The broader lesson of this study is that the details will matter in these copyright cases. Too often, online discussions have treated “do generative models copy their training data or merely learn from it?” as a theoretical or even philosophical question. But it’s a question that can be tested empirically—and the answer might differ across models and across copyrighted works. //

For any language model, the probability of generating any given 50-token sequence “by accident” is vanishingly small. If a model generates 50 tokens from a copyrighted work, that is strong evidence that the tokens “came from” the training data. This is true even if it only generates those tokens 10 percent, 1 percent, or 0.01 percent of the time. //

There are actually three distinct theories of how training a model on copyrighted works could infringe copyright:

1. Training on a copyrighted work is inherently infringing because the training process involves making a digital copy of the work.
2. The training process copies information from the training data into the model, making the model a derivative work under copyright law.
3. Infringement occurs when a model generates (portions of) a copyrighted work.
   A lot of discussion so far has focused on the first theory because it is the most threatening to AI companies. If the courts uphold this theory, most current LLMs would be illegal, whether or not they have memorized any training data.

The AI industry has some pretty strong arguments that using copyrighted works during the training process is fair use under the 2015 Google Books ruling. But the fact that Llama 3.1 70B memorized large portions of Harry Potter could color how the courts consider these fair use questions. //

The Google Books precedent probably can’t protect Meta against this second legal theory because Google never made its books database available for users to download—Google almost certainly would have lost the case if it had done that. //

Moreover, if a company keeps model weights on its own servers, it can use filters to try to prevent infringing output from reaching the outside world. So even if the underlying OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google models have memorized copyrighted works in the same way as Llama 3.1 70B, it might be difficult for anyone outside the company to prove it.

Moreover, this kind of filtering makes it easier for companies with closed-weight models to invoke the Google Books precedent. In short, copyright law might create a strong disincentive for companies to release open-weight models.

“It's kind of perverse,” Mark Lemley told me. “I don't like that outcome.”

On the other hand, judges might conclude that it would be bad to effectively punish companies for publishing open-weight models.

“There's a degree to which being open and sharing weights is a kind of public service,” Grimmelmann told me. “I could honestly see judges being less skeptical of Meta and others who provide open-weight models.”

Put aside the irony that my research on authoritarianism in China was sidelined by authoritarianism in China. The bigger scandal here is how Western academics and publishers are willing to allow PRC censorship to dictate the terms of their trade.

Of course, this happens all the time on the sly. Every academic in China works under a censorship and ideological regime that distorts and repackages his work to make China appear like a normal and free society. A new study by Ning Leng of Georgetown and Elizabeth Plantan of Stetson University shows that the word “authoritarianism” is one that China’s academics consciously avoid because of party dictates. They show that a combination of top-down censorship and peer-based censorship creates a minefield for scholars in China, and even for mainland Chinese nationals working in the United States.

Offending phrases or topics may lead to sanctions such as failing an “ethical evaluation.”. //

Xi Jinping wants China to challenge the West, and one way it does this is by infiltrating Western institutions and accusing anyone who questions its influence of harboring a “Cold War mentality.” But the China model has no place in a free society.

My pick for the best lens for the Canon R10 is the 28mm f/2.8 because the compact size and wide maximum aperture make it a versatile lens and affordable lens that will give you professional quality images. This is the first lens I’d suggest to buy with the camera or to replace the kit lens that came with it.

But depending on what you shoot most, you may want a different option. So keep reading to see my complete breakdown of the best lenses for the Canon R10 based on what might be right for you.

Removable transparent films apply digital restorations directly to damaged artwork.

MIT graduate student Alex Kachkine once spent nine months meticulously restoring a damaged baroque Italian painting, which left him plenty of time to wonder if technology could speed things up. Last week, MIT News announced his solution: a technique that uses AI-generated polymer films to physically restore damaged paintings in hours rather than months. The research appears in Nature.

Kachkine's method works by printing a transparent "mask" containing thousands of precisely color-matched regions that conservators can apply directly to an original artwork. Unlike traditional restoration, which permanently alters the painting, these masks can reportedly be removed whenever needed. So it's a reversible process that does not permanently change a painting.

"Because there's a digital record of what mask was used, in 100 years, the next time someone is working with this, they'll have an extremely clear understanding of what was done to the painting," Kachkine told MIT News. "And that's never really been possible in conservation before."

Nature reports that up to 70 percent of institutional art collections remain hidden from public view due to damage—a large amount of cultural heritage sitting unseen in storage. Traditional restoration methods, where conservators painstakingly fill damaged areas one at a time while mixing exact color matches for each region, can take weeks to decades for a single painting. It's skilled work that requires both artistic talent and deep technical knowledge, but there simply aren't enough conservators to tackle the backlog. //

For now, the method works best with paintings that include numerous small areas of damage rather than large missing sections. In a world where AI models increasingly seem to blur the line between human- and machine-created media, it's refreshing to see a clear application of computer vision tools used as an augmentation of human skill and not as a wholesale replacement for the judgment of skilled conservators.

Today marks the 50th anniversary of Jaws, Steven Spielberg's blockbuster horror movie based on the bestselling novel by Peter Benchley. We're marking the occasion with a tribute to this classic film and its enduring impact on the popular perception of sharks, shark conservation efforts, and our culture at large. //

A lot of folks in both the marine science world and the ocean conservation communities have reported that Jaws in a lot of ways changed our world. It's not that people used to think that sharks were cute, cuddly, adorable animals, and then after Jaws, they thought that they were bloodthirsty killing machines. They just weren't on people's minds. Fishermen knew about them, surfers thought about them, but that was about it. Most people who went to the beach didn't pay much mind to what could be there. Jaws absolutely shattered that. My parents both reported that the summer that Jaws came out, they were afraid to go swimming in their community swimming pools. //

The movie also was the first time that a scientist was the hero. People half a generation above me have reported that seeing Richard Dreyfuss' Hooper on the big screen as the one who saves the day changed their career trajectory. "You can be a scientist who studies fish. Cool. I want to do that." In the time since Jaws came out, a lot of major changes have happened. One is that shark populations have declined globally by about 50 percent, and many species are now critically endangered. //

And then, from a cultural standpoint, we now have a whole genre of bad shark movies.

Ars Technica: Sharknado!

David Shiffman: Yes! Sharknado is one of the better of the bunch. Sitting on my desk here, we've got Sharkenstein, Raiders of the Lost Shark, and, of course, Shark Exorcist, all from the 2010s. I've been quoted as saying there's two types of shark movie: There's Jaws and there's bad shark movies. //

Ars Technica: People have a tendency to think that sharks are simply brutal killing machines. Why are they so important to the ecosystem?

David Shiffman: The title of my book is Why Sharks Matter because sharks do matter and people don't think about them that way. These are food chains that provide billions of humans with food, including some of the poorest humans on Earth. They provide tens of millions of humans with jobs. When those food chains are disrupted, that's bad for coastal communities, bad for food security and livelihoods. If we want to have healthy ocean food chains, we need a healthy top of the food chain, because when you lose the top of the food chain, the whole thing can unravel in unpredictable, but often quite devastating ways.

So sharks play important ecological roles by holding the food chain that we all depend on in place. They're also not a significant threat to you and your family. More people in a typical year die from flower pots falling on their head when they walk down the street. More people in a typical year die falling off a cliff when they're trying to take a selfie of the scenery behind them, than are killed by sharks. Any human death or injury is a tragedy, and I don't want to minimize that. But when we're talking about global-scale policy responses, the relative risk versus reward needs to be considered. //

In all of recorded human history, there is proof that exactly one shark bit more than one human. That was the Sharm el-Sheikh attacks around Christmas in Egypt a few years ago. Generally speaking, a lot of times it's hard to predict why wild animals do or don't do anything. But if this was a behavior that was real, there would be evidence that it happens and there isn't any, despite a lot of people looking. //

One of my favorite professional experiences is the American Alasdair Rank Society conference. One year it was in Austin, Texas, near the original Alamo Drafthouse. Coincidentally, while we were there, the cinema held a "Jaws on the Water" event. They had a giant projector screen, and we were sitting in a lake in inner tubes while there were scuba divers in the water messing with us from below. I did that with 75 professional shark scientists. It was absolutely amazing. It helped knowing that it was a lake.

Ars Technica: If you wanted to make another really good shark movie, what would that look like today?

David Shiffman: I often say that there are now three main movie plots: a man goes on a quest, a stranger comes to town, or there's a shark somewhere you would not expect a shark to be. It depends if you want to make a movie that's actually good, or one of the more fun "bad" movies like Sharknado or Sharktopus or Avalanche Sharks—the tagline of which is "snow is just frozen water." These movies are just off the rails and absolutely incredible. The ones that don't take themselves too seriously and are in on the joke tend to be very fun.

In early May, I wrote about a quiet but historic breakthrough—one that barely registered on most radars but carried the kind of geopolitical weight rarely seen in our era of performative diplomacy. The United States, through the leadership of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, had brokered a framework between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) that hinted at something almost unthinkable: peace in a region long synonymous with conflict, exploitation, and chaos. //

Now, just weeks later, that framework has matured into a full-fledged peace accord. And let me say this clearly: this is a huge win for American foreign policy—led not by the State Department's usual bureaucrats, but by a Republican senator with grit, clarity, and spine.

Rubio isn’t getting the ticker-tape parade he deserves, of course. That would require the mainstream media to acknowledge that a Republican delivered a diplomatic masterstroke. //

In my previous column, I called this deal a “billion-dollar boost” for America’s strategic position. That’s truer now than ever. This isn’t just about helping others—it’s about helping ourselves while restoring peace. It’s about countering Chinese influence in Africa, securing the raw materials we need for the 21st century, and proving that American power still means something.

The Rubio-led deal isn’t a magic wand. There will be setbacks. Bad actors don’t reform overnight. But for once, we’re not just reacting—we’re shaping events. That’s what leadership looks like. //

T_Edward
11 hours ago
What must be stressed in this situation is that they came to President Trump and asked for his help. This is huge. They recognize his ability to negotiate in his ability to lead and he sent the right people there to make the agreement. Rubio has been an enormous boost in the statue of our country Because he is actually getting it done! None of this would’ve been possible without President Trump.

This Supreme Court term may well be remembered as a turning point. Not because the justices dismantled the administrative state in one dramatic move, but because they took important steps to rein in its excesses.

A string of rulings issued Friday—from McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp. to Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA to FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.—shows the Court is serious about restoring balance between unelected regulators and the courts tasked with holding them accountable.

What ties these decisions together is not a single ideological agenda. It is a shared recognition that when agencies act like legislative bodies or try to wall themselves off from judicial review, they go beyond their constitutional limits. The Court’s recent work reminds us that regulatory power must remain subject to oversight and correction when needed. //

District judges must independently interpret statutes, even when an agency has already spoken. As Justice Kavanaugh put it, “When a statute is clear, it is the law—not the agency’s interpretation—that governs.”. //

In FDA v. R.J. Reynolds, the Court pushed back on the FDA’s attempt to control who could challenge its decisions. The agency argued that only manufacturers could challenge its denial of premarket approvals. The Court disagreed and ruled that retailers, who are also harmed by these decisions, have every right to challenge them.

This ruling matters because it keeps agencies from deciding who gets to take them to court. When regulators pick their critics, there is no real oversight. //

None of these decisions dismantles the administrative state. Nor should they. What they do is draw clearer boundaries. Regulators should not act as lawmakers. They should not decide who can challenge them. They should not expect courts to accept their interpretations of the law automatically.

These rulings stand out because they are not driven by ideology. In fact, in some of these cases, Justice Elena Kagan, one of the Court’s more progressive voices, joined the conservative majority. That tells us something important. It suggests that Kagan recognizes, as the majority does, that unchecked regulatory power is dangerous no matter who holds it. If a progressive agency can go too far, so can a conservative one. The Constitution’s checks and balances are there to protect everyone.

Together, these rulings mark a shift toward restoring that balance. In our system, laws should come from legislators, be applied by judges, and not be dictated by unelected bureaucrats. That is a balance worth defending. //

Warren Pease
8 hours ago
“None of these decisions dismantles the administrative state. Nor should they.”

I must disagree with this premise. The administrative state is prima facie unconstitutional. Laws must be passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president. Having unelected bureaucrats make “regulations” with the force of law (these people can jail you and ruin you) is antithetical to a representative republic. SCOTUS should stop screwing around and remove the authority of anyone but congress to do things with the force of law.

Clarity, at a glance
TRMNL is an e-ink companion that helps you stay focused.

Stay focused
Meet the world's first dedicated screen for things that matter.

A British woman has died from rabies after she was "scratched" by a puppy in Morocco, her family said.

Yvonne Ford, 59, from Barnsley, South Yorkshire, had light contact with the stray dog while on holiday in February in the North African country.

In a social media post, reported by the Press Association, Mrs Ford's family said she developed a headache two weeks ago and later couldn't "walk, talk, sleep, swallow".

The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) said there was no risk to the wider public due to no documented evidence of rabies passing between people.

SpaceX's next Starship rocket exploded during a ground test in South Texas late Wednesday, dealing another blow to a program already struggling to overcome three consecutive failures in recent months.

The late-night explosion at SpaceX's rocket development complex in Starbase, Texas, destroyed the bullet-shaped upper stage that was slated to launch on the next Starship test flight. The powerful blast set off fires around SpaceX's Massey's Test Site, located a few miles from the company's Starship factory and launch pads.

Live streaming video from NASASpaceflight.com and LabPadre—media organizations with cameras positioned around Starbase—showed the 15-story-tall rocket burst into flames shortly after 11:00 pm local time (12:00 am EDT; 04:00 UTC). Local residents as far as 30 miles away reported seeing and feeling the blast.

SpaceX confirmed the Starship, numbered Ship 36 in the company's inventory, "experienced a major anomaly" on a test stand as the vehicle prepared to ignite its six Raptor engines for a static fire test. These hold-down test-firings are typically one of the final milestones in a Starship launch campaign before SpaceX moves the rocket to the launch pad.

The explosion occurred as SpaceX finished up loading super-cold methane and liquid oxygen propellants into Starship in preparation for the static fire test. The company said the area around the test site was evacuated of all personnel, and everyone was safe and accounted for after the incident. Firefighters from the Brownsville Fire Department were dispatched to the scene.

The Iberian blackout was a consequence of grid management, not any power source.

The blackout that took down the Iberian grid serving Spain and Portugal in April was the result of a number of smaller interacting problems, according to an investigation by the Spanish government. The report concludes that several steps meant to address a small instability made matters worse, eventually leading to a self-reinforcing cascade where high voltages caused power plants to drop off the grid, thereby increasing the voltage further. Critically, the report suggests that the Spanish grid operator had an unusually low number of plants on call to stabilize matters, and some of the ones it did have responded poorly. //

It may be tempting to view the cascading failures as a sign of incompetence on the part of the grid operators. But these are the same operators who managed the process of black-starting the grid to normal operations within a matter of hours. There should (and undoubtedly will) be questions about the low number of plants dedicated to grid stabilization, but that can be handled with a simple policy fix. An equally focused correction can likely address any problems at the problematic facility that triggered the whole chain of events.

The real issue is why so much hardware on the grid didn't follow its operating specifications, either disconnecting early or failing to respond properly to the calls for stabilization.

Notably missing in all of this is any mention of renewable power. Spain has a lot of it, and it tends to be used to meet a higher fraction of demand during the spring and fall, when heating and cooling demand is lowest. Opponents of renewable energy were quick to point to the Iberian blackout as evidence of the unreliability of wind and solar (accusations that The New York Times was willing to echo). The investigation indicates that all these accusations were completely without merit.

Thanks to the nature of my day job, I’ve covered quite a few commercial aviation accidents during the past decade. It’s easy to get caught up in the fast-paced news cycle and in some ways unintentionally neglect the human element of these tragedies.

The effort of producing content on these disasters, along with post-accident investigations, can stave off thoughts – at least temporarily – about how people are impacted, both in terms of the victims and their loved ones.

But that was far from the case last Wednesday when PSA flight 5342 and a Black Hawk helicopter collided over the Potomac River.

I grew up on the Maryland side of the Washington, D.C., area and started my aviation career at Reagan National. The so-called “little airport by the river,” as one former airport manager called it, was almost my second home.

In the early hours of the war, it was reported that dozens of top Iranian military leaders were taken out in a single strike, and how that strike came to be is just as incredible as the result. According to a new report, the subterfuge used to get all those IRGC generals into a single bunker is like something right out of a spy novel.

Amit Segal told the Call Me Back podcast on Monday: “What Israel did was create a fake phone call for 20 members of the air force senior staff an calling them to a specific bunker in Tehran.”

This meant there was no one to give the order to fire the initial salvo of 1,000 ballistic missiles as Iran had previously threatened to do, he added.

) The added bonus for the Israelis was that Iranian military leadership was essentially crippled from the moment of Israel’s first strike against the world’s top sponsor of terrorism.

As The Chronicle reported, Mossad had used “falsified communications through Iranian channels” to call the meeting — which successfully lured “the entire senior leadership of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force, including Commander General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, his deputies, and key technical personnel, into a fortified bunker outside Tehran.”

Mossad, Israel's intelligence service, infiltrated Iranian backchannels and then placed 20 different fake phone calls to IRGC leaders. Those calls instructed them to all meet a reinforced bunker in Tehran, an order none of them questioned. It's safe to speculate that Mossad agents were on the ground to confirm their arrival, and shortly after, the entire place was blown sky-high. //

How did that happen? The answer lies in how antiquated and authoritarian Iran's military structure was and remains. When you serve at the behest of an Islamic dictator who tortures and kills people who step out of line, you aren't exactly in a position to question an order. When the calls came in to head to the bunker, wondering if things seemed a little suspicious wasn't an option. So all the generals blindly listened.

But weren't there just other leaders ready to step up and carry out the Mullahs' decrees? Not really. Unlike the U.S. military structure, where junior officers are trained and placed in a defined, highly redundant chain of command, Iran's top brass were insular loyalists. With them out of the way, chaos ensued.

Pan Am’s famous logo is returning to the skies this week as part of a transatlantic luxury tour.

The journey, known as “Tracing the Transatlantic,” will take travelers in a circuit from New York to Europe and back on board a privately chartered, all-business-class Boeing 757-200 bearing Pan Am’s blue and white insignia. The tour departs from New York-JFK on Tuesday and makes stops in Bermuda; Lisbon, Portugal; Marseille, France; London; and Foynes, Ireland, before returning to New York.

The trip is limited to just 50 participants.

“Tracing the Transatlantic” is a collaboration between tour operator Criterion Travel and private jet touring business Bartelings in an official licensed partnership with Pan Am.

On Monday, the Pan Am Museum Foundation wrote on social media that the 757 was close to landing at JFK after a flight from Florida. It is registered as TF-FIC and will be operated by Icelandair. //

While Pan American World Airways ceased operations over 30 years ago, Pan Am Global Holdings continues to manage the defunct airline’s intellectual property and licenses the Pan Am name and logo.

wiredog • June 17, 2025 11:52 AM

“Organizations are likely to continue to rely on human specialists to write the best code and the best persuasive text, but they will increasingly be satisfied with AI when they just need a passable version of either.” and as Clive mentioned “High end reference based professional work.”

As a programmer with 30 years experience I’ve been using some of the LLMs in my work. One thing I’ve noticed is that LLM often knows about a Python library I’ve never heard of, so when I ask it to write code to compare two python dictionaries and show me the differences it tells me about DeepDiff and gives me some example code. Which would have taken hours of research and some luck otherwise.

The other thing I’ve noticed is that LLMs seem to follow a 90/10 rule. 90% is right on, 10% whisky tango foxtrot? The 10% seems to arise related to lightly or inconsistently documented APIs (AWS, for example…). The thing is, a dev just out of college has the same success rule. So junior devs absolutely can be replaced with LLMs.

But then where will we get the midlevel and senior devs in 5 to 10 years? Accountancy firms are apparently wrestling with this question too.

Clive Robinson • June 17, 2025 11:21 AM

@ pattimichelle, ALL,

With regards,

“Has anyone proven that it’s always possible to detect when AI “hallucinates?””

The simple short answer would be,

“No and I would not expect it to be.”

Think about it logically,

Think how humans can be fed untruths to the point they believe them implicitly, it is after all what “National curricula” do. Yet they have never checked what they have been told is factual or not. Nor are they likely too because they have exams to pass. Even so nor in a lot of cases are they capable of checking for various reasons not least because information gets withheld or falsified. It’s why there is the saying,

“History belongs to the victors”

Even though most often it’s the nastier belief systems that go on to haunt us down the ages over and over (think fascism or similar totalitarian Government).
[...]

Clive Robinson • June 17, 2025 8:04 AM

@ Bruce,

With regards,

“But it may still be used whenever it has an advantage over humans in one of four dimensions: speed, scale, scope and sophistication.”

You’ve left out the most important,

“Repeatability”

Especially “reliable repeatability”

Where AI will score is in two basic areas,

1, Drudge / Makework jobs
2, High end reference based professional work.

The first actually occupies depending on who you believe between 1/6th and 2/5ths of the work force.

We’ve seen this eat into jobs involving “guard labour” first with CCTV to “consolidate and centralise” to reduce head count. Then to use automation / AI to replace thus reduce head count even further.

The second is certain types of “professional work” where there are complex rules to be followed, such as accountancy and law.

In essence such proffessions are actually “a game” like chess or go, and can be fairly easily automated away.

The reason it’s not yet happened is the “hallucination issue”. Which actually arises because of “uncurated input” as training data etc. Which is the norm for current AI LLM and ML systems.

Imagine a “chess machine” that only sees game records of all games. Which includes those where people cheat or break the rules.

The ML can not tell if cheating is happening… So will include cheats in it’s “winning suggestions”. Worse it will “fill in” between “facts” as part of the “curve fitting” process. Which due to the way input is “tokenised and made into weights” makes hallucination all to easily possible.

It’s what we’ve seen with those legal persons who have had to work with limited or no access to “legal databases” and has caused Judges to get a little irritable under the collar.

The same applies to accountancy and tax law, but is going to take a while to “hit the courts”.

With correct input curation and secondary refrence checking through authoritive records these sorts of errors will reduce to acceptable levels.

At which point the human professional in effect becomes redundant.

Though care has to be exercised, some apparently “rules based professions” are actually quite different. Because they essentially require “creativity” for “innovation”. So scientists and engineers, architects and similar “designer / creatives” will gain advantage as AI can reduce the legislative / regulatory lookup / checking burden. In a similar way that more advanced CAD/CAM can do the “drudge work” calculations of standard load tolerances and the like.

If you’ve worried that AI might take your job, deprive you of your livelihood, or maybe even replace your role in society, it probably feels good to see the latest AI tools fail spectacularly. If AI recommends glue as a pizza topping, then you’re safe for another day.

But the fact remains that AI already has definite advantages over even the most skilled humans, and knowing where these advantages arise—and where they don’t—will be key to adapting to the AI-infused workforce.

AI will often not be as effective as a human doing the same job. It won’t always know more or be more accurate. And it definitely won’t always be fairer or more reliable. But it may still be used whenever it has an advantage over humans in one of four dimensions: speed, scale, scope and sophistication. Understanding these dimensions is the key to understanding AI-human replacement. //

Those are the four dimensions where AI can excel over humans. Accuracy still matters. You wouldn’t want to use an AI that makes graphics look glitchy or targets ads randomly—yet accuracy isn’t the differentiator. The AI doesn’t need superhuman accuracy. It’s enough for AI to be merely good and fast, or adequate and scalable. Increasing scope often comes with an accuracy penalty, because AI can generalize poorly to truly novel tasks. The 4 S’s are sometimes at odds. With a given amount of computing power, you generally have to trade off scale for sophistication.

Even more interestingly, when an AI takes over a human task, the task can change. Sometimes the AI is just doing things differently. Other times, AI starts doing different things. These changes bring new opportunities and new risks. //

It is this “phase shift,” when changes in degree may transform into changes in kind, where AI’s impacts to society are likely to be most keenly felt. All of this points to the places that AI can have a positive impact. When a system has a bottleneck related to speed, scale, scope or sophistication, or when one of these factors poses a real barrier to being able to accomplish a goal, it makes sense to think about how AI could help.

Equally, when speed, scale, scope and sophistication are not primary barriers, it makes less sense to use AI. This is why AI auto-suggest features for short communications such as text messages can feel so annoying. They offer little speed advantage and no benefit from sophistication, while sacrificing the sincerity of human communication. //

Where the advantage lies

Keep this in mind when you encounter a new application for AI or consider AI as a replacement for or an augmentation to a human process. Looking for bottlenecks in speed, scale, scope and sophistication provides a framework for understanding where AI provides value, and equally where the unique capabilities of the human species give us an enduring advantage.

Newly announced catalog collects pre-2022 sources untouched by ChatGPT and AI contamination. //

As it turns out, his pre-AI website isn't new, but it has languished unannounced until now. "I created it back in March 2023 as a clearinghouse for online resources that hadn't been contaminated with AI-generated content," he wrote on his blog.

The website points to several major archives of pre-AI content, including a Wikipedia dump from August 2022 (before ChatGPT's November 2022 release), Project Gutenberg's collection of public domain books, the Library of Congress photo archive, and GitHub's Arctic Code Vault—a snapshot of open source code buried in a former coal mine near the North Pole in February 2020. The wordfreq project appears on the list as well, flash-frozen from a time before AI contamination made its methodology untenable.

The site accepts submissions of other pre-AI content sources through its Tumblr page. Graham-Cumming emphasizes that the project aims to document human creativity from before the AI era, not to make a statement against AI itself. As atmospheric nuclear testing ended and background radiation returned to natural levels, low-background steel eventually became unnecessary for most uses. Whether pre-AI content will follow a similar trajectory remains a question.

Still, it feels reasonable to protect sources of human creativity now, including archival ones, because these repositories may become useful in ways that few appreciate at the moment. For example, in 2020, I proposed creating a so-called "cryptographic ark"—a timestamped archive of pre-AI media that future historians could verify as authentic, collected before my then-arbitrary cutoff date of January 1, 2022. AI slop pollutes more than the current discourse—it could cloud the historical record as well.

For now, lowbackgroundsteel.ai stands as a modest catalog of human expression from what may someday be seen as the last pre-AI era. It's a digital archaeology project marking the boundary between human-generated and hybrid human-AI cultures. In an age where distinguishing between human and machine output grows increasingly difficult, these archives may prove valuable for understanding how human communication evolved before AI entered the chat.

Car companies aren't accustomed to making vehicles that can only be used once. //

An experimental reusable rocket developed by the research and development arm of Honda Motor Company flew to an altitude of nearly 900 feet Tuesday, then landed with pinpoint precision at the carmaker's test facility in northern Japan.

The accomplishment may not sound like much, but it's important to put it into perspective. Honda's hopper is the first prototype rocket outside of the United States and China to complete a flight of this kind, demonstrating vertical takeoff and vertical landing technology that could underpin development of a reusable launch vehicle.

While Tuesday's announcement by Honda was unexpected, the company has talked about rockets before. In 2021, Honda officials revealed they had been working on a rocket engine for at least two years. At the time, officials said a small satellite launch vehicle was part of Honda's roadmap.

The rocket Honda talked about in 2021 could put a payload of up to 1 metric ton into low-Earth orbit. It's not clear if Honda is still aiming for this sector of the launch market. Company officials then committed to supporting internal development work until about 2025 or 2026, when it would make a "go" or "no go" decision on whether to finish the project and field an operational rocket.