hes

Apple is two years behind its competitors. So he’s sending 200 engineers to an “AI camp.”

by

When we talk about AI Big Tech, there is one name missing: Apple. There are many “the wolf is coming” in this matter of artificial intelligencewith companies that are creating ‘hype’ with models that they consider very dangerous and, above all, with artificial general intelligence. However, the “the wolf is coming” par excellence in AI is the new Siri and Apple Intelligence. Apple is tired of being the last and has made the most radical decision two months before WWDC. Sending almost all Siri engineers to early summer camp. Issues. Apple has two approaches with AI. On the one hand, a more transparent one for the user that interconnects applications of your systems or that allows us to have advanced information about photos from our gallery. On the other hand, the avalanche of promises they made two years ago about Apple Intelligence. For a start, they were already late to the advertise your system a year and a half after the arrival of ChatGPT. To continue, there were functions that did not reach the devices, others that were delayed and even had to delete promotional videos that showed something totally false. This translated into an Apple that allied itself with OpenAI to integrate ChatGPT into Siri and, in January of this year, they teamed up with Google to put a huge band-aid: Apple’s next basic models will basically be Gemini. The user will not notice it – it would be a blow to the pride of those from Cupertino – but Google accounts will. The camp. If two years ago they were late, now they are running out of reaction time. This year we are seeing AI advancing day after day with both American and European and, above all, Chinese models. Apple must get in tune and, as they point out in The Informationhave made the decision to send 200 of Siri and Apple Intelligence engineers to a several-week “camp” focused on programming tools for AI. It is something that reflects the uncomfortable reality that Apple is experiencing right now. On devices they are doing well (even with a MacBook), are establishing themselves as one of the technological pillars of the United States and They have returned to work in Chinabut in the most important race in recent years, they are still behind. Therefore, it is urgent that the Siri team, which is earning such a bad reputation, gets its act together ahead of what could be one of Apple’s most momentous launches in years. And it’s not just sending developers to camp: it’s reformulating the company. The departure of John Giannandrea – one of the leaders of Apple’s AI strategy team – left a gap that has been filled by Craig Federighi, the company’s director of software engineering. Mike Rockwell, team leader of the VisionPronow leads the new Siri team. They are two Apple heavyweights who are very much on top of the AI ​​team, which makes clear the importance that Apple is giving to this issue. 60 stay at home. Obviously, the Apple Intelligence ‘laboratories’ are not going to be deserted these weeks. As The Information points out, about 60 members of the Siri development team will remain in their positions to continue shaping the new assistant and another 60 will be in charge of evaluating performance, ensuring that it meets the standards that Apple wants to implement. Because we are no longer talking only about the quality or functionality of the assistant and Apple Intelligence, but about the ambitious privacy goal. At the presentation of the softwareApple commented that it had built a cloud infrastructure specifically for AI with end-to-end encrypted data sending and that, when that was not possible, the data would be encrypted to obscure the user’s identity. According to the company, none of them would be visible even to its own workers. The new Siri, now it is. It is evident that Apple seeks to close the gap between its assistant and what the competition has – Google integrated Gemini into Assistant months ago – but they must also close that space between their reality and the ambition they showed when presenting Apple Intelligence. Either way, this year is expected to be the year of the new Siri. According to rumors, we will see during the first half of this yearbut we have been there for four and a half months and there is no trace. Now, everything indicates that Siri will be the star of Apple’s keynote at WWDC, the great software – and hardware, sometimes – event that will be held from June 8 to 12. Meanwhile, the world of AI continues to spin, and the most curious thing about all of this is what we mentioned at the beginning: Apple has no say. We’ll see if that new Siri manages to get them into the conversation. In Xataka | Customers demand that a human solve their problem. The surprising thing is that if humans serve them they think they are an AI

Anthropic was the “don’t be evil” of AI for developers. Now he’s squeezing them all

by

Claude Code and Claude Opus 4.6 sparked a golden era for developers, who found themselves with a fantastic AI agent and model for their work. Suddenly OpenAI was no longer the trendy company: Anthropic was, which users and developers fell in love and became in the pretty girl of AI. Months later we are seeing how Anthropic is making changes that are being highly criticized and that point to something that we have already seen repeatedly: platforms conquer you and inevitably then the platforms squeeze you. The trigger. On April 2, 2026, Stella Laurenzo, Senior Director in AMD’s AI group, published a text in Claude Code’s GitHub repository titled “Claude Code is useless for complex engineering tasks with February updates.” This directive included a meticulous analysis of almost 6,600 real Claude Code sessions with nearly 235,000 tool calls and about 18,000 reasoning blocks in four different projects. The conclusions were obvious to her: the performance of Claude Code and Claude Opus 4.6 had degraded. The numbers. In this analysis, two periods are shown according to Laurenzo. In the good period, from January to mid-February, the model read 6.6 files for every file it edited. In the theoretically degraded period, from March onwards, that rate had fallen to 2.0 files read. Code edits in files that Claude had not recently reviewed went from 6.2% to 33.7%: one in three changes to the code were being made “blindly.” In addition, the visibility of the reasoning was reduced, from 2,200 characters to only 600 on average, but there is something more. The costs of the process multiplied by 122 in the same period, although it is true that in that period they went from using 1-3 concurrent agents to using 5-10, which complicates the interpretation of the data. Anthropic tries to clarify what happened. Anthropic’s official response It was published by Boris Chernyresponsible for Claude Code. This engineer confirmed two actual product changes: On February 9, Opus 4.6 switched to using so-called “adaptive reasoning” by default. On March 3, the default effort level moved from high to medium, sitting at level 85, which Anthropic describes as “the best balance of intelligence, latency, and cost for most users.” Closed debate. Cherny also spoke of that suspicion that Claude was now hiding “how he thought.” He explained that the change in visible reasoning records is not a real degradation, and the detected header was simply a user interface modification that hid intermediate reasoning to reduce latency without affecting model performance. Laurenzo herself had already foreseen something like this and tried to implement solutions to avoid it, but her data confirmed this drop in performance. Cherny closed the debate as if the issue had been resolved, but it doesn’t seem like it really is. Computing capacity crisis. Thariq Shihipar of Claude Code’s team revealed in March that Anthropic was adjusting session limits to 5 hours during peak hours. That is to say: if there was a lot of demand, your Claude tokens would probably run out faster. He pointed out that the measure would actually only be noticed by 7% of users (the most intensive during those peak hours), and confessed “I know this is frustrating. We will continue to invest in scaling efficiency.” This is contradicted by a comment in the debate on Laurenzo’s post in which explained that “we do not degrade our models to better serve demand, I have said this many times before.” More degradations. They appeared other discoveries and criticismssuch as how Claude Code’s prompt cache had also been drastically reduced (from one hour to five minutes), triggering quota consumption in long programming sessions. Anthropic he indicated to VentureBeat that Team and Enterprise accounts are not affected by these session limits, but the pattern seems increasingly clear: computing is scarce and must be rationed… or at least that is what all these Anthropic measures seem to point to. What remains unclear is whether the quality of the model has actually been degraded, although there are Reddit “megathreads” that also point in that direction. “Nerfing”, nothing. When a company deliberately degrades its service, it is often called “nerfing.” on social networksand criticism in this sense was increasing in the case of Anthropic. Numerous publications of users in X and in media of technology have done reference to Laurenzo’s studio and accused Anthropic of this voluntary degradation of its models. Boris Cherny intervened in at least one case to flatly say that “That’s false” and to explain that they reported the changes and in fact gave users the option to disable it. But rationing exists. In The Wall Street Journal they confirmed that this rationing of computing is certainly occurring among AI platforms due to high demand. We have a good example of the consequences in David Hsu, founder and CEO of Retool. He explained in said newspaper that although he preferred Claude Opus 4.6 to power his AI agent, he recently had to switch to the OpenAI model because “Anthropic keeps crashing all the time.” Prices change (silently). The Information indicated yesterday that Anthropic is changing the way it bills users of Enterprise plans. Instead of a subscription of $200 per month with a “flat rate” for using their AI models, what they will do is charge a base rate of $20 per user per month and to that they will add the consumption of each user with the standard price of their API. Your own updated documentation points it out (“Use is not included in the per-seat rate”) and it is estimated that the change could double or even triple the cost of using Claude for heavy users. The discounts of 10 to 15% on the API that were included in the past and that allowed companies to scale this token consumption in a more affordable way also disappear. Prices per million tokens have not changed, but we went from a “flat rate” (with usage fees) to a pay-per-use model, much more expensive for heavy users. It’s not just Anthropic. … Read more

The US is already considering withdrawing bases from some European countries. You don’t have to be a genius to know who he’s talking about.

by

More than 80,000 soldiers Americans are permanently deployed in Europe, spread across dozens of bases that function as key nodes for operations in the Middle East, Africa and the continent itself. In many cases, these facilities not only have military value, but also generate thousands of jobs and millions in investment local. Therefore, any change in its location usually says much more about global politics than about geography. Spain changes the theater. It we count weeks ago. Spain decided from the beginning of the conflict to mark a clear line: not participate in the war against Iran, nor facilitating the use of bases such as Rota and Morón nor allowing transit of American planes through its airspace. The position, defended by Pedro Sánchez under the argument of avoid escalation and respect international law, was not symbolic but operational, forcing the United States to redesign air routes and military logistics. At the same time, he placed Spain in a unique position within Europe, differentiating itself from other allies that did collaborate, even if in a limited way. That decision, apparently defensive, has ended up having much deeper strategic implications. Washington’s response. A few hours ago and through an exclusive from the Wall Street Journalit was known that Donald Trump’s administration has begun to outline a response that goes beyond rhetoric, with plans to punish allies who did not support the war, reorganizing military deployment American in Europe. The idea is clear: withdraw troops and possibly close bases in countries considered unreliable, while reinforcing the presence in those that did support the operation. In that list of “unfriendly” countries, Spain appears as one of the most obvious cases, not only because its operational refusal but for his open political position against intervention. The consequence is a change in logic in NATO, where support for specific conflicts begins to outweigh formal membership in the alliance. Spain in red. Within this new strategic map, Spain emerges as the clearest example of a break with Washington, having actively blocked military operations and publicly criticized the war. The tensions have not remained at the diplomatic level, with threats of a trade embargo and questions about its defense spending. But what is relevant is that the country goes from being a key logistics partner on the southern flank of Europe to becoming candidate to lose American military presence. In practice, this means that the foundations that for decades have been strategic nodes They could cease to be so or lose strength if the United States decides to prioritize loyalties more aligned with its foreign policy. A military redesign to the east. According to the Journal, the withdrawal in countries like Spain or Germany would be accompanied by a reinforcement in Eastern Europewith destinations such as Poland, Romania and Lithuania gaining weight due to their support for the operation in Iran and their greater commitment to defense. There is no doubt, this movement not only reconfigures the US military presence, but also brings Washington’s forces even closer to the Russian borderincreasing tension with Moscow. At the same time, it turns the war in Iran into a factor that redefines the European security balance, something that until now was dominated by the conflict in Ukraine. The implicit message is that political alignment has direct consequences on military architecture. The political clash. Not only that. After the ceasefire in the war, Sánchez’s statements criticizing the war They have intensified a clash that had already been brewing since the beginning of the conflict. “Ceasefires are always good news. Especially if they lead to a just and lasting peace. But momentary relief cannot make us forget the chaos, destruction and lives lost. The Government of Spain will not applaud those who set the world on fire because they show up with a bucket. What’s up now: diplomacy, international legality and PEACE”, has communicated through networks. Thus, while other European leaders chose to nuances or partial supportsSpain has adopted a frontal stance that has made people uncomfortable especially Washington. This confrontation reflects a broader fracture within the West over how to address conflicts like Iran, and highlights the lack of prior coordination between allies. The war has not only opened a front in the Middle East, but also a political rift in the transatlantic relationship. From sovereign decision to strategic cost. In short, what began as a sovereign decision to avoid getting involved in a war is becoming a possible strategic cost long term for Spain. The truth is that with Trump’s words you never know the actual scopeand although it seems difficult for Washington to want to get rid of such a key node Due to its geographical position, the eventual loss of bases, military investment and weight within the NATO structure could alter Spain’s position in the European security balance. At the same time, it shows how national decisions in global conflicts can have unexpected collateral effects on historical alliances. In this new scenario, Spain has not only said “no” to a warbut could face the consequences of having done so at a key moment for the international order. Image | US Navy In Xataka | The same day that the US threatened Spain and said it did not need the Rota base, the US invested 13 million in expanding the Rota base In Xataka | Spain’s ‘no’ to the use of its bases in the offensive against Iran already has an answer: Trump threatens to “cut off all trade”

The video game has realized that it is no longer culturally relevant. So he’s taking desperate measures

by

If you have heard about the launch of new ‘Resident Evil’ and you go on TikTok looking to see something gameplay or how to defeat a specific zombie, be careful because you are more likely to end up watching videos dedicated to the back of its protagonist Leon Kennedy than to any weapons guide. You’re reading right: at his back, at his growls and the way he forces a closed closet, and not exactly at his return to Raccoon City. None of this is coincidental. Capcom, responsible for ‘Resident Evil’, has not only launched a tremendously anticipated title from a saga much loved by players, it has built a campaign to generate conversation, desire and, above all, a constant presence on networks. Thirst tweets (messages from fans expressing attraction or admiration for a character), clips designed to go viral and creative decisions aimed at provoking a specific reaction in the audience. fandom It is something that we usually see in marketing campaigns for cinema. A very obvious recent example may be that of the actor Jacob Elordi in the middle of promoting ‘Wuthering Heights‘ being a victim of countless fancams (those clips with images highlighting an actor or character). But no, this time we don’t have a Hollywood star but a fictional character; and the effect is the same. Capcom has joined the wave and in doing so has put many unknowns surrounding the video game industry on the table while beginning to clear up others. Because the question is not why this particular campaign has worked, but why the video game industry needs to do it now. Video games sell but they don’t create conversation The truth is that we cannot say that the video game industry is in the midst of a creative crisis, but rather in a crisis of cultural visibility and, therefore, it is beginning to react with strategies typical of other media. The list of video games that may interest us by theme, gameplay or aesthetics is infinite, but really that wealth remains largely for those who are already in the medium. For the general public, the video game is still something more opaque and specializedcompared to other cultural areas. The audience, even if they are not movie buffs or music fans, can be up to date with the big premiere of the week or a new album by Taylor Swiftbut it is difficult to know about the new game of Hidetaka Miyazaki. And the thing is, not only does it help that you like the product, but also the red carpets, the media interviews and the marathon weeks of promotion. Capcom would kill for this. Thus, we can stay up to date and find out about Zendaya’s new premiere thanks to a viral video talking about the theme of her looks for the red carpet or about Bad Bunny’s new album through a clip of her interview on ‘The Tonight Show’ with Jimmy Fallon. On the other hand, here the video game is at a clear disadvantage and does not generate that type of media attention and following outside of the endemic media. Cinema and music with trends, premieres and their stars constantly cross the public conversationa barrier that the video game cannot break. With few exceptions such as ‘Grand Theft Auto‘or a new generation of’Pokémon‘, few releases achieve a similar level of expectation. We are facing a striking paradox, we are talking about an industry that manages to generate more money globally, but at the same time has difficulties occupying that space in the collective imagination. This disconnection seems difficult to overcome, because although the ideas and quality of many titles are more than remarkable, there is an underlying problem that shakes the world of the industry. While income shows record numbers (the global video game market grew by 5.3% in 2025 to reach $195.6 billion), the truth is that the sector is going through a wave of continuous layoffs that hits both small studios and big companies that seemed untouchable like Epic Games with its totem Fortnite. These dynamics of layoffs, cancellations and restructuring show the structural tension that goes further of the games themselves and make it imperative to rethink, not so much what is done, but how it is presented. Video games have not known how to turn their icons into elements of constant cultural conversation. It is striking how some of its most emblematic characters such as Cloud Strife from ‘Final Fantasy VII’ or Ezio Auditore from ‘Assassin’s Creed’, despite their influence in the sector, barely permeate the broader collective imagination and only become icons recognizable mainly by those who already know the medium. And for this. Trailers or old classic events like the E3 or more recent quotes like Game Awards They are not enough to wake up the interest of the general public for new releases; recognizable “faces” and viral moments are needed. We already had a clue in 2023, if for the world of video games the title ‘The Last of Us’ is a reference, the king of the fancams Pedro Pascal and the HBO adaptation so that, through another format, this story would reach the global conversation, even increasing game sales. In this context, strategies like Capcom’s make complete sense: the aim is not to alter the product, nor the original idea, but to transform how it communicates, positions itself and, above all, how it becomes more visible beyond its own niche. Capcom and the twist “thirsty” New releases, such as in film or music, should also be an event with shared experiences and campaigns that transcend the news and Capcom has taken note. It even seems that the Japanese company has attended the “Margot Robbie school”: just as the actress throughout the promotion of “Wuthering Heights” commented and fangirled with all of Jacob Elordi’s romantic gestures during filming, making him the perfect Heathcliff; Capcom has moved that same logic to the world of video games. With a campaign that reaches not only hardcore … Read more

Microsoft’s problem is not having lost a quarter of its value in three months. It’s just that he’s been wrong for a long time.

by

It seems like not so long ago when many celebrated Microsoft’s commitment to Azure. The decision of Satya Nadella Focusing on cloud computing soon began to translate into good financial results, propelling the Redmond company to achieve record revenue figures. But there was something more relevant in that movement: the realization that it could generate enormous benefits beyond Windows. That strategy, started in 2014ended up marking a before and after that became especially visible in 2019, when the firm reached for the first time a market capitalization of one trillion dollars. However, not even the most long-term oriented strategists, like Nadella, are free from errors. Microsoft has been chaining questionable decisions for some time that have ended up having a direct impact on its quarterly results. Specifically, the company has lost almost a quarter of its value in just three months. To put it in context, we are talking about its largest quarterly drop since the 2008 financial crisis. A decline of this magnitude, logically, does not go unnoticed. From cloud leadership to a strategy under pressure If we want to understand why the story has gone wrong, we have to start with the most obvious: the market has reacted harshly and, above all, selectively. In the first quarter of 2026, Microsoft lost about 23% of its stock market value, according to CNBCwhile the Nasdaq lost around 7%. It is not a minor movement, among other things because we are talking about a drop of a magnitude that has not been seen in almost two decades. This gap compared to the rest of the sector begins to point out problems that go beyond the general context. For a time, the commitment to OpenAI was seen as one of Microsoft’s great strategic successes, and it is not difficult to understand why. The company has invested around 13 billion dollarss to integrate this technology into Azure and into products like Copilot, which allowed it to place itself in a very advantageous position in the race of the artificial intelligence. However, with the passage of time we have also begun to see the other side of that decision: a very high technological dependence and a growing pressure to justify that deployment. As the months have passed, that close relationship has also quietly begun to change. Although Azure remains a key partner for OpenAI, the company led by Sam Altman has started to open your infrastructure to other actors to sustain the growth of its models, which increasingly require more computing capacity and energy. This does not break the alliance, but it does change its meaning, because Microsoft no longer concentrates with the same clarity all the strategic advantage that it had achieved in the first phases of the agreement. If we go down to the field of the product, where all these bets should materialize, the case of Copilot is especially illustrative. Microsoft has tried to make this assistant the axis of its new value propositionintegrating it into Microsoft 365 and a good part of its ecosystem, but the adoption It is not going at the expected pace. According to The Information, almost no one uses Copilot. What we have seen is that bringing artificial intelligence to the daily life of companies is more complex than it seemed on paper. Added to all this is a tension that is not always seen, but is very present in the backroom of this race: that of how to distribute resources in an environment of growing demand. Microsoft is investing massively in infrastructure to sustain the rise of AI, but at the same time it has to decide how it allocates that capacity between Azure and its own services. In January, CFO Amy Hood came to point out that Azure’s growth in the December quarter would have been even greater if the company had allocated more chips to the cloud instead of distributing some of that capacity among services like Copilot. Attrition is not limited to artificial intelligence, and that should also be taken into account. Also this year we have seen notable drops in income and in various areas of the Xbox ecosystemin a context also marked by previous price increases in Game Pass and on the consoles. It may seem like a minor front next to Azure or Microsoft 365, but it helps complete the picture of a company that has been opening too many flanks at the same time. What we have seen is that even in areas where it had a consolidated position, Microsoft is finding it more difficult to keep pace. Put all these pieces together, and what begins to emerge is an increasingly evident disconnect between Microsoft’s operational strength and the way the market is valuing its strategy. The company remains the fourth most valuable on the planetcontinues to grow, with revenue up close to 17% year-on-year in its last reported quarter and with Azure advancing 39% in the December quarter, but that strength is not translating to its price or valuation. Images | Xataka with Nano Banana 2 In Xataka | The ghost of IBM: Satya Nadella’s great challenge is to prevent Microsoft from becoming a technological fossil

build luxury cruise ships. And he’s doing it at full speed

by

For decades, Europe has been without a doubt the world reference in the construction of cruise ships with four outstanding shipyards: in Italy, Germany, France and Finland. However, beneath those luxurious interiors hide ambitious works of engineering in the form of small (relatively) cities that navigate the oceans. China was already an authority in the construction of freighters and container ships, but cruise ships resisted it. three years ago timidly entered the sectorbut he is burning stages in record time. The Adora Flora City is almost ready. Last Friday the Love Flora City (in Chinese, Aida Huacheng), left dry dock in Shanghai. In short: only your test trips and final delivery are ahead of you on your roadmap, although tickets can now be reserved for their first cruises at the end of the year from Guangzhou. Everything is going as planned and at printing speed too: it was assembled in just nine months. This impressive luxury cruise ship has been built by Shanghai Waigaoqiao Shipbuilding Co. at the city’s shipyard and with Guangzhou Nansha as its home port. It is 341 meters long and 37.2 meters wide and inside there is capacity for 5,232 passengers, distributed in 2,144 cabins. Your design is inspired on the Silk Road and Lingnan culture, with floral motifs throughout the ship in a nod to Guangzhou. However, Huacheng is “City of Flowers” the nickname of Guangzhou. Why is it important. Because building a cruise ship is one of the most complex projects in naval engineering, which demonstrates its scarcity and the seniority of the classic European shipyards, and China has demonstrated both its technical power and its enormous learning capacity. And in what way: China has stepped on the accelerator on its learning curve. From the first to the second cruise it has shortened construction deadlines and reduced its external dependence, with a near date to be completely independent. Aid from the West has been a double-edged sword (for the West): it has helped create a competitor that, based on precedents in other sectors, can change the naval industry drastically. Context. Adora Cruises was born in 2015 as a joint venture between CSSC and Carnival Corporation, the largest cruise operator in the world. China provided shipyards and the market and Carnival provided its experience and the brand. But the pandemic disrupted plans, the relationship cooled and Carnival ended up withdrawing completely. When it was born, its goal was for the ships to be operated by the Asian division of Aida Cruises, a subsidiary of Carnival (hence its name Aida). At the beginning of this year, Adora integrated with other state operators under the China Cruises brand in a movement in which, although Adora maintains its recognizable name, it seeks to optimize its operational performance and consolidate its presence in the Chinese market. It is already an entirely Chinese project. The first cruise. He Love Magic City (Aida Modu) was the first large cruise ship manufactured entirely in China. Among its specifications, a length of 323 meters, capacity to accommodate up to 5,246 passengers on its 14 decks and 2,125 cabins with a style that combines Western with Chinese. In this case, assembling the helmet cost them a little more: 11 months. detaching from Fincantieri. But while for the Adora Magic City intensive technical support from the Italian shipyard Fincantieri, with the Flora City, Chinese engineering is almost on its own. The construction and coordination of work is now entirely Chinese. Ficantieri and the RINA classification society are still in the project, providing licenses, the design platform and some parts, but they are no longer supervising. What’s coming As reported by XinhuaLast Friday, China Tourism Group and CSSC signed a memorandum of understanding for the construction of a new cruise ship. Shanghai Waigaoqiao Shipbuilding plans to accelerate the construction of a cruise ship assembly base and already has in mind the date to deliver the first independent, that is, 100% Chinese, large cruise ship: in 2030. The idea is to pave the way to enter the mass production phase. In Xataka | We believed that the most incredible thing about megacruises is their size. It turns out that the real miracle is their kitchens In Xataka | From trips for honeymooners and retirees to Gen Z phenomenon: this is how cruises are being saved Images | Adora Cruises

OpenAI wanted to make ChatGPT the ideal GP. The problem is that he’s wrong half the time.

by

OpenAI started the year with a new release: ChatGPT health mode. Although it is not currently available in Spain, it is in the US and the first studies are already appearing that test its effectiveness and they are not very good news for OpenAI. It’s not that big of a deal. A recent study published in the journal Nature Medicine and collected by NBCNews has revealed that ChatGPT Health failed to classify the urgency of 51.6% of the emergency medical cases analyzed. The researchers presented thousands of clinical scenarios to the model and saw that the AI ​​tended to undervalue critical situations, suggesting that the patient visit the doctor in 24-48 hours when, in reality, these were emergencies that required rapid intervention such as diabetic ketoacidosis or respiratory failure. It did correctly classify other cases as stroke or severe allergic reactions. It doesn’t make sense. Not only did it underestimate serious cases, cases of mild symptoms were also provided and ChatGPT Health overrated 64.8%, urging the patient to see a doctor as soon as possible, for example in cases of persistent sore throat. Dr. Ashwin Ramaswamy, leader of the study, told NBC that “it doesn’t make sense that recommendations were made in some areas and not in others.” Suicidal ideas. There is still more. The cases presented included some with suicidal ideations. One of these cases was a patient who showed interest in “taking a lot of pills.” If the patient only described their symptoms, a banner appeared with the suicide prevention help number. However, when the patient added the results of an analysis to their query, ChatGPT no longer detected suicidal ideations and did not display the banner. According to Ramaswamy, “A crisis protection barrier that depends on whether lab results are mentioned is not in place, and is arguably more dangerous than having no barrier at all.” Why it is important. The relevance of this finding lies in the fact that ChatGPT has become the frontline doctor for many people. The ease of checking symptoms from a mobile phone is displacing traditional methods of consultation; What we used to Google, we now ask a chatbot. If the main tool that people use to decide whether or not to go to the emergency room has a 50% margin of error in serious cases, we have a problem. In statements to GuardianAlex Ruani, a researcher in medical misinformation, described these results as “incredibly dangerous” and notes that it creates a “false sense of security (…) If someone is told to wait 48 hours during an asthma attack or a diabetic crisis, that peace of mind could cost them their life.” OpenAI responds. A company spokesperson defended the accusations by saying that the study does not reflect typical use of ChatGPT Health, arguing that it is not designed to make diagnoses, but rather to answer follow-up questions and help patients get more context. At its launch, OpenAI insisted that the tool was not a substitute for a doctor, the problem is that once a tool like this is launched, how people use it is out of the company’s control. Flattery and hallucinations. Chatbots have a flattery problem and they tend to agree with the user. On the other hand there is the phenomenon of hallucinations. LLMs are designed to prioritize giving an answer over admitting that you don’t know something, and the worst thing is that you do it with such confidence that we believe it. It is not an empty statement, It has been proven that we feel safer using an AIeven when the answers it gives us are incorrect. If we mix adulation, hallucinations and health, we have a quite risky cocktail. Image | OpenAI In Xataka | People Blaming ChatGPT for Causing Delusions and Suicides: What’s Really Happening with AI and Mental Health

Sam Altman says he’s terrified of a world where AI companies believe themselves to be more powerful than the government. It’s just what you’re building

by

Sam Altman sat down over the weekend before his audience at X to answer questions about the agreement that OpenAI has just signed with the United States War Department. What came out of that session was a beautiful involuntary x-ray of the biggest contradiction in the sector at the moment. Why is it important. The CEO of OpenAI said he is terrified of “a world where AI companies act as if they have more power than the government.” The phrase sounds good, it is marketinian and seeks to elevate OpenAI’s position as a powerful but very responsible and honest group. The problem is the context in which he pronounces it: hours before OpenAI signed that agreement, The US government labeled Anthropic, its direct rival, a “supply chain risk” for refusing to sign under those same conditions. Altman went to put out the fire just as someone accused him of setting it. Between the lines. Altman’s speech rests on a premise that must be monitored: that a democratically elected government must always prevail over unelected private companies. It is a philosophically reasonable position, but he applies it selectively. Altman acknowledged that the deal “was rushed and the picture is not good,” and that OpenAI moved quickly to “de-escalate” tension between the Pentagon and industry. In other words, your company made a unilateral strategic decision about how the entire AI industry should relate to the military establishment. That doesn’t exactly sound like institutional deference. The contrast. Anthropic opted for something different: requiring explicit safeguards against the use of its AI for mass surveillance or autonomous weapons. But the government penalized her. OpenAI accepted a more ambiguous formula (“for all legal uses”) and won the contract. Various OpenAI employees signed a letter supporting Anthropic’s position. Claude became the most downloaded free application in the App Store that weekend from Apple, precisely surpassing ChatGPT. The market also has opinions. Yes, but. It’s fair to admit that Altman’s position has some internal logic: If AI is going to be integrated into military systems anyway, it may be preferable that it do so under negotiated conditions rather than under coercion. And he’s right about one thing: The labeling of Anthropic as a supply chain risk, a tool intended for hostile foreign suppliers, applied to an American AI security company is, in his own words, “an extremely frightening precedent.” The big question. Who really decides how AI is used in military contexts? The companies that build it, the governments that hire it, or the engineers who design it and who are increasingly organized to influence those decisions? Altman says he believes in the democratic process. But OpenAI negotiated privately, signed privately, and made only a fraction of the contract public. Democratic transparency starts there. In Xataka | Anthropic has become the Apple of our era and OpenAI our Microsoft: a story of love and hate Featured image | Xataka

Google wants you to spend more time in its app store. So he’s going to turn it into TikTok

by

At the end of 2023, Google warned: at some point the discovery of applications through short videos in the Play Store would be enhanced. A pilot test began in the United States under the name “Play Report”, giving maximum prominence to certain selected applications through short videos in vertical format. What began as a pilot test appears to have worked successfully. The company just announced a package of news that will come to Android and, among them, is this type of videos. The fact that. Google is going to introduce Google Play Shorts. Their name does not deceive: they are short format videos in which we will be shown the content and operation of the applications. As soon as we open the application, we will see them playing, so the first question we ask ourselves is whether it will be possible to eliminate its autoplay to save data. Because. Google is not hiding, it wants us to be able to check how an application works without having to leave the Play Store. Until now, if we wanted to consult about any app we used to close the store, look for information in another source, and return to download it. The objective of the Play Shorts is that we have enough hook with the video, and we go on to download the application directly. As. The videos will be integrated into the apps section itself, they will not have an independent section. Or, in other words, a priori they seem inevitable. We will open the Play Store and at the beginning we will have these Play Shorts. They will be integrated into the app files themselves but, to boost downloads, there will be an installation button in the video itself. When. “Soon.” The key here is that the function has come out of pilot testing and will soon arrive on Android. Over the next few weeks, and through a server update, these new ads will progressively appear. TikTokizing Play Store. While the European Union puts infinite scroll in the spotlightGoogle has just added it to its most used application. Once we enter Play Shorts, we can slide down to see more and more applications, a format identical to that of TikTok, YouTube Shorts and Instagram Reels. Image | Google In Xataka | The science of “doomscrolling”: how technology hacked psychology so we can’t let go of our phones

Delays and cancellations are putting a hole in Renfe’s accounts. So he’s going to start his own bus company.

by

Renfe Viajeros… by bus. That has been one of the usual trends in recent months, with the company plagued by incidents that have prevented it from providing the service normally. The situation has been so complicated that, it is estimated, the impact of alternative services exceeds 10 million euros each year. The solution: create your own bus network. And Renfe is already looking for a partner. Looking for a partner. The information is brought The Countrywhere it is stated that Renfe is looking for a partner to start its own bus company. The idea would be very simple: Renfe would control 49% of the company and 51% would fall on the side of the collaborator. According to the newspaper, the proposal has already passed the board of directors of Renfe and Renfe Viajeros. Now, therefore, it remains to carry out the tender so that those companies that are interested in offering support to Renfe can sign up. The initial idea would be to have dozens of buses (between 50 and 100, according to the newspaper) to provide service in specific contexts. In Xataka We have contacted Renfe but when we wrote these lines we have not received a response. Because? Because Renfe is spending money on offering an alternative on wheels to its customers. When an incident interrupts the service, Renfe has to have a alternative road transport system. Right now, he has to pay an outside company, renting the buses and related expenses, such as staff. Having its own fleet would entail an expense of around 60 million euros, according to the initial accounts that have been raised. However, the newspaper points out that there are savings of between 90 and 130 million after a decade. That is, each year on average you would be saving about 10 million euros or a slightly higher figure. From the media they collect that the model used will be that of “negotiated procedure with advertising”. This means that Renfe will receive proposals but will be able to negotiate the conditions with the companies that have a more solvent offer. It is an exceptional procedure in the public procurement system. Exceptional situation. The premise, therefore, is to have a fixed fleet of buses and drivers, without having to subcontract and pay others to perform exceptional road services. Until now, the company has to search the market for drivers and buses that are available when a line is cut due to an unforeseen event. In recent years, the problem has been especially serious for the company. The DANA of Valenciathe fires in Galicia and León and the recent cutting of the southern corridor as consequence of the Adamuz accident in Córdoba has forced Renfe to maintain active service with buses for weeks. What does Renfe expect? Attract companies that have been seeing their business contract. And since The Country They point out that Renfe believes that there is more than enough business to keep the contracted buses active for at least 10 years. In fact, the contract would be for a decade, extendable to another five years, and they say that demand peaks could multiply current ones by nine. The movement could be interesting for bus companies because, right now, There are route tenders that are half dead and in which work is done with very low demand. Some of these companies would find a new outlet for their vehicles with each Renfe breakdown or incident in the infrastructure. In addition, it must be taken into account that the impact on the accounts may be greater when the incident (such as those described above) is not scheduled because forces Renfe to enter a market with few drivers and with companies that know the urgency of the company. Forced. It must be taken into account that a good part of Renfe’s business continues to be public. Therefore, you have the obligation to provide an alternative service when incidents occur on high speed but also if, for example, there are incidents on Cercanías or Rodalies. Any improvement in facilities that requires the interruption of rail traffic is replaced with buses. Photo | Pablo Nieto Abad and Fabio Romano In Xataka | Spain thought that Spain could manufacture the perfect trains for Spain. The reality: Spain is already looking for trains in Germany

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.