ventures, Spark Capital, NFDG and serial entrepreneur Naval Ravikant.
With a team of AI and robotics experts with experience across Big Tech, Generalist hopes to make “general intelligence” robotics a reality.
The company was founded in 2024 by former DeepMind scientists Pete Florence, Andy Zheng, and former Boston Dynamics roboticist and Harvard machine learning scientist Andrew Barry.
Generalist launched its Gen-0 class of AI models last November, which it said was trained on an “unprecedented” scale of real-world data. The company said the model proved that physical experience and larger models could predictably produce more capable systems.
In April, it launched Gen-1, which showed commercial viability, it added. Gen-1 was three-times faster than similar state-of-the-art models, showcasing 99pc reliability on diverse tasks and demonstrated the ability to learn new and complex physical skills, according to Generalist.
“Scaling robot learning creates better models, better models can do more useful physical work, and data from real businesses drives the next generation of more capable models,” the company said in a statement.
The new funding will allow Generalist to continue “scaling robot learning”, including building new models, scaling its physical data engine, expanding compute and training infrastructure and working with industries for commercialisation.
“Our goal is not to tie ourselves to any single method or label. Our goal is to build whatever is needed to make physical AGI real,” said the company.
The exact definition of AGI is difficult to pin down. According to Google, AGI refers to the hypothetical intelligence of a machine that allows it to “understand” or “learn” intellectual tasks that humans can, while IBM calls it the “abstract goal of AI development”, where human intelligence can be replicated by machines or software.
Robotics rise
The robotics industry has gained renewed energy in recent years, fuelled by AI. For the world’s biggest chipmaker Nvidia, robotics represents the biggest market for potential growth after AI.
Last month, Meta acquired US start-up Assured Robot Intelligence to reportedly pursue its plans for humanoid robotic hardware to help with household chores, and Amazon made its own robotics-related acquisition with Fauna Robotics in March.
Meanwhile, Alphabet’s robotics software R&D company Intrinsic joined Google to work in close proximity with DeepMind, as well as tap into Google’s Gemini AI models and cloud services.
Don’t miss out on the knowledge you need to succeed. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic’s digest of need-to-know sci-tech news.
Sports52 seconds ago
Browns could get bonus first-round pick from Rams thanks to unusual clause in Myles Garrett trade
Tech2 minutes ago
An RGB Keyboard For Your Hackaday Communicator Badge
NewsBeat4 minutes ago
Everything you need to know about Cambridge East redevelopment after huge announcement
Crypto World4 weeks ago
HarrisX Poll Found 52% of Registered Voters Support the CLARITY Act
Crypto World3 weeks ago
BloFin War of Whales 2026 Grand Prix opens registration for $5M trading championship
Crypto World2 weeks ago
Blockchain.com files with SEC for U.S. IPO
News Videos14 minutes ago
10 Jaw-Dropping Money Stats About the Average American
News Videos20 minutes ago
Cryptocurrency simple explanation #crypto #cryptocurrency #ChinkeeTan #money
News Videos55 minutes ago
CoinDCX : No.1 Crypto Exchange In India. | Sudheer Varma T | #crypto #coindcxapp #academyofstartups
-
Tech7 days agoWaymo dominates autonomous vehicle registrations as Tesla trails behind
-
News Videos6 days agoThis is BROKEN! INSANE 5x MONEY CAR WASH WEEK! The NEW GTA Online UPDATE Today! (GTA5 New Update)
-
Tech5 days agoSpaceX just won a second Golden Dome contract. This one is $4.16 billion.
-
Business3 days agoJade Biosciences, Inc. (JBIO) Discusses Positive Interim Results From JADE101 Phase I Healthy Volunteer Study and Development Plans Transcript
-
News Videos6 days agoSHE IS KILLING XRP!!! WATCH URGENT AND ACT FAST
-
NewsBeat6 days agoFIRST NIGHT REVIEW: Take That bring the Circus back to life in spectacular sun-soaked style
-
Business5 days agoIs the Spurs Phenom Already Better Than Prime Diesel?
-
Crypto World6 days agoCFTC Has Approved the First Regulated Bitcoin Perpetual Contract in the U.S.
-
Politics5 days agoThe House | Inside Andy Burnham’s Makerfield Campaign: “Nobody Thinks This Is In The Bag”
-
Sports2 days agoFrench Open 2026 results: Alexander Zverev beats Rafael Jodar and will play Jakub Mensik in semi-finals
-
Entertainment6 days agoWeak ‘Supergirl’ Box Office Tracking Amid Milly Alcock Backlash
-
NewsBeat6 days agoNovak Djokovic v Joao Fonseca LIVE: French Open latest scores and results after Jannik Sinner’s shocking collapse
-
Tech2 days agoCryZENx Releases Fresh Playable Content Deep Inside Jabu-Jabu for His Ocarina of Time Remake
-
Crypto World6 days agoSnowflake (SNOW) Stock Rallies on Strong Q1 Results and AI Product Growth
-
Entertainment6 days agoMaddox Jolie-Pitt Legally Requests to Drop Brad’s Surname
-
Business5 days agoDemand Conditions Improve In Chemicals Sector In April 2026
-
Entertainment5 days agoOne of the Greatest Sitcoms of All Time Shoots Up Apple TV’s Charts 11 Years Later
-
Crypto World6 days agoMicroStrategy Moves $30 Million in BTC to Coinbase Prime: Is the Bitcoin Sell-Off Already Here?
-
Tech6 days agoThis Week In Security: Ubiquiti Fixes, And FreeBSD Joins The Club You Don’t Want To Join
-
Entertainment6 days agoBruce Willis’ Generosity Resurfaces Amid His Dementia
You must be logged in to post a comment Login