Senator Josh Hawley has introduced a bill that would criminalize the import, export, and collaboration on AI technology with China. What this means is that "someone who knowingly downloads a Chinese developed AI model like the now immensely popular DeepSeek could face up to 20 years in jail, a million dollar fine, or both, should such a law pass," reports 404 Media. From the report: Hawley introduced the legislation, titled the Decoupling America's Artificial Intelligence Capabilities from China Act, on Wednesday of last year. "Every dollar and gig of data that flows into Chinese AI are dollars and data that will ultimately be used against the United States," Senator Hawley said in a statement. "America cannot afford to empower our greatest adversary at the expense of our own strength. Ensuring American economic superiority means cutting China off from American ingenuity and halting the subsidization of CCP innovation."

Hawley's statement explicitly says that he introduced the legislation because of the release of DeepSeek, an advanced AI model that's competitive with its American counterparts, and which its developers claimed was made for a fraction of the cost and without access to as many and as advanced of chips, though these claims are unverified. Hawley's statement called DeepSeek "a data-harvesting, low-cost AI model that sparked international concern and sent American technology stocks plummeting." Hawley's statement says the goal of the bill is to "prohibit the import from or export to China of artificial intelligence technology, "prohibit American companies from conducting AI research in China or in cooperation with Chinese companies," and "Prohibit U.S. companies from investing money in Chinese AI development."

The Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General has launched an audit of the TSA's use of facial recognition technology at U.S. airports following concerns from lawmakers and privacy advocates. The Register reports: Homeland Security Inspector General Joseph Cuffari notified a bipartisan group of US Senators who had asked for such an investigation last year that his office has announced an audit of TSA facial recognition technology in a letter [PDF] sent to the group Friday. "We have reviewed the concerns raised in your letter as part of our work planning process," said Cuffari, a Trump appointee who survived the recent purge of several Inspectors General. "[The audit] will determine the extent to which TSA's facial recognition and identification technologies enhance security screening to identify persons of interest and authenticate flight traveler information while protecting passenger privacy," Cuffari said.

The letter from the Homeland Security OIG was addressed to Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), who co-led the group of 12 Senators who asked for an inspection of TSA facial recognition in November last year. "Americans don't want a national surveillance state, but right now, more Americans than ever before are having their faces scanned at the airport without being able to exercise their right to opt-out," Merkley said in a statement accompanying Cuffari's letter. "I have long sounded the alarm about the TSA's expanding use of facial recognition ... I'll keep pushing for strong Congressional oversight."

[...] While Cuffari's office was light on details of what would be included in the audit, the November letter from the Senators was explicit in its list of requests. They asked for the systems to be evaluated via red team testing, with a specific investigation into effectiveness - whether it reduced screening delays, stopped known terrorists, led to workforce cuts, or amounted to little more than security theater with errors.

U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Monday ordering the U.S. Treasury and Commerce Departments to create a sovereign wealth fund and said it may purchase TikTok. From a report: "We're going to stand this thing up within the next 12 months. We're going to monetize the asset side of the U.S. balance sheet for the American people," Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told reporters. "There'll be a combination of liquid assets, assets that we have in this country as we work to bring them out for the American people."

Trump had previously floated such a government investment vehicle as a presidential candidate, saying it could fund "great national endeavors" like infrastructure projects such as highways and airports, manufacturing, and medical research. Details on how exactly the fund would operate and be financed were not immediately available, but Trump previously said it could be funded by "tariffs and other intelligent things." Typically such funds rely on a country's budget surplus to make investments, but the U.S. operates at a deficit.

On January 24th Brooklyn blogger Jeffrey Emanuel made the case for shorting NVIDIA, remembers MarketWatch, "due to a number of shifting tides in the AI world, including the emergence of a China-based company called DeepSeek."

He published his 12,000-word post "on his personal blog and then shared it with the Value Investors Club website and across Reddit, X and other platforms." The next day he saw 35 people read his post. "But then the post started to go viral..." Well-known venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya shared Emanuel's post on Nvidia's short case with his 1.8 million X followers. Successful early stage investor Naval Ravikant shared the post with his 2.6 million followers... Morgan Brown, a vice president of product and growth at Dropbox, pointed to it in a thread that was viewed over 13 million times. Emanuel's own X post got nearly half a million views. He also quickly gained about 13,000 followers on the platform, going from about 2,000 to more than 15,000 followers...

[Emanuel] pointed to the fact that so many people in San Jose were reading his blog post. He theorized that many of them were Nvidia employees with thousands — or even millions — of dollars worth of Nvidia stock tied up in employee stock options. With that much money in a single asset, Emanuel speculated that many were already debating whether to hold the stock or sell it to lock in profits. He believes his blog post helped convince some of them to sell. "A lot of the sell pressure you saw on Monday morning wasn't necessarily what you might think. I believe a fair amount of that was from shares that had never been active because they had been sitting in workplace.schwab.com accounts..."
Emanuel stresses he's "the most bullish on AI," with MarketWatch emphasizing that "while the points Emanuel laid out in his blog post might be bearish for Nvidia, he still thinks they paint a positive future for AI." Nevertheless, Monday NVIDIA's market capitalization dropped $600 billion, which MarketWatch calls "the largest single-day market-cap drop to date for any company." What countless Wall Street firms and investment analysts had seemingly missed was being pointed out by some guy in his apartment.... Matt Levine, the prominent Bloomberg News financial columnist, noted the online chatter that claimed Emanuel's post "was an important catalyst" for the stock-market selloff and said it was a "candidate for the most impactful short research report ever." Emanuel spent the rest of the week booked solid as hedge funds paid him $1,000 per hour to speak on the phone and give his take on Nvidia and AI...

Emanuel wrote that the industry may be running low on quality data to train that AI — that is, a potential "data wall" is looming that could slow down AI scaling and reduce some of that need for training resources... Some of these companies, like Alphabet, have also been investing in building out their own semiconductor chips. For a while, Nvidia's hardware has been the best for training AI, but that might not be the case forever as more companies, such as Cerebras, build better hardware. And other GPU makers like AMD are updating their drivers software to be more competitive with Nvidia... Add all these things together — unsustainable spending and data-center building, less training data to work with, better competing hardware and more efficient AI — and you get a future where it's harder to imagine Nvidia's customers spending as much as they currently are on Nvidia hardware... "If you know that a company will only earn supersized returns for a couple years, you don't apply a multiple. You certainly don't put a 30-times multiple," Emanuel told MarketWatch.
The article notes that DeepSeek "is open-source and has been publishing technical papers out in the open for the past few months... The $5.6 million training-cost statistic that many investors cited for sparking the DeepSeek market panic was actually revealed in the V3 technical paper published on Dec. 26."

An anonymous reader shares a report: At first blush, stock trading this week is hardly a paragon of the market-efficiency theory, an oft-romanticized idea in Economics 101. After all, big equity gauges plunged on Monday, spurred by fears of an AI model released a week earlier, before swiftly rebounding. A fresh academic paper suggests the rise of passive investing may be fueling these kind of fragile market moves.

According to a study to be published in the prestigious American Economic Review, evidence is building that active managers are slow to scoop up stocks en masse when prices move away from their intrinsic worth. Thanks to this lethargic trading behavior and the relentless boom in benchmark-tracking index funds, the impact of each trade on prices gets amplified, explaining how sell orders, like on Monday perhaps, can induce broader equity gyrations. As a result, the financial landscape is proving less dynamic and more volatile in the era of Big Passive, according to authors at the UCLA Anderson School of Management, the Stockholm School of Economics and the University of Minnesota Carlson School of Management.

A proposed class-action lawsuit accuses Amazon of secretly tracking consumers' movements through their cellphones via its Amazon Ads SDK embedded in third-party apps, allegedly collecting sensitive geolocation data without consent. The complaint, filed by a California resident in a San Francisco federal court, claims Amazon violated state laws on unauthorized computer access in the process. Reuters reports: This allegedly enabled Amazon to collect an enormous amount of timestamped geolocation data about where consumers live, work, shop and visit, revealing sensitive information such as religious affiliations, sexual orientations and health concerns. "Amazon has effectively fingerprinted consumers and has correlated a vast amount of personal information about them entirely without consumers' knowledge and consent," the complaint said.

The complaint was filed by Felix Kolotinsky of San Mateo, California, who said Amazon collected his personal information through the "Speedtest by Ookla" app on his phone. He said Amazon's conduct violated California's penal law and a state law against unauthorized computer access, and seeks unspecified damages for millions of Californians.

Longtime Slashdot reader nunya_bizns shares a report from Reuters: The U.S. Department of Justice has sued to block Hewlett Packard Enterprise's $14 billion deal to acquire networking gear maker Juniper Networks, arguing that it would stifle competition, according to a complaint filed on Thursday. The DOJ argued that the acquisition would eliminate competition and would lead to only two companies -- Cisco Systems and HPE -- controlling more than 70% of the U.S. market for networking equipment. More than a year ago, the server maker said that it would buy Juniper Networks for $14 billion in an all-cash deal, as it looks to spruce up its artificial intelligence offerings.

"Juniper has also introduced innovative tools that have materially decreased the cost of operating a wireless network for many customers. This competitive pressure has forced HPE to discount its offerings and invest in its own innovation," the DOJ said in its complaint. Stiff competition from Juniper forced HPE to sell its products at a discount and spend to introduce new features under the "Beat Mist" campaign, named after the networking gear company's rival product, the DOJ wrote. "Having failed to beat Mist on the merits, HPE changed tactics and in January 2024 opted to try to buy Juniper instead," the agency added.

Virgin Money's AI-powered chatbot has reprimanded a customer who used the word "virgin," underlining the pitfalls of rolling out external AI tools. From a report: In a post last week on social media site LinkedIn, David Birch, a fintech commentator and Virgin Money customer, shared a picture of his online conversation with the bank in which he asked: "I have two ISAs with Virgin Money, how do I merge them?" The bank's customer service tool responded: "Please don't use words like that. I won't be able to continue our chat if you use this language," suggesting that it deemed the word "virgin" inappropriate.

West Sussex County Council is using up to $31 million from the sale of capital assets to fund an Oracle-based transformation project, originally budgeted at $3.2 million but now expected to cost nearly $50 million due to delays and cost overruns. The project, intended to replace a 20-year-old SAP system with a SaaS-based HR and finance system, has faced multiple setbacks, renegotiated contracts, and a new systems integrator, with completion now pushed to December 2025. The Register reports: West Sussex County Council is taking advantage of the so-called "flexible use of capital receipts scheme" introduced in 2016 by the UK government to allow councils to use money from the sale of assets such as land, offices, and housing to fund projects that result in ongoing revenue savings. An example of the asset disposals that might contribute to the project -- set to see the council move off a 20-year-old SAP system -- comes from the sale of a former fire station in Horley, advertised for $3.1 million.

Meanwhile, the delays to the project, which began in November 2019, forced the council to renegotiate its terms with Oracle, at a cost of $3 million. The council had expected the new SaaS-based HR and finance system to go live in 2021, and signed a five-year license agreement until June 2025. The plans to go live were put back to 2023, and in the spring of 2024 delayed again until December 2025. According to council documents published this week [PDF], it has "approved the variation of the contract with Oracle Corporation UK Limited" to cover the period from June 2025 to June 2028 and an option to extend again to the period June 2028 to 2030. "The total value of the proposed variation is $2.96 million if the full term of the extension periods are taken," the council said.

AmiMoJo shares a report: Two hundred UK companies have signed up for a permanent four-day working week for all their employees with no loss of pay, in the latest landmark in the campaign to reinvent Britain's working week. Together the companies employ more than 5,000 people, with charities, marketing and technology firms among the best-represented, according to the latest update from the 4 Day Week Foundation. Proponents of the four-day week say that the five-day pattern is a hangover from an earlier economic age.

Joe Ryle, the foundation's campaign director, said that the "9-5, five-day working week was invented 100 years ago and is no longer fit for purpose. We are long overdue an update." With "50% more free time, a four-day week gives people the freedom to live happier, more fulfilling lives," he continued. "As hundreds of British companies and one local council have already shown, a four-day week with no loss of pay can be a win-win for both workers and employers."

The EFF has complained that in general "smart" products for babies "collect a ton of information about you and your baby on an ongoing basis". (For this year's "worst in privacy" product at CES they chose a $1,200 baby bassinet equipped with a camera, a microphone, and a radar sensor...)

But today the Washington Post reported on a $1,700 bassinet that surprised the mother of a one-month-old when it "abruptly demanded money for a feature she relied on to soothe her baby to sleep." The internet-connected bassinet... reliably comforted her 1-month-old — just as it had her first child — until it started charging $20 a month for some abilities, including one that keeps the bassinet's motion and sounds at one level all night. The level-lock feature previously was available without a fee. "It all felt really intrusive — like they went into our bedroom and clawed back this feature that we've been depending on...." When the Snoo's maker, Happiest Baby, introduced a premium subscription for some of the bassinet's most popular features in July, owners filed dozens of complaints to the Federal Trade Commission and the Better Business Bureau, coordinated review bombs and vented on social media — saying the company took advantage of their desperation for sleep to bait-and-switch them...

Happiest Baby isn't the only baby gear company that has rolled out a subscription. In 2023, makers of the Miku baby monitor, which retails for up to $400, elicited similar fury from parents when it introduced a $10 monthly subscription for most features. A growing number of internet-connected products have lost software support or functionality after purchase in recent years, such as Spotify's Car Thing — a $90 Bluetooth streaming device that the company announced in May it plans to discontinue — and Levi's $350 smart jacket, which let users control their phones by swiping sensors on its sleeve...

Seventeen consumer protection and tech advocacy groups cited Happiest Baby and Car Thing in a letter urging the FTC to create guidelines that ensure products retain core functionality without the imposition of fees that did not exist when the items were originally bought.
The Times notes that the bassinets are often resold, so the subscription fees are partly to cover the costs of supporting new owners, according to Happiest Baby's vice president for marketing and communications. But the article three additional perspectives:

• "This new technology is actually allowing manufacturers to change the way the status quo has been for decades, which is that once you buy something, you own it and you can do whatever you want. Right now, consumers have no trust that what they're buying is actually going to keep working." — Lucas Gutterman, who leads the Public Interest Research Group's "Design to Last" campaign.

• "It's a shame to be beholden to companies' goodwill, to require that they make good decisions about which settings to put behind a paywall. That doesn't feel good, and you can't always trust that, and there's no guarantee that next week Happiest Baby isn't going to announce that all of the features are behind a paywall." — Elizabeth Chamberlain, sustainability director at iFixit.

• "It's no longer just an out-and-out purchase of something. It's a continuous rental, and people don't know that." — Natasha Tusikov, an associate professor at York University

This weekend Cory Doctorow delved into "the two factors that make services terrible: captive users, and no constraints." If your users can't leave, and if you face no consequences for making them miserable (not solely their departure to a competitor, but also fines, criminal charges, worker revolts, and guerrilla warfare with interoperators), then you have the means, motive and opportunity to turn your service into a giant pile of shit... Every economy is forever a-crawl with parasites and monsters like these, but they don't get to burrow into the system and colonize it until policymakers create rips they can pass through.
Doctorow argues that "more and more critics are coming to understand that lock-in is the root of the problem, and that anti-lock-in measures like interoperability can address it." Even more important than market discipline is government discipline, in the form of regulation. If Zuckerberg feared fines for privacy violations, or moderation failures, or illegal anticompetitive mergers, or fraudulent advertising systems that rip off publishers and advertisers, or other forms of fraud (like the "pivot to video"), he would treat his users better. But Facebook's rise to power took place during the second half of the neoliberal era, when the last shreds of regulatory muscle that survived the Reagan revolution were being devoured... But it's worse than that, because Zuckerberg and other tech monopolists figured out how to harness "IP" law to get the government to shut down third-party technology that might help users resist enshittification... [Doctorow says this is "why companies are so desperate to get you to use their apps rather than the open web"] IP law is why you can't make an alternative client that blocks algorithmic recommendations. IP law is why you can't leave Facebook for a new service and run a scraper that imports your waiting Facebook messages into a different inbox. IP law is why you can't scrape Facebook to catalog the paid political disinformation the company allows on the platform...
But then Doctorow argues that "Legacy social media is at a turning point," citing as "a credible threat" new systems built on open standards like Mastodon (built on Activitypub) and Bluesky (built on Atproto): I believe strongly in improving the Fediverse, and I believe in adding the long-overdue federation to Bluesky. That's because my goal isn't the success of the Fediverse — it's the defeat of enshtitification. My answer to "why spend money fixing Bluesky?" is "why leave 20 million people at risk of enshittification when we could not only make them safe, but also create the toolchain to allow many, many organizations to operate a whole federation of Bluesky servers?" If you care about a better internet — and not just the Fediverse — then you should share this goal, too... Mastodon has one feature that Bluesky sorely lacks — the federation that imposes antienshittificatory discipline on companies and offers an enshittification fire-exit for users if the discipline fails. It's long past time that someone copied that feature over to Bluesky.
Doctorow argues that federated and "federatable" social media "disciplines enshittifiers" by freeing social media's captive audiences.

"Any user can go to any server at any time and stay in touch with everyone else."

ZDNET's senior editor sees an "overwhelmingly negative" response to Microsoft's surprise price hike for the 84 million paying subscribers to its Microsoft 365 software suite. Attempting the first price hike in more than 12 years, "they made it a 30% price increase" — going from $10 a month to $13 a month — "and blamed it all on artificial intelligence." Bad idea. Why? Because...

No one wants to pay for AI...

If you ask Copilot in Word to write something for you, the results will be about what you'd expect from an enthusiastic summer intern. You might fare better if you ask Copilot to turn a folder full of photos into a PowerPoint presentation. But is that task really such a challenge...?

The announcement was bungled, too... I learned about the new price thanks to a pop-up message on my Android phone... It could be worse, I suppose. Just ask the French and Spanish subscribers who got a similar pop-up message telling them their price had gone from €10 a month to €13,000. (Those pesky decimals.) Oh, and I've lost count of the number of people who were baffled and angry that Microsoft had forcibly installed the Copilot app on their devices. It was just a rebranding of the old Microsoft 365 app with the new name and logo, but in my case it was days later before I received yet another pop-up message telling me about the change...

[T]hey turned the feature on for everyone and gave Word users a well-hidden checkbox that reads Enable Copilot. The feature is on by default, so you have to clear the checkbox to make it go away. As for the other Office apps? "Uh, we'll get around to giving you a button to turn it off next month. Maybe." Seriously, the support page that explains where you can find that box in Word says, "We're working on adding the Enable Copilot checkbox to Excel, OneNote, and PowerPoint on Windows devices and to Excel and PowerPoint on Mac devices. That is tentatively scheduled to happen in February 2025." Until the Enable Copilot button is available, you can't disable Copilot.
ZDNET's senior editor concludes it's a naked grab for cash, adding "I could plug the numbers into Excel and tell you about it, but let's have Copilot explain instead."

Prompt: If I have 84 million subscribers who pay me $10 a month, and I increase their monthly fee by $3 a month each, how much extra revenue will I make each year?

Copilot describes the calculation, concluding with "You would make an additional $3.024 billion per year from this fee increase." Copilot then posts two emojis — a bag of money, and a stock chart with the line going up.

"For years, renewable energy proponents have hoped to build a U.S. electric grid powered by wind, solar, geothermal and — to a lesser extent — nuclear power..." writes the Washington Post. In America's power markets "the economics of clean energy are strong," with renewable energy cheaper than fossil fuel plants in many jurisdictions.

But the Post spoke to the "electricity modeling" director at nonpartisan clean energy think tank Energy Innovation, who offered this assessment. "The technology is ready, and the financial services are ready — but the question nobody really put enough thought into was, could the government keep up? And at the moment, the answer is no." [R]enewable developers say that the new technologies are stymied by complicated local and federal regulations, a long wait to connect to the electricity grid, and community opposition... "The U.S. offshore wind business is at a very nascent stage versus Europe or China," Rob Barnett, a senior analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence, said in an email. "With the new permitting pause, it's doubtful much progress for this emerging industry will be made...." After the Inflation Reduction Act passed, Rhodium Group — an independent clean energy research firm — estimated that between 2023 and 2025, on average, the country would add between 36 and 46 gigawatts of clean electricity to the grid every year. Late last year, however, the group found that the country only installed around 27 gigawatts in 2023. The U.S.'s renewable growth is now expected to fall on the low end of that range — or miss it entirely.

"It actually is really hard to build a lot of this stuff fast," said Trevor Houser, partner in climate and energy at Rhodium Group. As a result, Rhodium found, the country only cut carbon emissions by 0.2 percent in 2024... A significant amount of this lag has come from wind power, where problems with supply chains and getting permits and approval to build has put a damper on development. But solar construction is also on the low end of what experts were expecting...

Developers point to lags in the interconnection queue — a system that gives new solar, wind or fossil fuel projects permission to connect to the larger electricity grid. According to a report from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, it can now take nearly 3 years for a project to get through the queue. The grid operator that covers the Mid-Atlantic and parts of the Midwest, PJM, had over 3,300 projects in its queue at the end of 2023. The vast majority of these applications are for renewables — more than the entire number of active wind farms in the nation... There are possible solutions. Some developers hope to reuse old fossil fuel sites, like coal plants, that are already connected to the grid — bypassing the long queue entirely. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has instated new rules to make it easier to build transmission lines.
Part of the problem is that wind and solar facilities "sometimes need to be built hundreds or even thousands of miles away" — requiring long transmission lines. Sandhya Ganapathy, CEO of EDP Renewables North America, tells the Post that in America, "The grid that we have was never designed to handle this kind of load." And yet last year just 255 miles of new transmission line were built in the U.S., according to the American Clean Power Association. And Ganapathy also complains that approval for a new renewable energy project takes "anywhere between six to eight years" — which makes developers hesitant to build. "Why are we taking a big risk of a massive investment if I will not be able to sell the electrons?"

The end result? The Washington Post writes that "Experts once hoped that by the end of the decade the United States could generate up to 80 percent of its power with clean power... Now, some wonder if the country will be able to reach even 60 percent."

Non-fungible tokens and memecoins are neither securities nor commodities, according to White House crypto czar David Sacks. Instead, he defines them as "collectibles." From a report: "It's like a baseball card or a stamp," Sacks said in an interview with Fox Business on Thursday, referencing Trump's explosively popular memecoin. "People buy it because they want to commemorate something."

The famous venture capitalist's comments touched on a long-running debate about the crypto industry in general: how exactly to treat different digital assets. Some argue that digital assets are securities, which are tradable financial assets like stocks. But others say they're commodities, or raw materials that can be bought and sold, like gold and wheat. The classification differences have vast regulatory implications. "There's a few different categories here, so defining the market structure is important," said Sacks.

The World Economic Forum's Global Risks Report 2025 (PDF) highlights misinformation as the top global risk due to generative AI tools and state-sponsored campaigns undermining democratic systems, while cyberespionage ranks as a persistent threat with inadequate cyber resilience, especially among small organizations. From a report: The manipulation of information through gen AI and state-sponsored campaigns is disrupting democratic systems and undermining public trust in critical institutions. Efforts to combat this risk have a "formidable opponent" in gen AI-created false or misleading content that can be produced and distributed at scale, the report warned. Misinformation campaigns in the form of deepfakes, synthetic voice recordings or fabricated news stories are now a leading mechanism for foreign entities to influence "voter intentions, sow doubt among the general public about what is happening in conflict zones, or tarnish the image of products or services from another country." This is especially acute in India, Germany, Brazil and the United States.

Concern remains especially high following a year of the so-called "super elections," which saw heightened state-sponsored campaigns designed to manipulate public opinion. But while it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish AI-generated fake content from human-generated one, AI technologies, in itself, is low in WEF's risk ranking. In fact, it has declined in the two-year outlook, from 29 in last year's report to 31 this year.

Cyberespionage and warfare continue to be a reason for unease for most organizations, ranked fifth in the global risk landscape. According to the report, one in three CEOs cited cyberespionage and intellectual property theft as their top concerns in 2024. Seventy-one percent of chief risk officers say cyber risk and criminal activity such as money laundering and cybercrime could severely impact their organizations, while 45% of cyber leaders are concerned about disruption of operations and business processes, according to WEF's Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2025 report. The rising likelihood of threat actor activity and sophisticated technological disruption is listed as immediate concerns among security leaders.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from SFGATE: The same morning that JetBlue Airways announced that it was the first airline partnering with Venmo to begin accepting payments for booking flights, an account on the popular payment platform was already raking in money. A Venmo user named Owen Miller paid the JetBlue Checkpoint Store for a drink on Wednesday morning, which is a typical transaction between a traveler and airline, except for the fact that JetBlue doesn't operate that account. "At this time, JetBlue does not accept Venmo payment for inflight purchases such as food and beverages," a representative for the airline told SFGATE in an email. "Unfortunately, we have seen accounts falsely representing themselves as JetBlue to deceive and defraud customers." To stay safe from scammers when booking JetBlue flights with Venmo, the airline recommends customers only use verified JetBlue channels, such as their official website or app, and follow their secure payment process using the provided QR code. JetBlue said it plans to fold Venmo payments into its mobile app later this year.

US President Donald Trump blasted European Union regulators for targeting Apple, Alphabet's Google and Meta, describing theircases against American companies as "a form of taxation." From a report: The EU has established a reputation globally for its aggressive regulation of major technology companies, often sparring with major social media platforms, such as Facebook and X, over content moderation, and the likes of Apple and Google over antitrust concerns. "These are American companies whether you like it or not," Trump said in comments at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

"They shouldn't be doing that. That's, as far as I'm concerned, a form of taxation. We have some very big complaints with the EU." Trump specifically referenced a court case that Apple lost last year over a $14.4 billion Irish tax bill. The EU's Court of Justice in Luxembourg backed a landmark 2016 decision that Ireland broke state-aid law by giving Apple an unfair advantage, requiring Ireland to claw back the money that had been sitting in an escrow account pending the final ruling.

Bruce Schneier and Nathan E. Sanders, writing in a post: Someone who makes calculus mistakes is also likely to respond "I don't know" to calculus-related questions. To the extent that AI systems make these human-like mistakes, we can bring all of our mistake-correcting systems to bear on their output. But the current crop of AI models -- particularly LLMs -- make mistakes differently.

AI errors come at seemingly random times, without any clustering around particular topics. LLM mistakes tend to be more evenly distributed through the knowledge space. A model might be equally likely to make a mistake on a calculus question as it is to propose that cabbages eat goats. And AI mistakes aren't accompanied by ignorance. A LLM will be just as confident when saying something completely wrong -- and obviously so, to a human -- as it will be when saying something true. The seemingly random inconsistency of LLMs makes it hard to trust their reasoning in complex, multi-step problems. If you want to use an AI model to help with a business problem, it's not enough to see that it understands what factors make a product profitable; you need to be sure it won't forget what money is.

[...] Humans may occasionally make seemingly random, incomprehensible, and inconsistent mistakes, but such occurrences are rare and often indicative of more serious problems. We also tend not to put people exhibiting these behaviors in decision-making positions. Likewise, we should confine AI decision-making systems to applications that suit their actual abilities -- while keeping the potential ramifications of their mistakes firmly in mind.

Microsoft's absence from OpenAI's Stargate announcement follows months of tension between the companies and signals a new era in which the longtime partners will be less reliant on each other. From a report: At a White House press conference, the ChatGPT maker announced Stargate, a venture with Oracle and tech investor SoftBank. The new company plans to spend up to $500 billion building new data centers in the U.S. to help power OpenAI's development.

The assembled leaders -- OpenAI's Sam Altman, Oracle's Larry Ellison, SoftBank's Masayoshi Son and President Trump -- discussed how AI could create jobs and even cure cancer. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella was thousands of miles away, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The developments show how the OpenAI-Microsoft partnership that helped trigger the generative-AI boom is drifting apart as each company focuses on its own evolving needs.

In the months leading up to the announcement, the two sides had been haggling over what to do about OpenAI's seemingly insatiable appetite for computing power and its contention Microsoft couldn't fulfill it even though their agreement didn't allow OpenAI to easily switch to others, said people familiar with the discussions. OpenAI is almost entirely reliant on Microsoft to provide it with the data centers it needs to build and operate its sophisticated AI software. That has been part of their agreement since Microsoft first invested in 2019. With the success of ChatGPT, OpenAI's need for computing power surged. Its executives have said ending the exclusive cloud contract could be crucial to compete with rival AI developers that don't have the same constraints.