Nvidia is tracking “every single gigawatt of land, power and shell around the world, literally everything on the planet,” CEO Jensen Huang said at Goldman Sachs’ annual tech conference earlier this month. “We know where everything is.”
Why track power so intently?
Nvidia sees power availability as a key barrier to getting its AI server chips online as soon as they ship, as we’ve chronicled in this column over and over. While securing power is the first step to any AI data center project, even before getting the land or chips, developers that work with Google, Microsoft, Oracle and others fear a glut of unused chips due to an eventual power shortage.
Secretive Wall Street trading firm Jane Street has become famous in the past couple of years for its sizable AI-related spending, as it has struck big cloud deals to handle its AI computing needs and made investments in neocloud CoreWeave. Yet even a Jane Street–related deal for data center debt hasn’t won over investors.
Debt sold by a venture building a data center to be leased by Jane Street has quickly soured in secondary trading, according to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority data. Yields on the bonds have risen to around 11.3%, more than 2 percentage points above where the debt first sold in August. That deterioration has been sharper than for other recently issued AI data center bonds, with investors demanding far higher compensation to hold them versus government debt.
President Donald Trump on Saturday said he was creating a new “AI Force,” that would be similar to his Space Force—the arm of the Defense Department focused on space combat started by Trump during his first administration—and he planned to appoint a new AI czar to lead it.
Honestly, I almost feel a little sorry for Dario Amodei. That essay-writing, sweater-loving nerd is getting the treatment normally meted out to grim-eyed murderers and sex-romping celebrities.
Put another way: The New York Post has discovered him in earnest. Well, him and effective altruism. By my count, the outlet has published more than a dozen stories mentioning Amodei or effective altruism in the past week. One had a headline describing Anthropic’s staff as “cult-like,” the same label it had applied a while back to effective altruists in general. (C’mon, fellas! Invest in a thesaurus.)
A second Post headline gave prominent attention to President Donald Trump’s recent criticism of Amodei’s suggestion for an AI industry slowdown: a “SICK conspiracy,” Trump called it, the capital letters all his. A third headline described METR, the AI research outfit Amodei says he’ll use to independently assess his company’s safeguards, as a group of “super-woke globalists.” And a fourth headline on an editorial board piece thundered out: “Beware the ‘effective altruists.’”
Eeesh. I wonder what would excite the mouth breathers at the Post more: another Amodei doom dump—or JonBenét Ramsey’s parents finally saying they did it?
Sure, Amodei has steadily attracted more and more—and more—media attention over the past five months, and so has effective altruism, which obviously got a lot of attention in the Sam Bankman-Fried days, too. But there’s something about watching Amodei and the EA set get turned into daily tabloid fodder right now that strikes me as an important marker of where the broader world’s conversation about AI stands. It’s loud, wacky as heck—and candidly, I worry it’s a precursor to something darker.
I sat here trying to wrap my mind around it, and I started to get a headache like the one that sits at the bottom of a bourbon bottle. The Post is channeling a populist antipathy for Amodei and effective altruists that’s rooted in a dislike for their AI apocalypse talk. Yet at the same time there’s populist concern that AI may very well invite Armageddon: A recent survey by Politico found that 63% of U.S. adults believe AI could eventually destroy the world. So in sum, there’s widespread concern about destructive AI—and scorn for the people who want everyone to focus on it. As I said, it’s wacky.
Put aside AI catastrophe for a second. The bigger reason people dislike Amodei and the effective altruists is because they perceive them as the influential, liberal elite. It’s this potent derision that really animates the Post, and I find it unsettling. It’s the same type of addled, conspiracy-minded resentment that makes people still believe in Pizzagate and rigged voting machines.
What I find especially facile is the assumption that effective altruists and those who share their beliefs actually do wield gigantic influence over AI. I’d argue that they actually don’t. Articles by the Post and other outlets portray effective altruists as a wide cabal, but they only ever really mention the same three people over and over: Amodei; his sister, Daniela; and Facebook billionaire Dustin Moskovitz.
Look, three people simply do not make an all-powerful cabal! I keep thinking about that disconnect between assumption and reality—probably because I’ve devoted enormous thought lately to considering who really does have clout in AI as we put together our debut list of Tech’s 50 Most Influential People. Yes, the Amodei siblings are on the list, and they’re the No. 1 and No. 2 figures at a gigantic company. But that’s…it. Not a single other person on our list belongs to the effective altruism crowd.
I don’t write this as a passionate Amodei fanboy, nor as someone who finds effective altruism especially appealing: It’s an ideology that can be channeled into single-minded glumness when someone swallows the whole pill bottle and commits fully to it. A conversation with an effective altruist about the future is about as much fun as discussing foie gras with a vegan. It’s just that the concerns about Amodei and the effective altruists are beginning to strongly remind me of previous worries about lizard people taking over Congress.
Perhaps I’m making too much of those Post stories I mentioned. Still, with nearly 100 million readers a month, the Post is big enough to inspire other outlets to follow its lead, covering Amodei and AI with a sensationalism rooted in gassed-up anxiety and quarter-truths. Amodei’s the guy getting tarred and feathered today. It’d be a mistake to assume he’ll be the last.—Abram Brown (abe@theinformation.com)
The technology industry runs on influence. Its presence shows up in big, attention-grabbing moments—but much of it is dispersed in cloudy mystery, producing subtle ripple effects missed by casual observers. The CEOs of the largest companies certainly have clout. But so do a host of behind-the-scenes investors, renegade founders and rising-star executives.
In 2012, Austin Tice, a former U.S. Marine who’d decided to try his hand at freelance foreign correspondence, went MIA in Syria. And he’s still missing 14 years later. His mother clings to hope that he’s alive. Every president since Barack Obama has vowed to bring him back. But if he has somehow survived, why hasn’t he surfaced since the Assad regime fell in 2024? Josh Baker and Sara Obeidat, a pair of veteran Middle East reporters, set out to try to answer that question in “Embedded: Where Is Austin Tice?,” an NPR-BBC joint production.
They’re well sourced and determined, and by episode 2, they’re in an infamous prison retrieving never-before-seen files that the Syrian government kept on Tice. This involves a little bit of Bond-esque derring-do from Baker, who risks a five-story fall from a window ledge to get from one barricaded room to another. Additionally, I appreciated that they could display obvious empathy for Tice’s loved ones and stop short of lionizing him. He was clearly ill prepared to be in Syria. It was his very first attempt at freelance reporting. His military experience had emboldened him to go and made him a popular talking head for TV networks looking for on-the-ground analysis, but it also made many Syrians think he was in actuality an American spy posing as a journo.—Abram Brown
A year or so before Donald Trump’s reelection, Sharon Weinberger, then national security editor for The Wall Street Journal, visited the offices of an unnamed but prominent venture capital firm. Yes, the tech world invasion of Washington that has happened in the second Trump administration was still far in the future, but even then, Weinberger had begun noticing how Silicon Valley and Washington were intersecting more than they had in the past—particularly when she looked at the venture capital going to defense tech startups.
At the VC firm, Weinberger asked the investor why the private sector would invest in technology like hypersonic weapons given the astronomical costs and uncertain business models. “I honestly don’t care about the product,” replied the investor. “It has nothing to do with the tech.” Instead, he argued, the success of the products—and his own returns—depended more on government relationships and lobbying, which was increasingly a strength for Silicon Valley firms.
By Weinberger’s own account, she found herself thinking often of that investor’s sentiment as she wrote “Valley of Death,” an account of how Silicon Valley strayed from its Cold War national security roots before returning to the corridors of the Pentagon in recent years.
Weinberger offers an engaging history, with details of untold episodes in the intertwined relationships between Silicon Valley and Washington, like Steve Jobs’ brush with the CIA. As she goes along, she illustrates how the tech titans of defense contracting such as Elon Musk, Palantir’s Alex Karp and Anduril’s Palmer Luckey have strong-armed their way into the staid field. And she details how they’ve been adept at talking up their companies, though their products haven’t always lived up to the hype—especially in Ukraine.
Weinberger sees shortcomings in their “techno-optimism,” as she puts it. She thinks it could lead to ruinous scenarios not only for the firms’ financial backers but also for the U.S. armed forces at a time of heightened conflicts and supply chain constraints. Weinberger is a measured and well-traveled chronicler of the Silicon Valley arms race, raising the same concerns I’ve heard some investors share out loud.
By the time she ends with President Dwight Eisenhower’s timeless warning of the dangers of the military-industrial complex, or “subordinating national security to private interests,” it’s clear why the current moment of defense tech feels deeply familiar.—Leo Schwartz
Up near the 38th parallel, the fictional South Korean hamlet of Hope Harbor—the setting of director Na Hong-jin’s latest movie, “Hope”—exists in a state of permanent paranoia, with North Korea not very far away. Signs implore residents to “REPORT SPIES” and “PROTECT THE NATION AGAINST INFILTRATION.” And everyone seems to have a stash of automatic weapons hidden away at home, much to the irritation of the town’s chief constable, Bum-seok (Hwang Jung-min). But it doesn’t seem likely that communist commandos are responsible for the body of a mutilated steer just outside of town. A bear, maybe—or a tiger? No, something much, much bigger.
Na, clearly a devotee of the Spielbergian school of patient dread, waits almost an hour before getting that giant alien beastie on screen. Kudos to him. As is often the case, the buildup makes the payoff sweeter. Once the creature finally does smash its way fully into frame, “Hope” shifts into overdrive, with a number of genuinely exciting set pieces and chase sequences: I emphasize the plural there because, unfortunately for Bum-seok and his more able deputy, Sung-ae (Hoyeon), the town is threatened by an entire pack of these lanky-limbed E.T.s. They’re darn difficult to take down, and they play possum pretty well. And since “Hope” takes place sometime in the pre-cellphone past, backup is not a text message away.
The set decoration of ruined Hope Harbor looks fantastic. And the mayhem is captured well through the camerawork of Hong Kyung-pyo, who also did “Parasite” as well as “Snowpiercer.” His efforts mitigate the letdown of the CGI effects: It’s a puzzler that the movie can rank as the most expensive Korean film ever and not have managed better. Honestly, though, the lackluster CGI was far from bad enough to dim my enjoyment. I trust the aliens will get jazzed up when Na returns for his already greenlit sequel.—A.B.
OpenAI has told some investors that it expects to burn $278 billion by the end of 2030, the Financial Times reported, as it spends more on cloud computing and chips to run and train its AI. The forecast, based on a recent presentation, is higher than the one it gave investors early this year, ...
Google acknowledged that its Gemini AI model unexpectedly breached the networks of three outside companies during safety evaluations conducted by third-party testing firm Irregular last May, The Wall Street Journal reported.
During the exercise, Gemini gained entry to the companies’ systems by ...
Anthropic finance chief Krishna Rao and other executives met with groups of prospective public investors last month with his company’s numbers looking spiffier than ever. The company had gone from spending about $2.30 on operations for every $1 of revenue in spring of 2025 to turning a slight profit on that basis in the June quarter—bucking the stereotype of money-losing AI companies that are addicted to spending.
But some investors walked away from meetings with the understanding from executives that the profits would likely be short-lived. Anthropic would take advantage of its sudden growth and deep cash reserves to aggressively sign data center deals, executives told them, which would increase how much they spend on computing infrastructure and could shrink operating profits.
Nvidia-backed startup Nscale disclosed Friday that revenue had surged 10 times in the first half of this year from the year-ago period, but losses mounted as the cloud startup spent billions on data centers and the AI chips they’ll house.
The two-year-old UK startup, a spinout of an Australian ...
In a room full of IT professionals, words and phrases like “tokenization,” “retrieval-augmented generation,” and “context window” need no explanation. But when technology leaders present to their CEOs and other company leaders about topics like AI, they often find that they need to translate these terms into everyday business language, or else risk being met by blank stares.
In the moment, this can be maddening. You know the opportunities and challenges that a technology like generative AI presents for your company. And you know that the organization’s other leaders will likely see things the same way you do, if only you can make yourself understood.
Instead of trying to bridge this communication gap on the fly, use Google Gemini to help translate your technical vision into bottom-line business value.
Step 1: Figure Out What You Want to Say
Your CEO might not speak “tech,” but Google Gemini does. Open up a new chat and explain exactly what it is you hope to communicate to leadership. Here, you can feel free to be as technical as you wish. Maybe you’ll tell Gemini that you’re thinking of building a RAG pipeline to vectorize your company’s proprietary data. Or, maybe you’ll float the idea of using parameter-efficient fine-tuning methods like LoRA to deploy open-weight models on-premises, without exploding your cloud inference costs. You can even upload your technical documents to Gemini, directly in the chat window.
No matter how in-the-weeds you get, Gemini will follow your train of thought, parsing the complexity to find the business value at the core of your plans.
Step 2: Let Gemini Be Your Translator
Now that you’ve captured your vision in your own words, let Gemini help you translate those words into language that will connect with your audience. Use this sample prompt, along with your brainstorming from Step 1:
I am the CIO at [company], and I am trying to build the case to [adopt generative AI solutions]. I need to explain the technical concept of generative AI to a non-technical audience (the CEO and board). Help me write talking points that will help me convey what generative AI is, ways it could help us digitally transform, and why it’s important to our growth as a company. Include details about how it could potentially re-focus our technical talent on more strategic work, help enhance our workforce’s productivity, and help us better serve our global workforce and customers.
In just a few moments, you’ll have a set of boardroom-ready talking points. Gemini might, for instance, break down the benefits of RAG in simple terms by noting that it anchors AI to internal data like HR policies and technical manuals. Or, it might point out the business benefits of arming IT staff and engineers with generative AI tools, noting the opportunity to shift employees’ focus from low-value, repetitive tasks to innovation.
Step 3: Create Content
Now that you have your core narrative and language nailed down, Gemini can help you create a more structured pitch. Instead of staring at a blank slide deck, prompt Gemini for ideas on how to build out a presentation that will sway your peers in the C-suite. Try this prompt:
I need to build a presentation to deliver this information to the board. Turn these talking points into a 10-slide presentation. For each slide, write a headline, three to four short bullet points for the slide itself, and the speaker notes I should use to explain the concept out loud.
Gemini will generate a full, downloadable presentation deck directly in the chat. If you like, you can export the presentation to Google Slides and make your own edits. Or, you can command Gemini to generate a new version with changes to elements like design, language, and narrative flow.
Step 4: Make Gemini Your Sparring Partner
Before you go into your meeting, open a new chat in Gemini, providing your speaker notes and a link to your presentation, and then ask it to act as a skeptical executive: You are my CEO. Review this presentation and grill me on cost, security, and ROI. Ask your toughest questions, one at a time.
Even though Gemini helped you prepare your presentation, it will seamlessly pivot to the role of rigorous executive or tough board member, pressing for more details on project payback, hidden risks, and timeline. By practicing your pitch in this low-stakes environment, you can make certain that you’ll be confident when it’s time for the real thing.
A team of researchers, including those from the University of Tokyo, spotted a rare kind of planet that's unusually hot and eccentric. TOI-1355 b orbits its star, TOI-1355, which is also much hotter than our sun, in a strange way and incredibly quickly, completing an orbit in about two Earth days. The work is published in the journal Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan.
California Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order on Friday pushing to implement guardrails on artificial intelligence in the state that’s the epicenter of the technology’s boom.
Amsted Industries is exploring a sale of cooling system provider Baltimore Aircoil Co., as strong demand for data center components pushes more owners to test the market, according to people familiar with the matter.
PWC CEO Paul Griggs says AI should be viewed as a business transformation, not simply a technology upgrade. He says companies most exposed to AI are seeing stronger productivity and hiring, while PWC itself is adding engineers, data scientists and machine-learning experts as its workforce evolves. (Source: Bloomberg)
One of Dublin's "lost" medieval castles has been found hiding in plain sight inside University College Dublin's Roebuck Castle. New research reveals that substantial remains of the Norman castle of Roebuck, an important fortress on one of the approach roads into the medieval city of Dublin, are preserved within the modern-day building.
Students may come for the dog, but new research from UBC Okanagan published in the Journal of College Student Mental Health suggests that's not always what they leave with. In a study of 676 students—most in their first year—researchers asked an open-ended question about what made a therapy dog visit meaningful and found the answers extended well past the animals themselves.
Imagine you are at a cocktail party. The room is crowded, people are coming and going, and you can barely hear your friend as they tell you some juicy gossip about the date they went on last week.
The fact you can still follow what their saying is down to your brain performing some very complex operations amid all the noise. Out of all the sound waves reaching your ears, it is successfully isolating the one of interest while filtering out the rest.
Trying to understand how the brain does this has kept auditory neuroscientists occupied since the 1950s, when British cognitive scientist Colin Cherry first coined the term “the cocktail party problem”.
This was initially studied in experiments that asked volunteers to listen to two speeches simultaneously – but only repeat one of them aloud afterwards. Cherry found that listeners could follow and repeat the pre-selected message remarkably well, despite both speeches being played simultaneously, one in each ear. In contrast, they recalled very little of the other message.
These experiments laid the foundation for decades of selective attention research. But it is only in the past 15 years that scientists have studied this phenomenon in experiments that more closely resemble the complicated, multi-layered way we listen in the real world – using technology that accurately tracks the brain’s activity as speech unfolds.
The most common non-invasive option, electroencephalography (EEG), uses what looks like a swimming cap fitted with small sensors. These measure very fast changes in the electrical activity of populations of neurons (the brain’s nerve cells) with millisecond precision.
In a 2014 study, neuroscientists found that, within 200 milliseconds of hearing someone speak, the brain favours the conversation someone is focusing on over all other noise. This prioritised attention shows up most markedly in secondary brain areas such as the superior temporal gyrus, which are responsible for piecing together the sounds we hear into meaningful speech.
This suggests that our attentive brain is not just enhancing the voice of who we are listening to, but helping us make sense of their words while filtering out all other conversations and background noise.
Video: The Wall Street Journal.
Attention switching
The original cocktail party problem did not investigate the full range of people’s listening experiences, which are often much less static. In everyday life, we repeatedly switch and reorient our auditory attention – for example, when hearing our name called across a crowded room, or when a door slams.
But what happens in that brief moment when we stop listening to one person and turn our attention to another? Can the brain switch from one voice to another instantly, or does it briefly have to process both? These were questions we investigated in our latest study with colleagues from the Eriksholm Research Centre in Denmark, which is funded by Danish hearing aid manufacturer Oticon.
Clarifying how the brain manages these rapid shifts in attention can help explain why some conversations are easy to follow while others become difficult, especially in noisy environments.
Coming back to the cocktail party: here you are, focused on your friend’s voice as they reveal the identity of their recent date. But then another familiar voice suddenly reaches your awareness. Your partner is (secretly) telling a friend about the surprise birthday gift they are planning for you. Your attention immediately shifts to your partner’s voice, while still giving the appearance of listening to your friend.
When we tested such a scenario in our laboratory, we found something striking. During this attention reorienting, the brain does not simply drop one voice and turn to the other. Rather, for a short period of between one and two seconds, the neural signals associated with the two voices overlap. In other words, the brain starts tuning into the new speaker before it has completely let go of the old one.
This mechanism may help explain how we navigate the constantly changing soundscape around us, moving our attention from one voice or sound to another while maintaining enough information about the previous speaker to make that transition seamless. This efficient processing strategy could be described as the brain maintaining a smooth “attention continuum”.
Improved hearing aid design?
These insights have some important real-world applications. For example, traditional hearing aids are often designed to favour sounds coming from in front of the listener, which is obviously limiting in many situations.
But using enhanced these attention decoding techniques, hearing aids could be neurally steered not only to enhance the speaker that is currently attended to, but to switch between different speakers, almost in real time, as the listener’s attention is dynamically reoriented.
More generally, understanding how the brain shifts, maintains and combines information from different speakers can give us a clearer picture of how attention shapes what we ultimately hear, understand and remember.
The approach introduced in our study could be particularly useful for studying how individuals vary in their attentional strategies, particularly in noisy environments – and for relating these differences to the mental effort they use to follow and understand speech.
Ultimately, this brings us closer to understanding how the brain makes successful communication possible – at cocktail parties and everywhere else.
Sara Carta received funding from the William Demant Fonden and Taighde Éireann – Research Ireland.
Giovanni Di Liberto receives funding from William Demant Fonden and Taighde Éireann – Research Ireland. He is also supported by Research Ireland at ADAPT, the Research Ireland Centre for AI-Driven Digital Content Technology at Trinity College Dublin.
On Sept. 15, the eruption of Mount Anak Krakatau sent volcanic ash up to 15,000 meters (50,000 feet) and produced rumbling heard 700 kilometers (435 miles) away. Eight airports suspended operations, thousands of flights were disrupted, and more than 270,000 passengers were stranded.
A new study sheds light on how Syrian archaeologists risked their lives to rescue approximately 30,000 priceless artifacts from the Deir ez-Zor Museum during the summers of 2014 and 2015 as the city faced the imminent threat of capture by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), also known as Daesh.
Login
