Archiv des Autors: innovation

Sam Altman – The Intelligence Age

Source: https://ia.samaltman.com/

In the next couple of decades, we will be able to do things that would have seemed like magic to our grandparents.

This phenomenon is not new, but it will be newly accelerated. People have become dramatically more capable over time; we can already accomplish things now that our predecessors would have believed to be impossible.

We are more capable not because of genetic change, but because we benefit from the infrastructure of society being way smarter and more capable than any one of us; in an important sense, society itself is a form of advanced intelligence. Our grandparents – and the generations that came before them – built and achieved great things. They contributed to the scaffolding of human progress that we all benefit from. AI will give people tools to solve hard problems and help us add new struts to that scaffolding that we couldn’t have figured out on our own. The story of progress will continue, and our children will be able to do things we can’t.

It won’t happen all at once, but we’ll soon be able to work with AI that helps us accomplish much more than we ever could without AI; eventually we can each have a personal AI team, full of virtual experts in different areas, working together to create almost anything we can imagine. Our children will have virtual tutors who can provide personalized instruction in any subject, in any language, and at whatever pace they need. We can imagine similar ideas for better healthcare, the ability to create any kind of software someone can imagine, and much more.

With these new abilities, we can have shared prosperity to a degree that seems unimaginable today; in the future, everyone’s lives can be better than anyone’s life is now. Prosperity alone doesn’t necessarily make people happy – there are plenty of miserable rich people – but it would meaningfully improve the lives of people around the world.

Here is one narrow way to look at human history: after thousands of years of compounding scientific discovery and technological progress, we have figured out how to melt sand, add some impurities, arrange it with astonishing precision at extraordinarily tiny scale into computer chips, run energy through it, and end up with systems capable of creating increasingly capable artificial intelligence.

This may turn out to be the most consequential fact about all of history so far. It is possible that we will have superintelligence in a few thousand days (!); it may take longer, but I’m confident we’ll get there.

How did we get to the doorstep of the next leap in prosperity?

In three words: deep learning worked.

In 15 words: deep learning worked, got predictably better with scale, and we dedicated increasing resources to it.

That’s really it; humanity discovered an algorithm that could really, truly learn any distribution of data (or really, the underlying “rules” that produce any distribution of data). To a shocking degree of precision, the more compute and data available, the better it gets at helping people solve hard problems. I find that no matter how much time I spend thinking about this, I can never really internalize how consequential it is.

There are a lot of details we still have to figure out, but it’s a mistake to get distracted by any particular challenge. Deep learning works, and we will solve the remaining problems. We can say a lot of things about what may happen next, but the main one is that AI is going to get better with scale, and that will lead to meaningful improvements to the lives of people around the world.

AI models will soon serve as autonomous personal assistants who carry out specific tasks on our behalf like coordinating medical care on your behalf. At some point further down the road, AI systems are going to get so good that they help us make better next-generation systems and make scientific progress across the board.

Technology brought us from the Stone Age to the Agricultural Age and then to the Industrial Age. From here, the path to the Intelligence Age is paved with compute, energy, and human will.

If we want to put AI into the hands of as many people as possible, we need to drive down the cost of compute and make it abundant (which requires lots of energy and chips). If we don’t build enough infrastructure, AI will be a very limited resource that wars get fought over and that becomes mostly a tool for rich people.

We need to act wisely but with conviction. The dawn of the Intelligence Age is a momentous development with very complex and extremely high-stakes challenges. It will not be an entirely positive story, but the upside is so tremendous that we owe it to ourselves, and the future, to figure out how to navigate the risks in front of us.

I believe the future is going to be so bright that no one can do it justice by trying to write about it now; a defining characteristic of the Intelligence Age will be massive prosperity.

Although it will happen incrementally, astounding triumphs – fixing the climate, establishing a space colony, and the discovery of all of physics – will eventually become commonplace. With nearly-limitless intelligence and abundant energy – the ability to generate great ideas, and the ability to make them happen – we can do quite a lot.

As we have seen with other technologies, there will also be downsides, and we need to start working now to maximize AI’s benefits while minimizing its harms. As one example, we expect that this technology can cause a significant change in labor markets (good and bad) in the coming years, but most jobs will change more slowly than most people think, and I have no fear that we’ll run out of things to do (even if they don’t look like “real jobs” to us today). People have an innate desire to create and to be useful to each other, and AI will allow us to amplify our own abilities like never before. As a society, we will be back in an expanding world, and we can again focus on playing positive-sum games.

Many of the jobs we do today would have looked like trifling wastes of time to people a few hundred years ago, but nobody is looking back at the past, wishing they were a lamplighter. If a lamplighter could see the world today, he would think the prosperity all around him was unimaginable. And if we could fast-forward a hundred years from today, the prosperity all around us would feel just as unimaginable.

Apple’s New Passwords App May Solve Your Login Nightmares

Apple is launching its first stand-alone password manager app in iOS 18. Here’s what you need to know.

Phone Mobile Phone Texting and Person

Apple’s latest iPhone software update, iOS 18, arrives today and includes a new app: Passwords. For the first time, Apple is taking your phone’s ability to save login details and putting them in a standalone app. It could help improve millions of people’s terrible passwords.

After years of being told you should create unique, strong passwords for every website and app you use, you probably fall into one of two camps: people that are fully signed up to the password manager life, or those still using “123456” for every other website.

A screenshot of the new Passwords app in iOS 18 on Apple's iPhone.

Apple’s new encrypted Passwords app is automatically included with iOS 18, and is a public-facing evolution of its Keychain and password-saving capabilities. The Keychain, which has existed for more than a decade, no longer has as prominent a home in the iPhone’s settings, and details previously saved there are being moved to the new app.

The launch of the password manager app, which will also be available on macOS Sequoia and iPadOS 18, may help improve people’s relationships with their passwords but also could, to varying degrees, challenge existing password managers.

“This move makes the app more visible to lay users and informs them about this secure method to store and manage passwords,” says Talal Haj Bakry and Tommy Mysk from security company Mysk. “You have a default password manager preinstalled on your device [that] provides end-to-end encryption when syncing data across devices.”

New Passwords

The Passwords app has a pretty barebones design. Six different tiles are presented when you open the app on an iPhone: All, Passkeys, Codes, Wi-Fi, Security, and Deleted. These are essentially the main functions of the app, allowing you to save each type of data within their relevant sections. The security section includes check-ups allowing weak and exposed passwords to be identified.

“This will definitely boost the adoption of this preinstalled app and bolster user security,” Bakry and Mysk say. They add that it presents the saved data “in a more organized way than the Settings app.”

Apple says the Passwords app uses end-to-end encryption to save your details, meaning nobody, not even Apple, knows what you have saved. Within the app, you can search for login details to your entries and set up groups to share passwords with other people.

Your saved login details are synced across Apple devices using iCloud, meaning the encrypted data is shared with Apple’s cloud servers and available on all of your Apple devices. Within Apple’s settings, you can turn off syncing passwords on a specific device. The app is locked using Face ID.

When using the Passwords app, any details you have previously saved in Keychain or AutoFill will be moved to the new location. This includes if you have used the Sign in with Apple login system on any websites or apps. It is unclear why Apple has decided to spin its Keychain system into a fully fledged password manager now, although the company has been building out the individual features over a number of years. (Apple has not responded to WIRED’s request for comment at the time of writing.)For many people, having a standalone password manager app from Apple could encourage better password practices. Siamak Shahandashti, a senior lecturer in the University of York’s cybersecurity and privacy research group, says the move from Apple may be a usability decision. Making Passwords visible could encourage people to take their passwords seriously.

“We need to design authentication systems for human beings,” Shahandashti says. “We cannot expect users to maintain a hundred accounts, for each of them [to] use a strong password. It’s actually the fault of the designers because these systems have not been designed for users considering the capability of an average human being.”

Death of the Password

Passwords are slowly dying. Enter the passkey. For the past couple of years, websites, apps, and phone manufacturers have been in the process of rolling out passkeys—a technology that replaces passwords, is more secure, and doesn’t require you to remember any complex login details. (Although passkeys still have some teething problems.)

Leona Lassak, a research assistant at Ruhr-University Bochum who has studied passkey adoption, says greater “visibility” of the Passwords app can help get the sign-in technology to a broader audience, one which might not use a password manager otherwise. Apple’s Passwords app could help with the perception and transition to passkeys, Lassak says. “There has been discussion about the need for passkey managers, because once we actually use them on websites, there’s probably going to be multiple for each website,” she says.

The app is also, at least subtly, encouraging the adoption of passkeys. Within Passwords’ settings, accessed through Apple’s System preferences, there’s the option to turn on “automatic” passkey upgrades, which will allow existing accounts to use passkeys when they are available.

Lock In

Password managers have existed for years and there are plenty of options you can use, from open source apps to browser-based management systems. Each comes with their own particular set of pros and cons.

Apple wading into the password management market by including a new app on millions of iPhones, Macs, and iPads could also impact the wider ecosystem. “There’s no question that Apple’s Passwords app would ‘sherlock’ third-party password managers—or make them less attractive,” say Bakry and Mysk, highlighting that people need to use iCloud to sync passwords in Apple’s system, and that those who are privacy conscious may not want this to happen automatically.

There’s also the risk of locking people into Apple’s password manager—at launch, there appear to be no options to export the saved data and use it in a commercial alternative. One competitor password manager has stressed that their software works on products “beyond” the “Apple ecosystem.” (People using Apple’s password management software on Windows devices can access saved details through iCloud for Windows.)

Ultimately, what password manager you use should reflect what type of software you want to support and the individual threats you may face. For many, Apple’s new app is probably better than not using a password manager at all.

Source: https://www.wired.com/story/apple-password-app-ios-18/

I Stared Into the AI Void With the SocialAI App

SocialAI is an online universe where everyone you interact with is a bot—for better or worse.

Robot Hands Adults in a Crowd Glitch Effect

The first time I used SocialAI, I was sure the app was performance art. That was the only logical explanation for why I would willingly sign up to have AI bots named Blaze Fury and Trollington Nefarious, well, troll me.

Even the app’s creator, Michael Sayman, admits that the premise of SocialAI may confuse people. His announcement this week of the app read a little like a generative AI joke: “A private social network where you receive millions of AI-generated comments offering feedback, advice, and reflections.”

But, no, SocialAI is real, if “real” applies to an online universe in which every single person you interact with is a bot.

There’s only one real human in the SocialAI equation. That person is you. The new iOS app is designed to let you post text like you would on Twitter or Threads. An ellipsis appears almost as soon as you do so, indicating that another person is loading up with ammunition, getting ready to fire back. Then, instantaneously, several comments appear, cascading below your post, each and every one of them written by an AI character. In the new new version of the app, just rolled out today, these AIs also talk to each other.

When you first sign up, you’re prompted to choose these AI character archetypes: Do you want to hear from Fans? Trolls? Skeptics? Odd-balls? Doomers? Visionaries? Nerds? Drama Queens? Liberals? Conservatives? Welcome to SocialAI, where Trollita Kafka, Vera D. Nothing, Sunshine Sparkle, Progressive Parker, Derek Dissent, and Professor Debaterson are here to prop you up or tell you why you’re wrong.

Screenshot of the instructions for setting up the Social AI app.

Is SocialAI appalling, an echo chamber taken to the extreme? Only if you ignore the truth of modern social media: Our feeds are already filled with bots, tuned by algorithms, and monetized with AI-driven ad systems. As real humans we do the feeding: freely supplying social apps fresh content, baiting trolls, buying stuff. In exchange, we’re amused, and occasionally feel a connection with friends and fans.As notorious crank Neil Postman wrote in 1985, “Anyone who is even slightly familiar with the history of communications knows that every new technology for thinking involves a trade-off.” The trade-off for social media in the age of AI is a slice of our humanity. SocialAI just strips the experience down to pure artifice.

“With a lot of social media, you don’t know who the bot is and who the real person is. It’s hard to tell the difference,” Sayman says. “I just felt like creating a space where you’re able to know that they’re 100 percent AIs. It’s more freeing.”

You might say Sayman has a knack for apps. As a teenage coder in Miami, Florida, during the financial crisis, Sayman gained fame for building a suite of apps to support his family, who had been considering moving back to Peru. Sayman later ended up working in product jobs at Facebook, Google, and Roblox. SocialAI was launched from Sayman’s own venture-backed app studio, Friendly Apps.

In many ways his app is emblematic of design thinking rather than pure AI innovation. SocialAI isn’t really a social app, but ChatGPT in the container of a social broadcast app. It’s an attempt to redefine how we interact with generative AI. Instead of limiting your ChatGPT conversation to a one-to-one chat window, Sayman posits, why not get your answers from many bots, all at the same time?

Over Zoom earlier this week, he explained to me how he thinks of generative AI like a smoothie if cups hadn’t yet been invented. You can still enjoy it from a bowl or plate, but those aren’t the right vessel. SocialAI, Sayman says, could be the cup.

Almost immediately Sayman laughed. “This is a terrible analogy,” he said.

Sayman is charming and clearly thinks a lot about how apps fit into our world. He’s a team of one right now, relying mostly on OpenAI’s technology to power SocialAI, blended with some other custom AI models. (Sayman rate-limits the app so that he doesn’t go broke in “three minutes” from the fees he’s paying to OpenAI. He also hasn’t quite yet figured out how he’ll make money off of SocialAI.) He knows he’s not the first to launch an AI-character app; Meta has burdened its apps with AI characters, and the Character AI app, which was just quasi-acquired by Google, lets you interact with a huge number of AI personas.But Sayman is hand-wavy about this competition. “I don’t see my app as, you’re going to be interacting with characters who you think might be real,” he says. “This is really for seeking answers to conflict resolution, or figuring out if what you’re trying to say is hurtful and get feedback before you post it somewhere else.”

“Someone joked to me that they thought Elon Musk should use this, so he could test all of his posts before he posts them on X,” Sayman said.

I’d actually tried that, tossing some of the most trafficked tweets from Elon Musk and the Twitter icon Dril into my SocialAI feed. I shared a news story from WIRED; the link was unclickable, because SocialAI doesn’t support link-sharing. (There’s no one to share it with, anyway.) I repurposed the viral “Bean Dad” tweet and purported to be a Bean Mom on SocialAI, urging my 9-year-old daughter to open a can of beans herself as a life lesson. I posted political content. I asked my synthetic SocialAI followers who else I should follow.

The bots obliged and flooded my feed with comments, like Reply Guys on steroids. But their responses lacked nutrients or human messiness. Mostly, I told Sayman, it all felt too uncanny, that I had a hard time crossing that chasm and placing value or meaning on what the bots had to say.

Sayman encouraged me to craft more posts along the lines of Reddit’s “Am I the Asshole” posts: Am I wrong in this situation? Should I apologize to a friend? Should I stay mad at my family forever? This, Sayman says, is the real purpose of SocialAI. I tried it. For a second the SocialAI bot comments lit up my lizard brain, my id and superego, the “I’m so right” instinct. Then Trollita Kafka told me, essentially, that I was in fact the asshole.One aspect of SocialAI that clearly does not represent the dawn of a new era: Sayman has put out a minimum viable product without communicating important guidelines around privacy, content policies, or how SocialAI or OpenAI might use the data people provide along the way. (Move fast, break things, etc.) He says he’s not using anyone’s posts to train his own AI models, but notes that users are still subject to OpenAI’s data-training terms, since he uses OpenAI’s API. You also can’t mute or block a bot that has gone off the rails.

At least, though, your feed is always private by default. You don’t have any “real” followers. My editor at WIRED, for example, could join SocialAI himself but will never be able to follow me or see that I copied and pasted an Elon Musk tweet about wanting to buy Coca-Cola and put the cocaine back in it, just as he could not follow my ChatGPT account and see what I’m enquiring about there.

As a human on SocialAI, you will never interact with another human. That’s the whole point. It’s your own little world with your own army of AI characters ready to bolster you or tear you down. You may not like it, but it might be where you’re headed anyway. You might already be there.

Source: https://www.wired.com/story/socialai-app-ai-chatbots-chatgpt/

OpenAI Announces a New AI Model, Code-Named Strawberry Step – ChatGPT o1

The ChatGPT maker reveals details of what’s officially known as OpenAI o1, which shows that AI needs more

OpenAI made the last big breakthrough in artificial intelligence by increasing the size of its models to dizzying proportions, when it introduced GPT-4 last year. The company today announced a new advance that signals a shift in approach—a model that can “reason” logically through many difficult problems and is significantly smarter than existing AI without a major scale-up.

The new model, dubbed OpenAI o1, can solve problems that stump existing AI models, including OpenAI’s most powerful existing model, GPT-4o. Rather than summon up an answer in one step, as a large language model normally does, it reasons through the problem, effectively thinking out loud as a person might, before arriving at the right result.

“This is what we consider the new paradigm in these models,” Mira Murati, OpenAI’s chief technology officer, tells WIRED. “It is much better at tackling very complex reasoning tasks.”

The new model was code-named Strawberry within OpenAI, and it is not a successor to GPT-4o but rather a complement to it, the company says.

Murati says that OpenAI is currently building its next master model, GPT-5, which will be considerably larger than its predecessor. But while the company still believes that scale will help wring new abilities out of AI, GPT-5 is likely to also include the reasoning technology introduced today. “There are two paradigms,” Murati says. “The scaling paradigm and this new paradigm. We expect that we will bring them together.”

LLMs typically conjure their answers from huge neural networks fed vast quantities of training data. They can exhibit remarkable linguistic and logical abilities, but traditionally struggle with surprisingly simple problems such as rudimentary math questions that involve reasoning.

Murati says OpenAI o1 uses reinforcement learning, which involves giving a model positive feedback when it gets answers right and negative feedback when it does not, in order to improve its reasoning process. “The model sharpens its thinking and fine tunes the strategies that it uses to get to the answer,” she says. Reinforcement learning has enabled computers to play games with superhuman skill and do useful tasks like designing computer chips. The technique is also a key ingredient for turning an LLM into a useful and well-behaved chatbot.

Mark Chen, vice president of research at OpenAI, demonstrated the new model to WIRED, using it to solve several problems that its prior model, GPT-4o, cannot. These included an advanced chemistry question and the following mind-bending mathematical puzzle: “A princess is as old as the prince will be when the princess is twice as old as the prince was when the princess’s age was half the sum of their present age. What is the age of the prince and princess?” (The correct answer is that the prince is 30, and the princess is 40).

“The [new] model is learning to think for itself, rather than kind of trying to imitate the way humans would think,” as a conventional LLM does, Chen says.

OpenAI says its new model performs markedly better on a number of problem sets, including ones focused on coding, math, physics, biology, and chemistry. On the American Invitational Mathematics Examination (AIME), a test for math students, GPT-4o solved on average 12 percent of the problems while o1 got 83 percent right, according to the company.

Most Popular

The new model is slower than GPT-4o, and OpenAI says it does not always perform better—in part because, unlike GPT-4o, it cannot search the web and it is not multimodal, meaning it cannot parse images or audio.

Improving the reasoning capabilities of LLMs has been a hot topic in research circles for some time. Indeed, rivals are pursuing similar research lines. In July, Google announced AlphaProof, a project that combines language models with reinforcement learning for solving difficult math problems.

AlphaProof was able to learn how to reason over math problems by looking at correct answers. A key challenge with broadening this kind of learning is that there are not correct answers for everything a model might encounter. Chen says OpenAI has succeeded in building a reasoning system that is much more general. “I do think we have made some breakthroughs there; I think it is part of our edge,” Chen says. “It’s actually fairly good at reasoning across all domains.”

Noah Goodman, a professor at Stanford who has published work on improving the reasoning abilities of LLMs, says the key to more generalized training may involve using a “carefully prompted language model and handcrafted data” for training. He adds that being able to consistently trade the speed of results for greater accuracy would be a “nice advance.”

Yoon Kim, an assistant professor at MIT, says how LLMs solve problems currently remains somewhat mysterious, and even if they perform step-by-step reasoning there may be key differences from human intelligence. This could be crucial as the technology becomes more widely used. “These are systems that would be potentially making decisions that affect many, many people,” he says. “The larger question is, do we need to be confident about how a computational model is arriving at the decisions?”

The technique introduced by OpenAI today also may help ensure that AI models behave well. Murati says the new model has shown itself to be better at avoiding producing unpleasant or potentially harmful output by reasoning about the outcome of its actions. “If you think about teaching children, they learn much better to align to certain norms, behaviors, and values once they can reason about why they’re doing a certain thing,” she says.

Oren Etzioni, a professor emeritus at the University of Washington and a prominent AI expert, says it’s “essential to enable LLMs to engage in multi-step problem solving, use tools, and solve complex problems.” He adds, “Pure scale up will not deliver this.” Etzioni says, however, that there are further challenges ahead. “Even if reasoning were solved, we would still have the challenge of hallucination and factuality.”

OpenAI’s Chen says that the new reasoning approach developed by the company shows that advancing AI need not cost ungodly amounts of compute power. “One of the exciting things about the paradigm is we believe that it’ll allow us to ship intelligence cheaper,” he says, “and I think that really is the core mission of our company.”

Source: https://www.wired.com/story/openai-o1-strawberry-problem-reasoning/

Our basic assumptions about photos capturing reality are about to go up in smoke

Source: https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/22/24225972/ai-photo-era-what-is-reality-google-pixel-9

n explosion from the side of an old brick building. A crashed bicycle in a city intersection. A cockroach in a box of takeout. It took less than 10 seconds to create each of these images with the Reimagine tool in the Pixel 9’s Magic Editor. They are crisp. They are in full color. They are high-fidelity. There is no suspicious background blur, no tell-tale sixth finger. These photographs are extraordinarily convincing, and they are all extremely fucking fake. 

Anyone who buys a Pixel 9 — the latest model of Google’s flagship phone, available starting this week — will have access to the easiest, breeziest user interface for top-tier lies, built right into their mobile device. This is all but certain to become the norm, with similar features already available on competing devices and rolling out on others in the near future. When a smartphone “just works,” it’s usually a good thing; here, it’s the entire problem in the first place.

Photography has been used in the service of deception for as long as it has existed. (Consider Victorian spirit photos, the infamous Loch Ness monster photograph, or Stalin’s photographic purges of IRL-purged comrades.) But it would be disingenuous to say that photographs have never been considered reliable evidence. Everyone who is reading this article in 2024 grew up in an era where a photograph was, by default, a representation of the truth. A staged scene with movie effects, a digital photo manipulation, or more recently, a deepfake — these were potential deceptions to take into account, but they were outliers in the realm of possibility. It took specialized knowledge and specialized tools to sabotage the intuitive trust in a photograph. Fake was the exception, not the rule. 

If I say Tiananmen Square, you will, most likely, envision the same photograph I do. This also goes for Abu Ghraib or napalm girl. These images have defined wars and revolutions; they have encapsulated truth to a degree that is impossible to fully express. There was no reason to express why these photos matter, why they are so pivotal, why we put so much value in them. Our trust in photography was so deep that when we spent time discussing veracity in images, it was more important to belabor the point that it was possible for photographs to be fake, sometimes. 

This is all about to flip — the default assumption about a photo is about to become that it’s faked, because creating realistic and believable fake photos is now trivial to do. We are not prepared for what happens after.

 
A real photo of a stream.
A real photo of a stream.
 
Edited with Google’s Magic Editor.
Edited with Google’s Magic Editor.
 
A real photo of a person in a living room (with their face obscured).
A real photo of a person in a living room (with their face obscured).
 
Edited with Google’s Magic Editor.
Edited with Google’s Magic Editor.

No one on Earth today has ever lived in a world where photographs were not the linchpin of social consensus — for as long as any of us has been here, photographs proved something happened. Consider all the ways in which the assumed veracity of a photograph has, previously, validated the truth of your experiences. The preexisting ding in the fender of your rental car. The leak in your ceiling. The arrival of a package. An actual, non-AI-generated cockroach in your takeout. When wildfires encroach upon your residential neighborhood, how do you communicate to friends and acquaintances the thickness of the smoke outside? 

And up until now, the onus has largely been on those denying the truth of a photo to prove their claims. The flat-earther is out of step with the social consensus not because they do not understand astrophysics — how many of us actually understand astrophysics, after all? — but because they must engage in a series of increasingly elaborate justifications for why certain photographs and videos are not real. They must invent a vast state conspiracy to explain the steady output of satellite photographs that capture the curvature of the Earth. They must create a soundstage for the 1969 Moon landing. 

We have taken for granted that the burden of proof is upon them. In the age of the Pixel 9, it might be best to start brushing up on our astrophysics. 

For the most part, the average image created by these AI tools will, in and of itself, be pretty harmless — an extra tree in a backdrop, an alligator in a pizzeria, a silly costume interposed over a cat. In aggregate, the deluge upends how we treat the concept of the photo entirely, and that in itself has tremendous repercussions. Consider, for instance, that the last decade has seen extraordinary social upheaval in the United States sparked by grainy videos of police brutality. Where the authorities obscured or concealed reality, these videos told the truth. 

The persistent cry of “Fake News!” from Trumpist quarters presaged the beginning of this era of unmitigated bullshit, in which the impact of the truth will be deadened by the firehose of lies. The next Abu Ghraib will be buried under a sea of AI-generated war crime snuff. The next George Floyd will go unnoticed and unvindicated.

 
A real photo of an empty street.
A real photo of an empty street.
 
Edited with Google’s Magic Editor.
Edited with Google’s Magic Editor.
 
A real photo inside a New York City subway station.
A real photo inside a New York City subway station.
 
Edited with Google’s Magic Editor.
Edited with Google’s Magic Editor.

You can already see the shape of what’s to come. In the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, the defense claimed that Apple’s pinch-to-zoom manipulates photos, successfully persuading the judge to put the burden of proof on the prosecution to show that zoomed-in iPhone footage was not AI-manipulated. More recently, Donald Trump falsely claimed that a photo of a well-attended Kamala Harris rally was AI-generated — a claim that was only possible to make because people were able to believe it.

Even before AI, those of us in the media had been working in a defensive crouch, scrutinizing the details and provenance of every image, vetting for misleading context or photo manipulation. After all, every major news event comes with an onslaught of misinformation. But the incoming paradigm shift implicates something much more fundamental than the constant grind of suspicion that is sometimes called digital literacy.

Google understands perfectly well what it is doing to the photograph as an institution — in an interview with Wired, the group product manager for the Pixel camera described the editing tool as “help[ing] you create the moment that is the way you remember it, that’s authentic to your memory and to the greater context, but maybe isn’t authentic to a particular millisecond.” A photo, in this world, stops being a supplement to fallible human recollection, but instead a mirror of it. And as photographs become little more than hallucinations made manifest, the dumbest shit will devolve into a courtroom battle over the reputation of the witnesses and the existence of corroborating evidence.

This erosion of the social consensus began before the Pixel 9, and it will not be carried forth by the Pixel 9 alone. Still, the phone’s new AI capabilities are of note not just because the barrier to entry is so low, but because the safeguards we ran into were astonishingly anemic. The industry’s proposed AI image watermarking standard is mired in the usual standards slog, and Google’s own much-vaunted AI watermarking system was nowhere in sight when The Verge tried out the Pixel 9’s Magic Editor. The photos that are modified with the Reimagine tool simply have a line of removable metadata added to them. (The inherent fragility of this kind of metadata was supposed to be addressed by Google’s invention of the theoretically unremovable SynthID watermark.) Google told us that the outputs of Pixel Studio — a pure prompt generator that is closer to DALL-E — will be tagged with a SynthID watermark; ironically, we found the capabilities of the Magic Editor’s Reimagine tool, which modifies existing photos, were much more alarming.

 
Examples of famous photographs, digitally altered to demonstrate the implications of AI photography.
Image: Cath Virginia / The Verge, Neil Armstrong, Dorothea Lange, Joe Rosenthal
 

Google claims the Pixel 9 will not be an unfettered bullshit factory but is thin on substantive assurances. “We design our Generative AI tools to respect the intent of user prompts and that means they may create content that may offend when instructed by the user to do so,” Alex Moriconi, Google communications manager, told The Verge in an email. “That said, it’s not anything goes. We have clear policies and Terms of Service on what kinds of content we allow and don’t allow, and build guardrails to prevent abuse. At times, some prompts can challenge these tools’ guardrails and we remain committed to continually enhancing and refining the safeguards we have in place.” 

The policies are what you would expect — for example, you can’t use Google services to facilitate crimes or incite violence. Some attempted prompts returned the generic error message, “Magic Editor can’t complete this edit. Try typing something else.” (You can see throughout this story, however, several worrisome prompts that did work.) But when it comes down to it, standard-fare content moderation will not save the photograph from its incipient demise as a signal of truth.

We briefly lived in an era in which the photograph was a shortcut to reality, to knowing things, to having a smoking gun. It was an extraordinarily useful tool for navigating the world around us. We are now leaping headfirst into a future in which reality is simply less knowable. The lost Library of Alexandria could have fit onto the microSD card in my Nintendo Switch, and yet the cutting edge of technology is a handheld telephone that spews lies as a fun little bonus feature. 

We are fu**ed.

EVs Are Losing Up to 50 Percent of Their Value in One Year

https://www.wired.com/story/evs-are-losing-up-to-50-percent-of-their-value-in-one-year/

Some electric car brands are hemorrhaging value, with the worst losing as much as $600 a day. Learn which models to watch, why this is happening, and how you can game the market to your advantage.

Electric vehicle depreciation is something of a hot topic right now, and for good reason. On one hand, there are some fantastic deals to be had on the secondhand market, but on the other of course, there’s the thorny issue of some EVs losing half of their value in a single year.

Cars losing you a chunk of cash the instant they’re driven off the dealer lot is nothing new, especially at the pricier end of the market. And if you intend to keep your shiny new EV for a long time, then its worth after just a year or two matters far less. But what if you’ve experimented with your first EV then decided its range or your local charging infrastructure isn’t up to scratch, and want to sell within the first year? If that’s you, you’d better be prepared for a significant loss.

In a bid not to tar all EVs with the same brush, we’ve aimed to be balanced in our approach to discovering trade-in valuations. There’s plenty of color to be reported here, too—like the US dealer who actively warned our reporter against selling him their EV, or the story of a Mercedes EQE that lost more than $600 each day—but for now let us deliver the cold, hard numbers.

 

We are using two tools for this research. The first is an online appraisal system by Edmunds, the US automotive industry resource, and the second is Cap HPI, a vehicle valuation service for the UK auto trade. Let’s start with the UK electric trade-in landscape, then compare it with the US’s.

Main Offenders

Our first discovery was that, in the UK, various new electric cars lose 50 percent of their value in the first 12 months. Yes, you read that right—some EVs depreciate by 50 percent in a single year.

 

Now, this cannot be said of every EV, but Cap HPI data provided to WIRED by Parkers, a respected UK online car resource, revealed how six different EVs are all projected to halve in value after 12 months and 10,000 miles. These include the Audi e-Tron GT, which plummeted by 49 percent from £107,675 ($138,000) to £54,700 ($70,100), and the Ford Mustang Mach-E, which fell by 52 percent from £59,325 to £28,575. According to the data, a Polestar 2 would also lose 52 percent of its £52,895 sticker price in just 12 months.

The Tesla Model 3 fared only slightly better, falling by 45 percent in its first 12 months and 10,000 miles, while the Porsche Taycan fell by 49 percent and the Hyundai Ioniq 5 lost exactly half in the same period. These prices are all based on a midspec version of each car, since factors like battery size, trim level, and even paint color can have a marked effect on trade-in value.

Miley Face

But do you know what has less of an impact on depreciation? Mileage. If the long-range Polestar 2 mentioned above had covered 20,000 miles in its first year instead of 10,000—well above the annual UK average of just 7,000—its estimated trade-in value falls by only an extra £975, or a further 2 percent of its original price.

It’s a similar story with the Taycan. A 4S model with the long-range battery fell from £100,200 to £50,700 in its first 12 months and 10,000 miles. But if it had covered 20,000 miles in the same year it would have fallen by only another £2,650. Or, after two years and 20,000 miles it would be worth £44,175, according to the Cap HPI data. Age (beyond the first 12 months) has a similarly insignificant effect. A 10,000-mile Taycan is worth £50,700 after one year, or £46,600 after two years.

YouTuber The MacMaster has been charting the decrease in value of his own two-year-old Taycan, which dropped from a new price of £120,000 down to a Porsche dealership valuation of £44,650 in March earlier this year, leaving him in negative equity as he still owes approximately £64,700 on the EV. To make matters worse, the Porsche dealership giving the valuation supposedly refused to take his Taycan.

Remember, these are all estimated trade-in values. You would expect to earn more by selling the car privately, and you’d see the same car advertised for more by a dealer to ensure they make a profit.

Depreciation of the Tesla Model 3 also slows significantly after the first year. Cap HPI data states how a 2023 Model 3 Long Range would fall from £50,000 to £27,550 after one year and 10,000 miles, then by only an additional £2,500 after two years and 20,000 miles. Had the first 10,000 miles been spread over 18 months instead of 12, the price would fall by only an extra £825 in those six months.

The ability for Tesla, and other EV manufacturers, to update and upgrade a car’s software months or even years after it left the factory should help with long-term depreciation. We’ve seen how Tesla can push out major user interface upgrades, and even add entirely new features, over the air. Back in 2019, Jaguar pushed out a software update that claimed to increase the range of its I-Pace by up to 8 percent, and in 2022 the Polestar 2 gained Apple CarPlay—a feature that manufacturers used to charge handsomely for—via a free OTA update.

EV vs. ICE

As we said earlier, heavy day-one depreciation has long been par for the car ownership course. But how do year-old EVs stack up against similar internally-combusted cars? And more specifically, what happens when you compare two cars of a similar size and price from the same manufacturer? Cap HPI data has the answers and, again, the results are best viewed sitting down.

 

When comparing a gas-powered Audi Q7 55 with an electric Audi e-tron 55 SUV, both one year old and with 10,000 miles, the gas-powered car is worth 42 percent more after 12 months, despite costing less when new.

 

This is also true with lower-value cars. Cap HPI data showed how, after three years and 30,000 miles, a gas-powered Volkswagen Golf has a 46 percent price premium over an electric Golf.

We expected to find a similar difference between the gas-powered Porsche Panamera and electric Porsche Taycan. However, Cap HPI data suggests similar, midlevel 4S variants of each lose a similar amount of value over two years and 20,000 miles. The Panamera fell from £93,140 to £63,250, while the Taycan dropped from £84,030 to £53,000.

Auto America

Now for the US prices. According to Edmunds, a 2022 Porsche Taycan Turbo with 10,000 miles (well under the US annual average of 14,000) was worth about $106,000 at the time of writing in July 2024. That’s about $50,000 below what it would have cost new, not including optional extras, which pump up the retail price but tend not to affect resale value.

Historical data produced by Edmunds shows how the car’s value briefly rose from $129,000 to almost $131,000 between August and October 2023, but has fallen markedly since, tumbling by as much as $4,000 per month between November 2023 and February 2024 before dropping a further $10,000 over the next five months.

 

The valuation tool states: “This vehicle’s value is likely to decrease within the next month. Time is not on your side if you’ve been waiting to sell/trade for maximum value.” WIRED found just such a Taycan for sale in Los Angeles for $120,000, suggesting a dealer profit of roughly $13,000 before any negotiation.

Although initial depreciation isn’t as brutal in the US as the UK, there are still plenty of deals to be had. WIRED found a fully-loaded 2020 Taycan Turbo with just 5,000 miles on the clock for $92,000—a saving of $86,000 on the original purchase price. That’s the equivalent of more than $17 per mile in depreciation.

A 2023 Polestar 2 Long Range Single Motor with 10,000 miles on the clock has a trade-in value of $30,500, according to the Edmunds appraisal tool. This increases to $32,500 if sold privately, and the tool states an estimated dealer price of $35,000. The trade-in value represents a $20,000 or 40 percent drop from the car’s approximate retail price.

 

As with the Taycan, Edmunds says the Polestar 2’s value is trending down, but interestingly it increased in three of the previous eight months to July 2024. During our research WIRED saw how, in some cases, Edmunds would suggest holding onto the vehicle, since prices were on the up. As one EV specialist stressed to us, car values constantly change regardless of how they are powered.

Covid Consequences

The used-car market was turned on its head in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, as production slowed, key components such as microchips became scarce, and secondhand prices rose. According to iSeeCars, a US car search and research company, the effects are still being felt, and all cars held their value better in 2023 than in 2019. Prior to the pandemic, the average car would lose 50 percent of its value in five years, the company said, but by late 2023 this had fallen to 38.8 percent.

However, electric cars are performing less well, losing an average of 49.1 percent of their value in five years, according to analysis of more than 1 million 2018-model-year cars sold between 2022 and 2023.

A June 2024 study, also from iSeeCars, found used EV prices had fallen below gas-powered cars for the first time. Having analyzed more than 2.2 million used cars between May 2023 and May 2024, iSeeCars found the average used EV had fallen from $41,000 to $28,800, while the average gas car had fallen only slightly, from $32,700 to $31,400.

“It’s clear used-car shoppers will no longer pay a premium for electric vehicles, and in fact consider electric powertrains a detractor, making them less desirable—and less valuable—than traditional models,” said Karl Brauer, an analyst from iSeeCars.

Secondhand Supremacy

While undoubtedly a concern for anyone who plans to sell their nearly-new EV, the data is great news for secondhand buyers. From a £5,000 ($6,400) Renault Zoe and £12,000 ($15,000) Citroen e-C4 to a $25,000 Polestar 2 or a $30,000 Jaguar I-Pace, there are amazing deals to be had. And, what’s more, EV batteries are lasting longer than expected, according to Recurrent, whose community of 20,000 EV drivers states just 2.5 percent of battery packs have been replaced outside of manufacturer recalls.

It’s common knowledge among EV buyers that replacing a failed battery pack can be incredibly expensive. According to Recurrent, replacing an EV battery out of warranty costs between $6,500 and $20,000.

 

The fear of coughing up more cash than the car is worth to swap out a broken pack lingers in the mind of any driver whose EV is no longer protected by its manufacturer’s battery warranty, which often lasts for eight years or 100,000 miles. That said, battery failure is rare, and many aftermarket warranty providers now include EV battery cover, according to the RAC, a British breakdown company.

And the Loser Is …

Yet despite EV batteries lasting longer than expected, year-one depreciation horror stories remain. The most acute eample we’ve seen was of a Mercedes EQE run for six months by TopGear. An anonymous call to a Mercedes dealer revealed it had lost £40,000 ($51,000) in just three months and 4,500 miles. That’s close to 50 percent in 12 weeks, or the equivalent of about £480 ($615) per day.

 

Parkers data provided to WIRED told a less extreme story, but still revealed how a midrange Mercedes EQE 350 is estimated to plummet from a retail price of £89,290 to just £49,500 in its first 12 months. A gas-powered Mercedes E-Class also fell to just under £50,000 after one year, but it cost £20,000 less to start with.

Why Is This Happening?

Car depreciation is nothing new, especially at the luxury end of the market; anyone who has shelled out six figures for a German executive sedan will know what steep losses feel like.

Factor in the even higher costs of electric cars and their optional extras, plus the omnipresent concerns of EV range and charging infrastructure—then look at how quickly EVs are improving with every facelift, with new models gaining extra range, performance, and charging speed over their predecessors—and soft residuals are bound to occur.

Consider too how many of the EVs grabbing depreciation headlines right now are examples of first-generation technology. The Porsche Taycan, Audi e-tron, and Mercedes EQ families are all first attempts by legacy manufacturers caught napping by Tesla and, more recently, by a slew of low-cost, state-backed upstarts from China. They are the original, non-3G iPhones of their day and are now already being replaced by facelifted versions that go much farther and charge more quickly.

Discounts on new EVs also have an effect on the used market. Tesla is well known for its wildly fluctuating prices, but others have slashed prices recently, too. WIRED found official Porsche dealerships in the UK offering several brand-new (but previous-generation) Taycans with a £20,000 ($25,000) discount on their £110,000 list price. One example, a GTS Sport Turismo was being offered with a £33,500 discount.

With the new 2025 Taycan having only just arrived, discounts on last year’s tech are to be expected, and that’ll twist the knife even further on used prices, as well as on a secondhand market already filling up with three-, four- or five-year-old EVs that have just reached the end of their lease deal.

So, What Should You Do?

Despite rampant depreciation, EV sales are still on the up. They accounted for 18.5 percent of all new vehicle sales in the UK in July, according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, up 18.8 percent on the previous year, and are outselling plug-in hybrids 2 to 1. According to Edmunds, 6.8 percent of new vehicles sold in the US in May were fully electric, four times that of plug-in hybrids.

For buyers who can charge at home—and perhaps benefit from associated tax incentives, too—buying a new EV can still be a sound financial decision, providing you intend to keep it for the long term. Buying the car outright, or with a bank loan, and selling it within 12 months will likely leave you significantly out of pocket. But, as the data in both the US and UK shows, prices tend to stabilize through subsequent years.

 

The best advice? Buy secondhand, unless you can truly afford to not care otherwise, and enjoy your bargain EV—complete with its low running costs and minimal maintenance requirements—for the half-decade or more still on the battery warranty.

The Catch of Temu in Europe – July 2024

The Catch of Temu in Europe

Temu, the Chinese e-commerce platform, offers products at remarkably low prices, which raises concerns about its business practices. One significant issue is the undervaluation of parcels entering the EU. Estimates suggest that around 65% of parcels are deliberately undervalued in customs declarations to avoid tariffs, which undermines local businesses and creates an uneven playing field [1]. Additionally, Temu employs a direct-to-consumer model, sourcing products directly from manufacturers in China, allowing them to benefit from bulk discounts and reduced shipping costs [2].

Benefits for the Chinese State

The low pricing strategy of Temu serves multiple purposes for the Chinese state. Firstly, it helps expand China’s influence in global e-commerce by increasing the market share of Chinese companies abroad. This can lead to greater economic ties and dependency on Chinese goods. Secondly, by facilitating the export of low-cost products, Temu contributes to the Chinese economy by boosting manufacturing and logistics sectors. Lastly, the data collected from users can be leveraged for insights into consumer behavior, which may benefit Chinese businesses and potentially the state itself in terms of economic planning and strategy [1].

Overall, while Temu’s low prices attract consumers, they also raise significant regulatory and ethical concerns in Europe, prompting scrutiny from authorities regarding compliance with local laws and standards.

Deeper Analysis of Future Benefits for the Chinese State

Temu’s aggressive pricing strategy in Europe not only serves immediate commercial interests but also aligns with broader strategic goals of the Chinese state. Here are several potential future benefits for China:

  1. Economic Expansion and Market Penetration:
    By establishing a strong foothold in European markets through low prices, Temu can facilitate the expansion of Chinese goods into new territories. This not only increases sales volume but also enhances brand recognition and loyalty among European consumers. As more consumers become accustomed to purchasing Chinese products, it could lead to a long-term shift in buying habits, favoring Chinese brands over local alternatives.
  2. Strengthening Supply Chains:
    Temu’s model emphasizes direct sourcing from manufacturers, which can help streamline supply chains. This efficiency can be replicated across various sectors, allowing China to become a dominant player in global supply chains. By controlling more aspects of production and distribution, China can mitigate risks associated with international trade tensions and disruptions, ensuring a more resilient economic structure.
  3. Data Collection and Consumer Insights:
    The platform’s operations will generate vast amounts of consumer data, which can be analyzed to gain insights into European consumer behavior. This data can inform not only marketing strategies but also product development, allowing Chinese manufacturers to tailor their offerings to meet the specific preferences of European consumers. Such insights can enhance competitiveness and drive innovation within Chinese industries.
  4. Geopolitical Influence:
    By increasing its economic presence in Europe, China can leverage its commercial relationships to enhance its geopolitical influence. Economic ties often translate into political goodwill, which can be beneficial in negotiations on various fronts, including trade agreements and international policies. This strategy aligns with China’s broader goal of expanding its influence globally, as outlined in its recent political resolutions emphasizing the importance of state power and common prosperity.
  5. Promotion of Technological Advancements:
    As Temu grows, it may invest in technology to improve logistics, customer service, and user experience. This could lead to advancements in e-commerce technologies that can be exported back to China, enhancing domestic capabilities. Moreover, the emphasis on technology aligns with China’s ambitions to become a leader in areas such as artificial intelligence and data analytics, as highlighted in its national strategies.
  6. Cultural Exchange and Soft Power:
    By making Chinese products more accessible and appealing to European consumers, Temu can facilitate a form of cultural exchange. As consumers engage with Chinese brands, they may also become more receptive to Chinese culture and values, enhancing China’s soft power. This cultural integration can help counter negative perceptions and foster a more favorable view of China in the long term.

In conclusion, Temu’s low pricing strategy is not merely a tactic for market entry; it is a multifaceted approach that can yield significant long-term benefits for the Chinese state. By enhancing economic ties, gathering valuable consumer data, and promoting technological advancements, China positions itself to strengthen its global influence and economic resilience in an increasingly competitive landscape.

A hack nearly gained access to millions of computers. Here’s what we should learn from this.

The internet is far less secure than it ought to be.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/24127433/linux-hack-cyberattack-computer-security-internet-open-source-software

One of the most fascinating and frightening incidents in computer security history started in 2022 with a few pushy emails to the mailing list for a small, one-person open source project.

A user had submitted a complex bit of code that was now waiting for the maintainer to review. But a different user with the name Jigar Kumar felt that this wasn’t happening fast enough. “Patches spend years on this mailing list,” he complained. “5.2.0 release was 7 years ago. There is no reason to think anything is coming soon.”.

A month later, he followed up: “Over 1 month and no closer to being merged. Not a suprise.” [sic]

And a month after that: “Is there any progress on this?” Kumar stuck around for about four months complaining about the pace of updates and then was never heard from again.

A few weeks ago, the world learned a shocking twist. “Jigar Kumar” does not seem to exist at all. There are no records of any person by that name outside the pushy emails. He — along with a number of other accounts — was apparently part of a campaign to compromise nearly every Linux-running computer in the world. (Linux is an open source operating system — as opposed to closed systems from companies like Apple — that runs on tens of millions of devices.)

That campaign, experts believe, was likely the work of a well-resourced state actor, one who almost pulled off an attack that could have made it possible for the attackers to remotely access millions of computers, effectively logging in as anyone they wanted. The security ramifications would have been huge.

How to (almost) hack everything

Here’s how events played out: In 2005, software engineer Lasse Collin wrote a series of tools for better-compressing files (it’s similar to the process behind a .zip file). He made those tools available for free online, and lots of larger projects incorporated Collin’s work, which was eventually called XZ Utils.

Collin’s tool became one part of the vast open source ecosystem that powers much of the modern internet. We might think that something as central to modern life as the internet has a professionally maintained structure, but as an XKCD comic published well before the hack shows, it’s closer to the truth that “all modern digital infrastructure” rests on “a project some random person in Nebraska has been thanklessly maintaining since 2003.” XZ Utils was one such project — and yes, you should find it a little worrying that there are many of them.

Starting in 2021, a user going by the name “Jia Tan” — he, too, doesn’t seem to exist anywhere else — started making contributions to the XZ project. At first, they were harmless small fixes. Then, Tan started submitting larger additions.

The way an open source project like this one works is that a maintainer — Collin, in this case — has to read and approve each such submission. Effectively, Tan was overloading Collin with homework.

That’s when “Kumar” showed up to complain that Collin was taking too long. Another account that doesn’t seem to exist joined the chorus. They argued that Collin clearly wasn’t up to the task of maintaining his project alone and pushed for him to add “Jia Tan” as another maintainer.

“It seems likely that they were fakes created to push Lasse to give Jia more control,” engineer Russ Cox writes in a detailed timeline of the incident. “It worked. Over the next few months, Jia started replying to threads on xz-devel authoritatively about the upcoming 5.4.0 release.” He’d become a trusted “maintainer” who could add code to XZ Utils himself.

Why does any of this matter? Because one of the many, many open source tools that happened to incorporate XZ Utils was OpenSSH, which is used to remotely access computers and is used by millions of servers around the world.

“Tan” carefully added to XZ Utils some well-disguised code that compromised OpenSSH, effectively allowing the creators to log in remotely to any computer running OpenSSH. The files containing the (heavily disguised) code were accepted as part of the larger project.

Fortunately, almost all of the millions of potentially targeted computers were not affected because it’s routine for such a new update to first be released as “unstable” (meaning expected to have some bugs), and most administrators wait for a subsequent “stable” release.

Before that happened, “Jia Tan”’s work got caught. Andres Freund, a software engineer at Microsoft, was off work and doing some testing on a computer that had the “unstable” new release. Under most circumstances, the hack ran seamlessly, but under the circumstances he was testing in, it slowed down SSH performance. He dug deeper and quickly unraveled the whole scheme.

Which means that, thanks to one Microsoft engineer doing some work off-hours, your computer remains secure — at least, as far as I know.

Can we do better than getting lucky?

There was nothing inevitable about this hack getting discovered. Lots of other people were running the unstable new build without noticing any problems. What made Freund suspicious in the first place wasn’t the suspicious code but a bug that had been accidentally introduced by “Jia Tan.”

If the “Jia Tan” team had avoided that error, they might well have pulled this off. Catching the suspicious code “really required a lot of coincidences,” Freund said later on Mastadon.

No one wants to believe that modern computer security essentially relies on “a lot of coincidences.” We’d much rather have reliable processes. But I hope this narrative makes it clear just how hard it is to reliably defend the jury-rigged internet we have against an attack like this.

The people behind “Jia Tan” spent more than two years building the access they needed for this attack. Some of the specifics have to do with the dynamics of open source software, where decades-old projects are often in a quiet maintenance stage from which, as we saw, an aggressive actor can seize control. But with the same resources and dedication that were behind “Jia Tan,” you could get hired at a software company to pull off the same thing on closed-source software too.

Most of all, it’s very hard to guess whether this attempted attack was unprecedented or unusual simply in that it got caught. Which means we have no idea whether there are other land mines lurking in the bowels of the internet.

Personally, as someone who doesn’t work in computer security, the main thing I took away from this was less a specific policy prescription and more a sense of awe and appreciation. Our world runs on unsung contributions by engineers like Collin and Freund, people who spend their free time building stuff, testing stuff, and sharing what they build for the benefit of everyone. This is inconvenient for security, but it’s also really cool.

I wasn’t able to reach Collin for comment. (His website said: “To media and reporters: I won’t reply for now because first I need to understand the situation thoroughly enough. It’s enough to reload this page once per 48 hours to check if this message has changed.”) But I hope he ultimately comes to think that being personally targeted by this fairly extraordinary effort to make his work on XZ utils feel inadequate is, in fact, a remarkable vindication of its importance.

Motivations behind XZ Utils backdoor may extend beyond rogue maintainer

Security researchers are raising questions about whether the actor behind an attempted supply chain attack was engaged in a random, solo endeavor.

Source: https://www.cybersecuritydive.com/news/motivations-xz-utils-backdoor/712080/

The attempted supply chain attack against XZ Utils is raising troubling questions about the motivations of the suspected threat actor behind the incident as well as the overall security of the larger open source ecosystem. 

A Microsoft engineer accidentally found obfuscated malicious code installed in the xz library, which could lead to a major supply chain compromise. 

Security researchers and other industry experts are pointing to the suspicion that a longtime contributor is behind what is now considered a multiyear effort to establish themselves as an insider, leading up to the attempted supply chain attack. 

XZ Utils, a data compression software utility found in most Linux distributions, has long been considered a widely trusted project, according to researchers. 

“The most unique and unsettling aspect of this attack is the significant effort and investment made by the attacker in gradually establishing themselves over several years as a credible open-source contributor and carefully advancing their position until they gained trust and the opportunity to maintain and add malicious code into a widely used package,” Jonathan Sar Shalom, director of threat research at JFrog, said via email. 

Researchers point to a Github account @JiaT75, which has since been suspended, as the suspected original source of the backdoor. 

GitHub confirmed that it “suspended user accounts and removed the content” in keeping with its acceptable use policies, however after an investigation the account belonging to @Larhzu was reinstated. 

The @Larhzu account is linked to Lassie Collin, the original and legitimate maintainer of the site. 

What followed was a multiyear effort to gain trust within the community, while at the same time allegedly testing the waters by making subtle changes that failed to raise any immediate alarm bells. 

“Now when we look back at the tale of the tape, what we see is Jia kind of surreptitiously inserted all these little changes over time,” Omkhar Arasaratnam, general manager at the Open Source Security Foundation, said in an interview. “None of them catastrophic, none of them very flashy. But you know, just to see if people were watching.”

Maintainers in focus

The open source community has seen previous cases of maintainers throwing tantrums or using the community as a platform to protest larger issues. But the patience and sophistication of this attack is raising questions for an increasing pool of experts about whether nation-state support is a factor.

“Our analysis suggests that the sophistication and operational security observed in this incident, including the strategic use of email addresses and IP addresses, point to a highly trained and sophisticated adversary,” said Brian Fox, co-founder and CTO of Sonatype, a supply chain management platform. “The lack of tangible evidence of the threat actor’s existence beyond their precise and limited engagements further distinguishes this from the actions of a rogue open source contributor.”

Red Hat on Friday warned that malicious code was present in the latest versions of xz tools and libraries. The vulnerability was assigned CVE-2024-3094 with a CVSS score of 10. 

Users were urged to immediately stop using Fedora Rawhide instances for work or personal use and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency warned developers and users to downgrade to an uncompromised version. 

Andres Freund, a principal software engineer at Microsoft, stumbled upon some anomalous activity last week and publicly disclosed the incident. Freund observed sshd processes using an unusual amount of CPU, however noted that the wrong usernames had been applied. 

“Recalled that I had seen an odd valgrind complaint in automated testing of postgres, a few weeks earlier after package updates,” Freund said in a post on Mastodon

Microsoft confirmed his role in discovering the attack and released guidance on how to respond, with a list of impacted Linux distributions. 

Jake Williams, a faculty member at IANS Research, said the incident highlights the need for defense in depth, including the need to have properly staffed vulnerability intelligence teams and proper investments in tooling.

“Organizations with strict firewall rules preventing access to their SSH servers limited exploitation opportunities, even for vulnerable deployments,” Williams said via email. “Some [cloud security posture management systems] had scans for vulnerable instances released the same day this was detected.”

Who Gets to Build the Next DeLorean?

Decades after her dad’s iconic sports car time-traveled into movie history, Kat DeLorean wants to build a modern remake. There’s just one problem: Someone else owns the trademark on her name.

Video: Getty Images; Ángel Guerra

In the fall of 2020, bored and restless in Covid-restricted Spain, Ángel Guerra doodled a dream car. The automotive designer, then 38, wanted to make a tribute to his first four-wheeled love: the time-traveling DeLorean DMC-12 that rolled out of a cloud of steam in Back to the Future. The sketch that took shape on Guerra’s computer had all the iconic elements of the 1980s original—gull-wing doors, stainless-steel cladding, louver blades over the rear window, a rakish black side stripe—plus a few modern touches. Guerra smoothed out the folded-paper angles, widened the body, stretched the wheel arches to accommodate bigger rims and tires. After two weeks, he decided he liked this new DeLorean enough to stick it on Instagram.

The post blew up. Gearheads raved about the design. The music producer Swizz Beatz DM’d Guerra to ask how much it would cost to build. Guerra started to think that maybe his sketch should become a real car. He reached out to a Texas firm called DeLorean Motor Company, which years earlier had acquired the original DeLorean trademarks, but was gently rebuffed. The design seemed destined to live in cyberspace forever. Then, by some algorithmic magic, a different kind of DeLorean showed up on Guerra’s Instagram feed in the spring of 2022—a human DeLorean by the name of Kat. Her posts showcased her love for her puppy, hair dye, and above all her late father, John Z. DeLorean. Although the general public often remembers him as a high-flying CEO with fabulous hair and a surgically augmented chin who went down in a federal sting operation, Guerra chiefly thought of him as a brilliant engineer. He sent Kat a message with some kind words about her dad and a link to the design. Kat saw it and got stoked.

Kat DeLorean inside of the original DeLorean car

Kat DeLorean is a frequently stoked type of person. At the time, she had recently dyed her long hair in rainbow colors to, in her words, “create the rainbows in my heart on my head.” Yet for much of her life, her relationship to the DeLorean name had been an unhappy one. When people asked why she didn’t own a DMC-12, she would reply: “If there was an iconic representation of your entire life falling apart, would you park it in your driveway?” She would say, only half-jokingly, that the initials stood for “Destroy My Childhood.” A fortysomething cybersecurity professional, Kat lived in a ramshackle farmhouse in New Hampshire with her husband and a few kids. But when Guerra’s note arrived, she was undergoing a pandemic- and work-stress-induced reevaluation of her life’s purpose. She was dreaming up ways to reclaim her father’s legacy. She wanted to launch an engineering education program in his name.

One thing she insisted she didn’t want was to start a car company. It was a car company, after all, that had ruined her father. But then something happened that changed her mind. In April 2022, the Texas company that had given Guerra the cold shoulder announced it would soon reveal a new DeLorean. Kat kept her feelings about this to herself only briefly. First she drew attention to Guerra’s design, posting it on Instagram. (“A timeless classic given the treatment it deserves!”) Two days later, she made her feelings explicit: “@deloreanmotorcompany Is not John DeLorean’s Company,” she wrote. “He despised you.” Details about the new Texas DeLorean emerged a few days after that: Called the Alpha5, it would have four seats instead of two, would reportedly be built mostly from aluminum rather than stainless steel, and would be available in red. Like many DeLorean purists, Kat hated it.

DeLorean Motor Company Alpha5

As people kept messaging her about the pretty design they’d seen on her Instagram feed—some even offered to help build it—a new plan took shape. Kind of a crazy one. She started to think: Why not build one car and film the process of building it for the engineering students? Eventually that turned into: Why not make several and sell them to fund the engineering program? But then why not …

As Kat’s ideas tend to do, this one snowballed: an engineering program in every state, funded by cars; her mind could easily leap from there to notions of rebuilding the industrial Midwest and rejiggering American work culture in general, the ultimate realization of her oft-stated belief that “everyone should have the same opportunity to live their dream.” John DeLorean had plotted to return to the car market until the day he died. Now, she thought, shouldn’t she give the nerds what they wanted? Fine, she had zero experience running a car company, but she could find people for that, and anyway she’d spent, by her estimate, thousands of hours talking engine design with her dad. She described herself as having “gasoline in her veins.”

Which didn’t really change the fundamentals, including how difficult and outrageously expensive it is to bring a car to market, not to mention the itchy point that the “DeLorean” branding technically belonged to someone else. Never mind all that. Kat was a DeLorean—a name, for good or ill, associated with wild ambition.

John DeLorean

John Z. DeLorean was a suave, swashbuckling General Motors executive who dated young models and palled around with celebrities. He became automotive royalty in the mid-1960s, when he had the idea of sticking a bigger engine into an “old lady” car, thereby reinventing the Pontiac brand and launching the “muscle car” era. But DeLorean felt stifled at GM, and he dreamed of building what he called an “ethical car”: safe, reliable, affordable, and environmentally friendly. He left the company in 1973, the same year he married the supermodel Cristina Ferrare, his third wife. Two years later, he founded the DeLorean Motor Company. And two years after that, DeLorean and Ferrare, who shared an adopted 6-year-old son named Zach, welcomed their baby daughter Kathryn.

The original DeLorean Motor Company’s brief and turbulent history spanned Kat’s early childhood. She has few direct memories of the time her dad spent assembling a team of mavericks and dreamers enticed by the idea of building a whole car company from a blank sheet of paper. With a generous investment from the British government, DeLorean opted to put his factory outside Belfast, Northern Ireland. This was during the Troubles, when the idea of Catholics and Protestants working side-by-side seemed impossible. But, for a time, it worked. “There was a bog, then there was a factory, then there were jobs,” William Haddad, an executive for the company, recalled in a 1985 interview. “It was really exciting as hell.”

It also happened to be an era of inflation and soaring gas prices. An inexperienced workforce and frequent bomb scares further complicated production. Timelines slipped, production costs ballooned, demand collapsed, debt accrued. The company had to recall a couple thousand cars. DeLorean’s original vision, described by one classic car aficionado as a $12,000 “Corvette killer” featuring “unprecedented safety and efficiency attributes,” morphed into a $25,000 vehicle with few of those qualities. Then, in October 1982, with little Kat approaching her fifth birthday, came the world-famous denouement: John DeLorean caught on tape with an FBI informant in a room with nearly 60 pounds of cocaine. The informant had pitched the sale of the drugs as a way to raise enough money to save DeLorean’s struggling company.

Kat was 6 when her dad’s high-profile trial ended in an acquittal in the late summer of 1984, on the grounds of entrapment. Her dad’s company and career were destroyed; as he ruefully asked reporters outside the courtroom: “I don’t know, would you buy a used car from me?” Also destroyed was a kind of childhood idyll for Kat, who went very suddenly from living in an intact, wealthy, and famous New York City family—complete with an apartment on Fifth Avenue worth $30 million in today’s dollars—to being a child of bicoastal divorce. Within the year, her mother was remarried to a television executive, and Kat was mostly living in California. She was allowed 10 minutes a day on the phone with her dad back East, which she extended by enlisting his help with math homework.

Back to the Future came out a year after John’s acquittal. Although a studio official had pushed the filmmakers to use a Mustang for their time machine—Ford was willing to pay handsomely for the product placement—the screenwriter reportedly replied, “Doc Brown doesn’t drive a fucking Mustang.” The selection of the DMC-12 for the honor (cue Marty McFly: “Are you telling me that you built a time machine out of a DeLorean?”) prompted John to write a thank-you letter to the director and screenwriter, who he said had “all but immortalized” his car. Unlike Guerra, Kat has no recollection of seeing Back to the Future for the first time. “It just felt like the movies were always there, always a part of my life,” she told me.

As a teenager, Kat was allowed to choose which parent to live with, and she picked her dad. She spent her high school years on a farm in Bedminster, New Jersey. (The exact site that would later become the Trump National Golf Club Bedminster.) She rode dirt bikes around the vast property, did musical theater in private school, and sometimes endured cocaine jokes from her peers. Her best friend at the time taught Kat how to fix her own computer and inspired her habit of tinkering with the machines.

She modeled for a few years after high school but stayed geeky, spending her nights on hacking competitions. Then, in her early twenties, pregnant with her first child from a brief first marriage, she decided she didn’t want to raise her son in the world she’d known as the daughter of a supermodel. (These days she refers to “that world” of fabulous wealth from an almost mystified remove, as if the visit on the Schwarzeneggers’ private jet and the pajama party with Kourtney Kardashian had happened to someone else.) Instead, she took an IT internship at Countrywide Financial—later to be acquired by Bank of America—and started working her way up. She met a systems engineer named Jason Seymour at a company Christmas party and married him a little more than a month later at a drive-thru wedding chapel in Las Vegas. (Jason had wanted an Elvis impersonator to officiate, but he wasn’t available.) The following year, in 2005, her father died. John DeLorean had spent some of his final months attempting to trademark the name “DeLorean Automobile Company” through a company called Ephesians 6:12, which he’d set up with Kat and Zach as co-owners. (The name is a reference to a biblical verse about struggling “against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”) But he passed away before application could be approved, so it was officially listed as “abandoned.”

John’s death devastated Kat. Although she remained fiercely proud of her father and kept attending car shows in her capacity as a DeLorean, she went professionally by her married name, Seymour, and maintained a separation between those two identities. But in the 2020s, as the DMC-12’s 40th anniversary approached, John’s name was popping up in documentaries and movies again, and Kat was not happy with some of the portrayals depicting him as a kind of narcissistic hustler. She became determined to get the positive story of John DeLorean out.

As a big “trust the universe” person, she believed it was meaningful that an actual angel (Guerra) had shown up in her life with a design. So through the summer and fall of 2022, Kat’s ambitions took the shape of a car. The model would be called JZD, her dad’s initials, and the company would pour the sales revenue into more education programs—expanding into underserved areas in the industrial Midwest where her dad made his career. She resisted even calling the venture a “car company”; she much preferred to say it was a “dream-empowerment company fueled by automobiles,” in the same way Girl Scouts is a youth-empowerment organization fueled in part by cookies.

Whatever the company was, the New Hampshire farmhouse turned into its de facto headquarters. Kat and Jason took video meetings, recruited talent, and entertained wild ideas about what a new car “with DeLorean DNA” could do. (She joked: “Leave it to me to start a car company right when nepo babies are a thing.”) Could they source sustainable stainless steel for their first car by melting down old appliances? Could they use recycled computer chips to control it? Could they make virtual-reality manufacturing labs for their students, to assemble first a virtual car and then a real one? This was going to be a brand-new kind of car company—among the first ever founded by a woman and likely the first intended to be a not-for-profit.

With these big visions came big promises. In August 2022, Kat posted a screenshot from John’s final automotive business plan, which promised to “shake the automotive world” with a car that would kick off “an affair with man and machine at a price point that will be affordable.” She expressed an intent to follow these wishes with her own car company. The company’s name: DeLorean Next Generation.

DeLorean Next Generation JZD

The news spread, first with an item on Fox News and then in outlets all over the world. Jason was so high on enthusiasm for the new company, and pride in his wife’s ambition, that he dashed off a public promise on the DNG Motors Instagram account. “UNVEILED SEPTEMBER 13, 2023,” read an image of white text on a black background, with Jason’s caption: “DeLorean is back in the Motor City.” He’d just committed them to building a car for the Detroit Auto Show. When Kat saw the post, she flipped out.

Soon afterward, the DeLorean Motor Company in Texas sent Kat a cease-and-desist, demanding she stop using the DeLorean name for her planned car. She and Jason had their lawyer send a reply asserting their rights and expressing their willingness to litigate, and kept going.

DeLorean Motor Company sits in a squat building off a tangle of highways in suburban Houston—you drive past some shabby lots and fields, and then the 1980s spring up around a curve in the road, where a retro-looking DMC logo looms over a row of DMC-12s in the parking lot. You might even spot a JIGAWAT license plate there. Inside the garage/warehouse is an array of disembodied gull-wing doors that evoke a flock of injured birds. Old covers of Deloreans magazines stare out from frames in the showroom.

This is the realm of Stephen Wynne, a Liverpool-born mechanic who has devoted his life to DeLorean the car—to the point of driving his son Cameron to kindergarten in DMC-12s that appeared in Back to the Future. Wynne is less impressed with DeLorean the man, however. “I have more respect for the team that he put together,” he says. “All you hear about is John DeLorean and not the team, and that, to me, is not right.” John was, Wynne said, ahead of his time as an engineer. But: “He made the company, and he also, you know, killed the company in the end.”

It was Wynne who picked up the pieces, effectively securing a monopoly on the small, strange market for DeLorean parts. This was not a decision about preserving someone else’s legacy; it was about securing his own future. “It felt to me like, to control my destiny, going forward, it was to have control of the parts,” he told me in the shop as tools clanked against cars behind us. “If someone was going to get it, I wanted it to be me.” He founded the new DeLorean Motor Company in 1995.

Wynne considers the original buyers of the 1980s DeLorean to have been “entrepreneurial, outside-of-the-box-thinking type people,” with something a “little bit different about them”—less interested in owning a really fast sports car than a piece of cultural history. (The original DeLorean did 0 to 60 in about 10.5 seconds, something my used Hyundai can easily beat.) “We believe that there’s much more wealth in that market these days,” Wynne says.

Over the years, Wynne and team made various plans to serve this market of “modern nerds” with new cars built mostly from original parts. But federal regulators were slow to relax the rules that said these historic replicas had to meet current safety standards, so the revival of the DMC-12—with its lack of airbags, a third brake light, and antilock brakes, for instance—never happened. Still, the company did a thriving business in parts sales and car service. It also made a good buck from the DeLorean brand, which it alternately licensed for apparel, video games, and the like, or zealously protected via cease-and-desists and lawsuits.

Finally, Wynne got to talking with a Tesla alum named Joost de Vries, who’d been involved in previous efforts to electrify the DeLorean. The DeLorean brand, de Vries argued, was so universally beloved, and startup costs for electric vehicles were so much less than even 15 years earlier, that they could partner up to build a brand-new electric DeLorean. Together they formed a San Antonio–based spinoff of DeLorean Motor Company, called DeLorean Motors Reimagined, with the Wynne family as the largest shareholders and de Vries as CEO. (Wynne’s son, the former time-traveling kindergartner, is now the companies’ chief brand officer.) De Vries would lead the development of the car, and funding would come largely from private investors. The company incorporated in Texas in November 2021 (smack in between when Guerra posted his design in late 2020 and when Kat got involved in mid-2022). Wynne and de Vries hired Italdesign, the same firm that had drafted the original DMC-12, to design the Alpha5.

DeLorean Motors Reimagined hoped to build 88 cars to start (88 mph being the speed at which Doc Brown’s DeLorean traveled through time), then about 9,500. The car would be “low volume, high-end, very exclusive, weird, wild technology,” according to de Vries, an imposing, bald Dutchman with the hard-charging swagger of the Silicon Valley executive he once was. “DeLorean was always attainable luxury. My price tag is not going to be attainable luxury.”

Sketches of the DeLorean Motor Company Alpha5

DeLorean Motors Reimagined went from founding to concept car within nine months. The company even bought a 15-second Super Bowl spot in February 2022, cryptically teasing the new car and setting off buzz in the automotive press. The Alpha5 premiered at the Pebble Beach auto show that August. It was only a concept, meant to show off design and technology, not a finished product that could operate on the road. But it was a real object that existed in the real world and was promised to be on sale to the public in 2024.

By that point, the JZD, Kat’s model, was still in the design phase, living for the most part in computers.

The steps to getting a new car from invention to production are standard, whether you’re General Motors, DeLorean Motors Reimagined, or DeLorean Next Generation. On average, the process takes about five years. You have to design and engineer the car; find suppliers for thousands of parts, from wheels to seats to instrument panels; get tools custom-made to stamp out your body panels; and find or build the facility and the workforce to put these things together. This is all before you can actually mass-produce something that resembles the original design.

So it is not at all unusual for a concept car to appear at an auto show and then for nothing resembling it to ever materialize on actual roads. A paint facility alone can set a company back hundreds of millions of dollars. This is in fact why the original DeLorean was stainless steel: John DeLorean couldn’t afford a paint plant. (His marketing genius, Kat says, was that “he made you all think it was intentional.”) John Z. DeLorean had his first prototype by 1976, within about a year of founding his company; the first DMC-12s went on sale in 1981.

Theoretically, then, it was possible to build a one-off JZD concept car—if not a production-ready prototype—in the 11 months Kat and Jason had between founding the company and the 2023 Detroit Auto Show. Kat projected confidence onstage at a Miami auto show in January 2023, while a digital rendering of the JZD zoomed along mountain roads on a screen behind her. But shortly after that appearance, she started getting stressed out about the timeline. Potential manufacturing partners were telling her it was wildly unrealistic. Even getting the doors to open and close the same way every time was its own feat of engineering, and Kat couldn’t tell them whether the car would run on gas, batteries, or both. (She wanted students to make that decision as part of an engineering challenge she had yet to set up.) Kat began to have visions of living the same arc of ambition and collapse that befell her father.

DeLorean Next Generation JZD

This was her preoccupation when she showed up on a warm March 2023 morning in Augusta, Georgia, as a special guest at a “DeLorean Day” event. Well before 8 am, she was stalking around the parking lot in a rainbow plaid skirt and a NERD (Northeast Region DeLorean Club) hoodie with Jason in tow, enthusing to fans about their cars, talking not just with her hands but sometimes with her feet. She literally jumped up and down after a green ’66 Pontiac GTO Tri-Power pulled onto the lot. She inspected the carburetors under the hood and declared that this model, in midnight blue, was her “ultimate dream car,” shout-laughing when the owner confessed to the absurd gas mileage—about 8 miles per gallon in the city—then apologizing, through laughter, for laughing.

By 8 am she was posted up behind a mic to discuss her father and her own plans. “My father was my best friend in the whole world,” she said. “In the summers, I sat and played gin rummy with him on the couch, to the point where there was a worn spot in each place where we sat—a big one and a little one.” She got teary-eyed during the Q&A period when a kid of maybe 10 told her of his plans to be a robotics engineer. He hoped, he said, to make cars that could turn into robots that could “help people and protect humans from like, anything bad that can happen.” She would later tell me that this moment and others like it in Augusta added up to a turning point for her—that “all of a sudden it was like, OK, whatever I have to do, whatever pain I have to go through, if it means building a car company, then I’m going to do it, because I want that moment every day for the rest of my life.”

And when a well-meaning questioner brought up the Alpha5, she spoke carefully through a tight smile. “That is being made by the company DeLorean Motor Company Texas, and they’re not affiliated at all with the family or the original car. And I think that’s about all I’m going to say about that one.”

When I asked Joost de Vries about Kat DeLorean’s efforts a few weeks later, he was less diplomatic. “There’s just something loose in her head,” he said. “Kat’s thing is illegal. And she’s being shut down.” He said in a later conversation that she would be “hammered with lawsuits” as soon as her car appeared at the Detroit Auto Show.

De Vries and I were in a bland tech office park in San Antonio, where he sat in his glass-walled office. He was well aware that the Alpha5 design was polarizing in the DeLorean community. (Some DeLorean forum users had groused that the model just looked like another Tesla with gull-wing doors; one called the whole effort “little more than slapping the name of a beloved car on an unrelated vehicle.”) He also knew the discouraging fate that had befallen many an EV brand before his. Other high-end EV companies such as Lucid, Rivian, and the failed-then-resurrected Fisker had burned through billions and missed production targets, and even market leader Tesla was then struggling to bring its hyped (stainless-steel) Cybertruck to market. DeLorean Motors Reimagined had hit supply-chain snags and cut its planned production run by more than half, to 4,000 cars. But de Vries had something most EV companies didn’t: a brand that much of the world already knew. “The only thing I need to do is put good product into an existing brand,” he said.

The question, of course, is whose brand “DeLorean” really is. Both companies insist on their own rights to use it. And each calls the other’s claim transparently illegitimate.

Stephen Wynne registered and enforced trademarks on “DeLorean” and “DeLorean Motor Company” in the 2000s, as John’s trademarks were canceled or abandoned, and he has renewed and protected them ever since. Furthermore, in a 2015 settlement with John DeLorean’s estate, a woman named Sally Baldwin DeLorean, acting as John’s widow, acknowledged “the worldwide rights of DMC to use, register, and enforce any of the DeLorean Marks for any and all goods and services” related to cars, clothes, and “promotional items”—for which DMC paid her an undisclosed sum. So, yes, it is Kat’s name. But it’s someone else’s trademark, and it’s one she has never tried publicly to contest until now.

Kat’s argument includes that seemingly simple but possibly irrelevant part—it’s her name—but also a convoluted part. She doesn’t believe John actually ever married Sally. Nor do several people I spoke to from John’s orbit at the time, including his son, Zach, none of whom can recall John mentioning a marriage to her. Kat told me she searched for and never found a marriage certificate. Nor did a private detective she hired. (Sally Baldwin DeLorean’s lawyer did not return requests for comment, and attempts to reach her directly via listed phone numbers were unsuccessful.) John’s will names his son as executor. Zach, balking at the prospect of attorney’s fees, never actually filed the will. Kat contends that Sally’s settlement with the DeLorean Motor Company is illegitimate, as she was never in a position to act on behalf of the estate in the first place. What should have happened, Kat thinks, is for the US Patent and Trademark Office to reach out to her and Zach, as co-owners of Ephesians 6:12, about her dad’s pending application.

Then there is the question of infringement, a key standard for which is “likelihood of causing confusion.” Kat’s DeLorean Next Generation is not using the exact same set of words as Wynne’s DeLorean Motor Company, but it is fair to say, based on the Alpha5 question that Kat got in Augusta—and on a well-meaning Reddit commenter who’d tried to buy Kat’s car only to accidentally reserve an Alpha5—that some members of the public are indeed confused. Yet each side accuses the other of doing the confusing.

Both sides have told me a lawsuit is inevitable. No jury decision is guaranteed—determining “likelihood of confusion” itself involves a (confusing!) 13-factor test. But New Jersey trademark attorney Richard Catalina, who is not affiliated with either party, told me that the “stronger legal arguments” belong to the Texas company. “Trademark rights only accrue with use. If you’re not using the mark, you can lose your rights to it,” Catalina said.

“I just learned the. Craziest. Thing,” Kat told me on the phone last summer. She’d recently come across the 1985 interview with William Haddad, the executive who’d found it “exciting as hell” how much good DeLorean Motor Company had achieved in Northern Ireland. Haddad had been crushed by the company’s collapse, and now, in 1985, called it a “scam” and John himself a thief. (John had always denied this and was never convicted of financial misdeeds.) But Haddad was wistful about John’s squandered ambition to locate factories where they could do the most social good. “If only he had done it … Can you imagine it?” Haddad mused in the interview.

Kat knew the Northern Ireland story well already, but Haddad had put John’s goal and his downfall in terms that suddenly clicked for her. She and Jason had been so caught up in the crazy timeline they’d set for themselves that they were risking following precisely her dad’s path—letting one car distract them from their bigger goal of supporting young engineers. “If my car company fails, that’s OK,” Kat said. Her goal had always been to create an education program for students who have “dreams that have been robbed from them,” she said. “And if I can’t do that with this car, then it’s not worth the car.”

One thing was obvious: They were moving too fast. Kat decided she would not unveil the prototype of the JZD until her father’s 100th birthday, in 2025. In the meantime, they would have students build a clay model for Detroit—not a full-size one, as automakers typically do during development, but one about the size of a shoebox—and debut it not at the Auto Show but concurrently at the Detroit Historical Society. Later on, they’d enlist students to help build a prototype of their Model JZD on top of a Corvette C8 platform, picking participants through an online contest in which students described their dreams. After that would come a separate line of cars under something called Project 42, involving a hand build of 42 customized cars. These would have a sales price of probably over a million dollars each (which would also include driving outfits and a motorcycle to go with each car). They’d use the proceeds to fund the education program. So if the Alpha5 was going to be “unattainable luxury” and its likely market rich tech bros, then these custom cars would be yet less attainable and probably serve a market of billionaires.

DeLorean Motor Company Alpha5
DeLorean Next Generation JZD

It’s been two years since DMC Texas and Kat DeLorean both announced their new car projects. Neither has sued the other yet, and both are cagey about plans to do so. Joost de Vries stepped down from the helm of DeLorean Motors Reimagined last October, for reasons the company won’t disclose. A lawsuit against de Vries and other DeLorean Motors Reimagined executives, in which de Vries’ former employer Karma Automotive accused him and others of stealing the EV maker’s intellectual property, was dismissed after a reported out-of-court settlement. Timelines have slipped enough now that Cameron Wynne won’t specify exactly when the Alpha5 will be on sale—he says sometime in 2025. For Kat’s venture, meanwhile, Ángel Guerra continues to revise the design. The car will not be stainless.

DeLorean fans have been burned many times by promises of the next car, and given the delays in both projects, skepticism about both potential new ones pervades DeLorean-related internet forums. (Indeed, as this story went to press in April, a San Antonio paper reported that DeLorean Reimagined had shut down its headquarters; a DMC executive told me the company was just moving locations.) Both companies continue to promise big things. Promises, after all, are part of the DeLorean legacy too.

Source: https://www.wired.com/story/delorean-showdown/