Recent exploits show iPadOS windows running on an iPhone, hinting at the future of Apple hardware and software alike—while also possibly revealing its incoming foldable phone experience.
Photo-Illustration: WIRED Staff; Getty Images; Courtesy of Apple
Hackers poking around in iOS 26 recently uncovered something Apple definitely didn’t intend anyone to see: every modern iPhone is running the operating system Apple’s upcoming “iPhone Fold” will likely use. Which means these phones are—right now—already capable of running a full, fluid desktop experience.
From a performance standpoint, that shouldn’t be surprising. At Apple’s September 2025 event, the company claimed the A19 Pro chip inside the iPhone Air and iPhone 17 Pro offers “MacBook Pro levels of compute.” And that iPhone chip is reportedly destined to power a cheaper MacBook in 2026. The line between Apple’s hardware is being further blurred, then—but what’s wild is that the software side of things has blurred completely too. It’s just that nobody realized.
For years, Apple has insisted that iOS and iPadOS are distinct, despite sharing code and habitually borrowing each other’s features. But a self-proclaimed “tech geek” on Reddit who got iPad features running on an iPhone claimed they’re not merely similar—they’re essentially the same: “Turns out iOS has all the iPadOS code (and vice versa; you can for instance enable Dynamic Island on iPad).”
TechExpert2910 revealed on Reddit that his hacked iPhone ran iPad OS “incredibly well,” making his 17 Pro Max an “insane pocket computer” with more RAM than his M4 iPad Pro.
The hack relies on an exploit that tricks the iPhone’s operating system into thinking it’s running on an iPad. That unlocks smallish tweaks such as a landscape Home Screen, an iPad-style app switcher, and more Dock items. But it also provides transformative changes such as running desktop-grade apps that aren’t available for iPhone, full windowed multitasking, and optimal external display support. All without Apple Silicon breaking a sweat.
Deskblocked
The exploit is already patched in the iOS 26.2 beta, and the Redditor accused Apple of locking out iPhone users and artificially limiting older devices to push upgrades. But are things really that simple?
It’s not like the “phone as PC” dream is new. Android’s been chasing it since DeX debuted in 2017. Barely anyone cares. So why should Apple? Perhaps the concept is a niche nerd fantasy. And there’s the longtime argument that if you want to do “proper” work, you need a “proper” computer. If even an iPad can’t replace a computer, how can an iPhone?
In June, after 15 years, the iPad got key software features, including resizable and movable windows.
Except, as WIRED demonstrated, an iPad can replace a computer for plenty of people—you just need the right accessories. It therefore follows the same is true for an iPhone running the exact same software. But where will any momentum for this future come from?
Android 16 is technically ready for another crack at desktop mode, with a new system that builds on DeX. But even now, having finally escaped beta, it’s buried in developer settings. That might be down to the grim state of big-screen Android apps, or the desktop experience itself feeling, politely, “rocky.”
Paradoxically, Apple appears to be further ahead despite never announcing any of this. It already has a deep ecosystem of desktop-grade iPad apps. And the iPad features running on iPhone already look polished. Sure, some interface quirks remain, and you might need to file your fingers to a point to hit window controls. But the performance is fast, fluid, and snappy. So if the experience is this good, why is Apple so determined to hide it?
Profit by Design
One argument is practical. Apple likes each device to be its own thing, optimized for a specific form factor. It’s keen to finesse the transition between platforms rather than have one device to rule them all. A phone lacks a big screen and a physical keyboard. Plugging those things in on a train isn’t as elegant as opening a MacBook or using an iPad connected to a Magic Keyboard. However, with imagination, you can see the outlines of a new ecosystem of profitable accessories for a more capable iPhone.
Could the bottom of your iPhone screen look more like this in the future? Apple’s current phone software certainly makes it possible.
But Apple hasn’t got where it has by selling accessories nor by making a market for others to do so. Most of its profits come from a long-running strategy to nudge people into buying more hardware that coexists. It doesn’t want you to choose between an iPhone, an iPad, a MacBook Air, and an iMac. It wants you to buy all of them.
But if an iPhone can do iPad things, maybe someone won’t buy an iPad. If iPads act too much like Macs, people might not buy as many Macs. Strategically chosen—if sometimes artificial—limits and product segmentation have pride of place in Cupertino’s rulebook. A convergence model could knock user experience and simplicity; but Apple would likely be more fearful of how it could negatively impact sales.
Hidden Potential
That all said, perhaps there is another explanation: Apple is saving this for an inflection point—the iPhone Fold. Rumors suggest that Apple has solved the “screen crease” problem and will in 2026 ship a foldable with a 7.8-inch, 4:3 display that’s similar to (but sharper than) the iPad mini’s.
A tablet-sized display that doesn’t let you multitask like on an iPad would be absurd, especially on a device likely to cost two or three times more than an actual iPad mini. Doubly so if Apple puts last year’s iPhone chip into a MacBook that will have a full desktop environment and support at least one external display.
And for anyone fretting about being forced into a more desktop-style iPhone, Apple already solved that problem. It killed the Steve Jobs vision of the iPad that sat between two computing extremes by letting users switch modes. The iPhone could follow suit, defaulting to its original purist mode while allowing power users to tap into windowing and external device support.
These hacks, then, have given us a window into the iPhone Fold operating system and other aspects of a possible Apple future. They show that iPad features on iPhone already look slick and make complete sense. And the crazy thing is they’re in your iPhone’s software right now. Next year, they’ll almost certainly be unleashed on the most expensive iPhone Apple has ever made. The question is whether Apple will let regular iPhone users have them, too.
All the world’s buildings available as 3D models for the first time
With the GlobalBuildingAtlas, a research team at the Technical University of Munich (TUM) has created the first high-resolution 3D map of all buildings worldwide. The open data provides a crucial basis for climate research and the implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. They enable more precise models for urbanization, infrastructure and disaster management – and help to make cities around the world more inclusive and resilient.
Earth System Science Data
The data enables more accurate models for urbanization, infrastructure, and disaster management
How many buildings are there on Earth – and what do they look like in 3D? The research team led by Prof. Xiaoxiang Zhu, holder of the Chair of Data Science in Earth Observation at TUM, has answered these fundamental questions in this project funded by an ERC Starting Grant. The GlobalBuildingAtlas comprises 2.75 billion building models, covering all structures captured in satellite imagery from the year 2019. This makes it the most comprehensive collection of its kind. For comparison: the largest previous global dataset contained about 1.7 billion buildings. The 3D models with a resolution of 3×3 meters are 30 times finer than data from comparable databases.
In addition, 97 percent (2.68 billion) of the buildings are provided as LoD1 3D models (Level of Detail 1). These are simplified three-dimensional representations that capture the basic shape and height of each building. While less detailed than higher LoD levels, they can be integrated at scale into computational models, forming a precise basis for analyses of urban structures, volume calculations, and infrastructure planning. Unlike previous datasets, GlobalBuildingAtlas includes buildings from regions often missing in global maps – such as Africa, South America, and rural areas.
New perspectives for sustainability and climate research
„3D building information provides a much more accurate picture of urbanization and poverty than traditional 2D maps,“ explains Prof. Zhu. „With 3D models, we see not only the footprint but also the volume of each building, enabling far more precise insights into living conditions. We introduce a new global indicator: building volume per capita, the total building mass relative to population – a measure of housing and infrastructure that reveals social and economic disparities. This indicator supports sustainable urban development and helps cities become more inclusive and resilient.“
Open data for global challenges
The 3D building data from the GlobalBuildingAtlas provides a precise basis for planning and monitoring urban development, enabling cities to take targeted measures to create inclusive and equitable living conditions – for example, by planning additional housing or public facilities such as schools and health centers in densely populated, disadvantaged neighborhoods. At the same time, the data is crucial for climate adaptation: it improves models on topics such as energy demand and CO₂ emissions and supports the planning of green infrastructure. Disaster prevention also benefits, as risks from natural events such as floods or earthquakes can be assessed more quickly.
The data is already attracting a great deal of interest: The German Aerospace Center (DLR), for example, is examining the use of the GlobalBuildingAtlas as part of the „International Charter: Space and Major Disasters“.
Juli Eberle / TUM / ediundsepp Gestaltungsgesellschaft
Prof. Xiaoxiang Zhu uses satellite data to analyze developments on Earth
All data and code are freely available via GitHub and mediaTUM, TUM’s media and publication server.
Like the databases and satellite data already available to the public, the project complies with all security standards for satellite data. In accordance with the German Satellite Data Security Regulation, the data is not considered sensitive due to its resolution of over 2.5 meters.
This holiday season, rather than searching on Google, more Americans will likely be turning to large language models to find gifts, deals, and sales. Retailers could see up to a 520 percent increase in traffic from chatbots and AI search engines this year compared to 2024, according to a recent shopping report from Adobe. OpenAI is already moving to capitalize on the trend: Last week, the ChatGPT maker announced a major partnership with Walmart that will allow users to buy goods directly within the chat window.
As people start relying on chatbots to discover new products, retailers are having to rethink their approach to online marketing. For decades, companies tried to game Google’s search results by using strategies known collectively as search engine optimization, or SEO. Now, in order to get noticed by AI bots, more brands are turning to “generative engine optimization,” or GEO. The cottage industry is expected to be worth nearly $850 million this year, according to one market research estimate.
GEO, in many ways, is less a new invention than the next phase of SEO. Many GEO consultants, in fact, came from the world of SEO. At least some of their old strategies likely still apply since the core goal remains the same: anticipate the questions people will ask and make sure your content appears in the answers. But there’s also growing evidence that chatbots are surfacing different kinds of information than search engines.
Imri Marcus, chief executive of the GEO firm Brandlight, estimates that there used to be about a 70 percent overlap between the top Google links and the sources cited by AI tools. Now, he says, that correlation has fallen below 20 percent.
Search engines often favor wordiness—think of the long blog posts that appear above recipes on cooking websites. But Marcus says that chatbots tend to favor information presented in simple, structured formats, like bulleted lists and FAQ pages. “An FAQ can answer a hundred different questions instead of one article that just says how great your entire brand is,” he says. “You essentially give a hundred different options for the AI engines to choose.”
The things people ask chatbots are often highly specific, so it’s helpful for companies to publish extremely granular information. “No one goes to ChatGPT and asks, ‘Is General Motors a good company?’” says Marcus. Instead, they ask if the Chevy Silverado or the Chevy Blazer has a longer driving range. “Writing more specific content actually will drive much better results because the questions are way more specific.”
These insights are helping to refine the marketing strategies of Brandlight’s clients, which include LG, Estée Lauder, and Aetna. “Models consume things differently,” says Brian Franz, chief technology, data and analytics officer at Estée Lauder Companies. “We want to make sure the product information, the authoritative sources that we use, are all the things that are feeding the model.” Asked whether he would ever consider partnering with OpenAI to let people shop Estée Lauder products within the chat window, Franz doesn’t hesitate. “Absolutely,” he says.
At least for the time being, brands are mostly worried about consumer awareness, rather than directly converting chatbot mentions into sales. It’s about making sure when people ask ChatGPT „What should I put on my skin after a sunburn?“ their product pops up, even if it’s unlikely anyone will immediately click and buy it. “Right now, in this really early learning stage where it feels like it’s almost going to explode, I don’t think we want to look at the ROI of a particular piece of content we created,” Franz says.
To create all of this new AI-optimized content, companies are, of course, turning to AI itself. “At the beginning, people speculated that AI engines will not be training on AI content,” Marcus says. “That’s not really the case.”
Die lange geltende Steuerbefreiung für Elektrofahrzeuge in Österreich endet bald. Ab dem 1. April 2025 werden auch Elektroautos der motorbezogenen Versicherungssteuer (mVSt) unterliegen, was für Besitzer dieser Fahrzeuge eine jährliche Mehrbelastung von mehreren hundert Euro bedeuten wird. Diese Änderung betrifft sowohl bereits zugelassene Elektrofahrzeuge als auch Neuzulassungen und stellt eine bedeutende finanzpolitische Wende dar. Im Folgenden wird die Berechnungslogik der neuen Steuer erläutert und für die gängigsten Elektroautomodelle in Österreich berechnet.
Die Berechnungslogik der neuen KFZ-Steuer für Elektroautos
Die motorbezogene Versicherungssteuer für Elektroautos wird auf Basis von zwei wesentlichen Fahrzeugmerkmalen berechnet: der Dauerleistung (30-Minuten-Nennleistung) und dem Eigengewicht des Fahrzeugs. Beide Werte sind im Zulassungsschein vermerkt und bilden die Grundlage für die Steuerberechnung. Anders als bei Fahrzeugen mit Verbrennungsmotor, bei denen die Steuer anhand der Motorleistung und des CO₂-Ausstoßes berechnet wird, wurde für Elektrofahrzeuge eine spezielle Berechnungsmethode entwickelt.
Die Steuerformel beinhaltet Freibeträge für beide Komponenten, die vor der eigentlichen Berechnung abgezogen werden. Bei der Dauerleistung werden 45 kW abgezogen, beim Eigengewicht sind es 900 kg. Nach Abzug dieser Freibeträge erfolgt die Berechnung anhand einer gestaffelten Formel.
Leistungskomponente (pro Jahr)
Die Berechnung der Leistungskomponente erfolgt nach dem Abzug des Freibetrags von 45 kW in drei Stufen:
Für die ersten 35 kW: 3 Euro pro kW (mindestens jedoch 30 Euro)
Für die nächsten 25 kW: 4,2 Euro pro kW
Für jedes weitere kW darüber: 5,4 Euro pro kW
Gewichtskomponente (pro Jahr)
Nach Abzug des Freibetrags von 900 kg wird die Gewichtskomponente ebenfalls in drei Stufen berechnet:
Für die ersten 500 kg: 0,18 Euro pro kg (mindestens jedoch 36 Euro)
Für die nächsten 700 kg: 0,36 Euro pro kg
Für jedes weitere kg darüber: 0,54 Euro pro kg
Die Gesamtsteuer ergibt sich aus der Summe der Leistungs- und Gewichtskomponente. Da die Steuer über die Kfz-Haftpflichtversicherung eingehoben wird, wird sie in der Regel gemeinsam mit der Versicherungsprämie bezahlt.
Die 20 gängigsten Elektroautos in Österreich und ihre Steuerbelastung
Auf Basis der verfügbaren Zulassungsstatistiken für das Jahr 2024 und ergänzender Daten zu Gewicht und Leistung der einzelnen Modelle kann die zu erwartende Steuerbelastung berechnet werden. Insgesamt wurden in Österreich im Jahr 2024 etwa 44.622 Elektroautos neu zugelassen, was einem Rückgang von 6,3 Prozent im Vergleich zu 2023 entspricht. Dabei entfielen lediglich 23,5 Prozent der Neuzulassungen auf Privatpersonen, während der Rest auf Firmenfahrzeuge entfiel.
Tesla Model Y – Spitzenreiter bei den Zulassungen
Das Tesla Model Y mit einer Dauerleistung von 153 kW und einem präzise dokumentierten Eigengewicht von 1.997 kg muss künftig mit einer jährlichen Steuerbelastung von etwa 780 Euro rechnen. Diese setzt sich zusammen aus einer Leistungskomponente von etwa 469 Euro (basierend auf der 30-Minuten-Leistung) und einer Gewichtskomponente von rund 311 Euro. Als meistverkauftes Elektroauto in Österreich sind von dieser Steueränderung viele Fahrzeugbesitzer betroffen.
BYD Seal – Der Newcomer auf Platz 2
Der BYD Seal hat sich als Überraschung auf dem zweiten Platz der meistverkauften Elektroautos positioniert. Mit einem Leergewicht zwischen 2.055 und 2.185 kg (je nach Ausführung) und einer geschätzten Dauerleistung von etwa 105 kW muss dieses Modell mit einer Steuerbelastung zwischen 714 und 760 Euro rechnen. Die chinesische Limousine hat 2024 einen bemerkenswerten Markteintritt in Österreich hingelegt und zeigt die zunehmende Akzeptanz von Marken aus Fernost im europäischen Markt.
Škoda Enyaq – Etablierter Favorit auf Platz 3
Der Škoda Enyaq 85x mit einer Dauerleistung von 77 kW und einem beachtlichen Eigengewicht von 2.384 kg wird künftig mit einer jährlichen Steuerbelastung von etwa 574 Euro belastet. Davon entfallen rund 96 Euro auf die Leistungskomponente und etwa 478 Euro auf die Gewichtskomponente. Der hohe Gewichtsanteil an der Gesamtsteuer wird bei diesem Modell besonders deutlich. Der Enyaq, für den Škoda 2024 ein Facelift eingeführt hat, fiel vom zweiten auf den dritten Platz zurück, blieb aber mit 2.310 Neuzulassungen eines der beliebtesten E-Autos in Österreich.
BMW iX1 – Starker Zuwachs auf Platz 4
Der elektrische BMW X1 (BMW iX1 xDRIVE30) mit einer Dauerleistung von 104 kW und einem Eigengewicht von präzise 1.940 kg wird künftig mit einer jährlichen Steuerbelastung von etwa 493 Euro belastet. Diese setzt sich zusammen aus einer Leistungskomponente von etwa 206 Euro und einer Gewichtskomponente von rund 287 Euro. Mit 2.291 Neuzulassungen im Jahr 2024 konnte der X1 ein beachtliches Wachstum verzeichnen.
BMW i4 – Stabiler Mittelklasse-Favorit
Der BMW i4, der mit 2.086 Neuzulassungen Platz 5 der meistverkauften Elektroautos in Österreich belegte, hat ein Leergewicht von 2.125 kg und eine 30-Minuten-Leistung von 105 kW (beim i4 eDrive40). Die jährliche Steuerbelastung wird sich auf etwa 567 Euro belaufen, wovon 210 Euro auf die Leistungskomponente und 357 Euro auf die Gewichtskomponente entfallen. Trotz des relativ hohen Gewichts bleibt der i4 aufgrund seiner ausgewogenen Verhältnisse ein beliebtes Modell in der elektrischen Mittelklasse.
Tesla Model 3 – Der Klassiker auf Platz 6
Das Tesla Model 3 mit einer Dauerleistung von 153 kW und einem genauen Eigengewicht von 1.851 kg wird künftig mit einer jährlichen Steuerbelastung von etwa 686 Euro belastet. Diese setzt sich zusammen aus einer Leistungskomponente von etwa 469 Euro und einer Gewichtskomponente von rund 217 Euro. Mit 2.077 Neuzulassungen und einem Plus von 6,7 Prozent konnte das Model 3, das im Herbst 2023 ein Facelift erhielt, seine Position auf dem österreichischen Markt festigen. Im Vergleich zum schwereren Model Y ist die Gewichtskomponente hier deutlich niedriger.
Audi Q4 e-tron – Premiummodell mit zunehmender Beliebtheit
Der Audi Q4 e-tron landete mit 1.599 Neuzulassungen auf Platz 7 der beliebtesten Elektroautos in Österreich. Mit einem Leergewicht von 2.145 kg und einer geschätzten Dauerleistung von etwa 90 kW wird die jährliche Steuerbelastung bei etwa 493 Euro liegen. Davon entfallen etwa 135 Euro auf die Leistungskomponente und 358 Euro auf die Gewichtskomponente. Als Premium-SUV positioniert, zeigt der Q4 e-tron, dass auch in höheren Preissegmenten die Nachfrage nach Elektrofahrzeugen wächst.
VW ID.4 – Der elektrische Tiguan-Nachfolger
Der VW ID.4 schaffte es mit 1.527 Einheiten auf Platz 8. Mit einem Leergewicht von mindestens 1.966 kg und einer geschätzten Dauerleistung von 85 kW wird die jährliche Steuerbelastung etwa 425 Euro betragen. Davon entfallen etwa 120 Euro auf die Leistungskomponente und 305 Euro auf die Gewichtskomponente. Als einer der ersten elektrischen Volumenhersteller im SUV-Segment hat der ID.4 eine wichtige Rolle in der Elektrifizierungsstrategie von Volkswagen.
Cupra Born – Sportlicher Ableger mit Designanspruch
Der Cupra Born, der im Vorjahr noch besser platziert war, rutschte mit 1.497 Neuzulassungen auf Platz 9 ab. Mit einem Leergewicht zwischen 1.811 und 1.946 kg (je nach Ausführung) und einer geschätzten Dauerleistung von 80 kW wird die jährliche Steuerbelastung zwischen 358 und 391 Euro liegen. Die sportliche Ausrichtung und das markante Design des Born sprechen besonders jüngere Käuferschichten an.
Volvo EX30 – Der Überraschungserfolg aus Schweden
Der Volvo EX30 schaffte es als Neueinsteiger mit 1.112 Zulassungen auf Platz 10. Mit einem Leergewicht von 1.850 kg (Single Motor) bzw. 1.960 kg (Twin Motor) und Dauerleistungen von 80 kW bzw. 105 kW wird die jährliche Steuerbelastung zwischen 374 und 517 Euro liegen. Als kompaktes Elektro-SUV mit Premium-Anspruch hat der EX30 eine interessante Nische besetzt und konnte trotz seines erst kürzlichen Markteintritts bereits viele Käufer überzeugen.
Weitere beliebte Elektroautomodelle und ihre Steuerbelastung
Für einige weitere beliebte Modelle, die zwar nicht unter den Top 10 rangieren, aber dennoch in Österreich verbreitet sind, können ebenfalls präzise Steuerbelastungen berechnet werden:
Der VW ID.3 mit einer Dauerleistung von 70 kW und einem dokumentierten Eigengewicht von exakt 1.934 kg wird künftig mit einer jährlichen Steuerbelastung von etwa 362 Euro belastet. Diese setzt sich zusammen aus einer Leistungskomponente von etwa 75 Euro und einer Gewichtskomponente von rund 287 Euro. Als kompakter Elektrowagen bleibt der ID.3 eine wichtige Säule im Elektrofahrzeugangebot von Volkswagen.
Der VW ID.5 Pro mit einer Dauerleistung von 89 kW und einem präzisen Eigengewicht von 2.117 kg wird künftig mit einer jährlichen Steuerbelastung von etwa 463 Euro belastet. Diese setzt sich zusammen aus einer Leistungskomponente von etwa 132 Euro und einer Gewichtskomponente von rund 331 Euro. Als Coupé-Version des ID.4 bietet der ID.5 eine sportlichere Alternative mit ähnlicher technischer Basis.
Der VW ID.7 Pro mit einer Dauerleistung von 89 kW und einem genauen Eigengewicht von 2.172 kg wird künftig mit einer jährliche Steuerbelastung von etwa 482 Euro belastet. Diese setzt sich zusammen aus einer Leistungskomponente von etwa 132 Euro und einer Gewichtskomponente von rund 350 Euro. Als Flaggschiff der elektrischen ID-Familie von Volkswagen positioniert sich der ID.7 im oberen Mittelklassesegment.
Besondere Fälle: Extreme im Preisspektrum
Interessant ist auch ein Blick auf Fahrzeuge, die besonders hohe oder niedrige Steuerbeträge aufweisen werden:
Der Audi Q8 e-tron mit einer Dauerleistung von 158 kW und einem beachtlichen Eigengewicht von exakt 2.724 kg wird künftig mit einer jährlichen Steuerbelastung von etwa 1.234 Euro belastet – eine der höchsten Steuerbelastungen im Elektroautosegment. Diese setzt sich zusammen aus einer Leistungskomponente von etwa 496 Euro und einer Gewichtskomponente von rund 738 Euro. Als Luxus-SUV im Premium-Segment ist der Q8 e-tron jedoch für eine wohlhabende Kundschaft konzipiert, für die diese zusätzliche Steuerbelastung vermutlich keine entscheidende Rolle spielen wird.
Am anderen Ende des Spektrums steht der Hyundai Inster mit einer Dauerleistung von 28 kW und einem Eigengewicht von präzise 1.503 kg, der mit einer jährlichen Steuerbelastung von lediglich 144 Euro rechnen muss. Diese setzt sich zusammen aus dem Mindeststeuerbetrag für die Leistungskomponente von 30 Euro und einer Gewichtskomponente von rund 114 Euro. Als eines der leichtesten und leistungsschwächsten Elektroautos auf dem Markt profitiert der Inster besonders von den Freibeträgen bei der Steuerberechnung.
Der Renault Zoe mit einer Dauerleistung von 51 kW und einem Eigengewicht von 1.577 kg wird künftig mit einer jährlichen Steuerbelastung von etwa 153 Euro belastet. Diese setzt sich zusammen aus einer Leistungskomponente von etwa 30 Euro (Minimumbetrag) und einer Gewichtskomponente von rund 123 Euro. Als eines der ersten massentauglichen Elektroautos bleibt der Zoe auch mit der neuen Steuer eine verhältnismäßig günstige Option.
Der kompakte BMW i3 mit einer Dauerleistung von 80 kW und einem erstaunlich geringen Eigengewicht von nur 1.345 kg wird künftig mit einer jährlichen Steuerbelastung von etwa 185 Euro belastet. Diese setzt sich zusammen aus einer Leistungskomponente von etwa 105 Euro und einer Gewichtskomponente von rund 80 Euro. Obwohl die Produktion des i3 bereits 2022 eingestellt wurde, sind noch viele Exemplare auf Österreichs Straßen unterwegs. Dank seiner innovativen Karbonkarosserie bleibt der i3 eines der leichtesten Elektroautos und profitiert entsprechend von der gewichtsabhängigen Steuerkomponente.
Auswirkungen und Kritik der neuen Steuer
Die Einführung der motorbezogenen Versicherungssteuer für Elektroautos wird in der Öffentlichkeit kontrovers diskutiert. Durch diese Maßnahme erhofft sich die Regierungskoalition nach Angaben des Verkehrsclubs ÖAMTC Mehreinnahmen von rund 65 Millionen Euro jährlich. Für das Jahr 2026 rechnet die Regierung sogar mit Einnahmen von 130 Millionen Euro, da die Zahl der E-Auto-Zulassungen kontinuierlich steigt.
Die Entscheidung stößt insbesondere bei Umweltverbänden und der Automobilwirtschaft auf Kritik, da sie die Attraktivität der Elektromobilität in einer ohnehin schon herausfordernden Marktphase weiter verringern könnte. Brancheninsider befürchten, dass sich vor allem Privatkäufer wieder verstärkt Verbrennungsfahrzeugen zuwenden könnten.
Allerdings bleibt der steuerliche Vorteil von elektrischen Firmenwagen unangetastet, was angesichts der Tatsache, dass rund 80 Prozent der Elektroautos in Österreich Firmenfahrzeuge sind, von Bedeutung ist. Zudem plant die Regierung Verbesserungen im Bereich der Ladeinfrastruktur, insbesondere an Autobahn-Raststätten, wo zusätzliche Schnellladestationen vorgesehen sind.
Fazit: Eine neue Ära für Elektromobilität in Österreich
Mit dem Ende der Steuerbefreiung für Elektroautos ab April 2025 beginnt in Österreich eine neue Phase der Elektromobilität. Die jährliche Mehrbelastung von durchschnittlich 400 Euro pro Jahr, in manchen Fällen sogar bis zu 500 Euro, stellt für viele E-Auto-Besitzer eine spürbare finanzielle Veränderung dar. Besonders schwere und leistungsstarke Elektro-SUVs werden dabei deutlich stärker belastet als leichte Kompaktmodelle mit geringerer Leistung.
Diese steuerliche Änderung fällt in eine Zeit, in der der Elektroautomarkt in Österreich ohnehin leicht rückläufig ist. Mit einem Rückgang der Neuzulassungen um 6,3 Prozent im Jahr 2024 gegenüber dem Vorjahr kämpft die Branche bereits mit Herausforderungen. Ob die neue Steuer diesen Trend verstärken wird oder ob andere Faktoren wie verbesserte Ladeinfrastruktur und neue, erschwinglichere Modelle diesen Effekt ausgleichen können, bleibt abzuwarten.
Für Kaufinteressenten lohnt es sich jedenfalls, bei der Modellauswahl auch die künftige Steuerbelastung zu berücksichtigen und vor dem Kauf eines Elektroautos die zu erwartenden Kosten genau zu berechnen. Die Besteuerung von Elektroautos markiert jedenfalls einen bedeutsamen Schritt in Richtung fiskalischer Gleichbehandlung verschiedener Antriebsarten, auch wenn die ökologischen Vorteile der Elektromobilität weiterhin durch andere Maßnahmen gefördert werden sollen.
Tabelle: Steuerbelastung der gängigsten Elektroautos in Österreich
Modell
Dauerleistung (kW)
Eigengewicht (kg)
Leistungskomponente (€)
Gewichtskomponente (€)
Gesamtsteuer (€)
Tesla Model Y
153
1.997
469
311
780
BYD Seal
105
2.120
210
504
714
Škoda Enyaq 85x
77
2.384
96
478
574
BMW iX1 xDRIVE30
104
1.940
206
287
493
BMW i4 eDrive40
105
2.125
210
357
567
Tesla Model 3
153
1.851
469
217
686
Audi Q4 e-tron
90
2.145
135
358
493
VW ID.4
85
1.966
120
305
425
Cupra Born
80
1.878
105
253
358
Volvo EX30 (Single Motor)
80
1.850
105
240
345
Extreme Fälle: Höchste und niedrigste Steuerbelastungen
Höchste Steuerbelastungen
Audi Q8 e-tron: 158 kW, 2.724 kg, Gesamtsteuer: 1.234 Euro
Mercedes EQS 450+: 140 kW, 2.480 kg, Gesamtsteuer: 1.046 Euro
BMW iX xDrive50: 140 kW, 2.555 kg, Gesamtsteuer: 1.083 Euro
Tesla Model S: 155 kW, 2.240 kg, Gesamtsteuer: 1.011 Euro
Googles search engine and the Browser Google Chrome could have been far better products if it wasn’t beholden to Google’s other business interests:
They allege that Google blocked the introduction of user-friendly features because they would have harmed the company’s advertising revenue, which depends on people clicking ads in their search results. “Why isn’t autocomplete better? Why isn’t the ‘new tab’ page more effective? Why isn’t browser history better?” says the ex-leader, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity. The answer: “There’s all these incentives to get users to search.”
Google Selling Chrome Won’t Be Enough to End Its Search Monopoly
To dismantle Google’s illegal monopoly over how Americans search the web, the US Department of Justice wants the tech giant to end its lucrative partnership with Apple, share a trove of proprietary data with competitors and advertisers, and “promptly and fully divest Chrome,” Google’s browser that controls more than half of the US market. The government also wants approval regarding who takes over Chrome.
The recommendations are part of a detailed plan that government attorneys submitted Wednesday to US district judge Amit Mehta in Washington, DC, as part of a federal antitrust case against Google that started back in 2020. By next August, Mehta is expected to decide which of the possible remedies Google will be required to carry out to loosen its stranglehold on the search market.
AI Lab Newsletter by Will Knight
WIRED’s resident AI expert Will Knight takes you to the cutting edge of this fast-changing field and beyond—keeping you informed about where AI and technology are headed. Delivered on Wednesdays.
But the tech giant could still appeal, delaying enforcement of the judge’s order years into the future. On Wednesday, Google president Kent Walker characterized the government’s proposals as “staggering,” “extreme,” “a radical interventionist agenda,” and “wildly overbroad.” He wrote in a blog post that the changes being sought “would break a range of Google products—even beyond Search—that people love and find helpful in their everyday lives.” He also asserted the privacy and security of Google’s users would be put at risk.
Among people who have worked for Google or partnered closely with the company, there’s little agreement on whether any of the proposed remedies would significantly shift user behavior or make the search engine market more competitive. Four former Google executives who oversaw teams working on Chrome, Search, and Ads told WIRED that innovation by rivals, not interventions by the government, remains the surest way to unseat Google as the nation’s dominant internet search provider. “You can’t ram an inferior product down people’s throats,” says one former Chrome business leader, speaking on the condition of anonymity to protect professional relationships.
But a former Chrome engineering leader acknowledged that the search engine could have been a better product if it wasn’t beholden to Google’s other business interests. They allege that Google blocked the introduction of user-friendly features because they would have harmed the company’s advertising revenue, which depends on people clicking ads in their search results. “Why isn’t autocomplete better? Why isn’t the ‘new tab’ page more effective? Why isn’t browser history better?” says the ex-leader, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity. The answer: “There’s all these incentives to get users to search.” Google didn’t respond to a request for comment on the assertion.
Still, competitors that stand to benefit from even a minor reduction in Google’s power are optimistic about the expected remedies. “I can see strong benefits in putting [Chrome] back in the hands of the community,” says Guillermo Rauch, CEO of Vercel, a company that develops tools for websites, many of which depend on search traffic and advertising revenue controlled by Google. “Moderating that relationship to the corporate overlords is always going to be a healthy thing,” Rauch says.
Gabriel Weinberg, CEO of the rival search engine DuckDuckGo, said in a statement that the government’s proposed remedies “would free the search market from Google’s illegal grip and unleash a new era of innovation, investment, and competition.”
Google’s antitrust battle with the Department of Justice began under the first Trump administration in 2020. The federal government, as well as a number of states, accused the tech giant of using anticompetitive tactics to dominate the search market, suppressing Americans’ access to other search providers. The Biden administration moved forward with the case and filed another of its own—accusing Google of illegally monopolizing advertising technologies that millions of websites and apps use to generate revenue. Closing arguments in that case are scheduled for Monday.
Both cases remain unresolved, and it’s unclear to what extent the Justice Department will keep up the pressure on Google after Donald Trump returns to the White House. On the campaign trail, Trump made mixed comments about the tech giant. In October, he expressed concerns about its power, but suggested that imposing onerous conditions on the company could hamper US efforts to achieve tech supremacy over China.
Judge Mehta has set aside nearly two weeks starting in April to hear arguments from the government and Google about the proposed punishments. The new Trump administration’s approach toward Google should become more apparent at that point, and it’s possible that government attorneys will be less willing to defend the proposals released Wednesday.
Walker’s blog on Wednesday highlighted possible ramifications of the proposals that Trump may view as concerning, including the chilling of AI investment and the appointment of a five-expert Technical Committee to monitor Google’s compliance with remedies. “And that’s just a small part of it,” Walker wrote about the proposed panel. “We wish we were making this up.”
The government is seeking to provide users with more choice over what search engines they use. It wants to end Google’s partnership with Apple, which receives tens of billions of dollars in search ad revenue for making Google the default search engine on iPhones. Google has similar deals with other companies, which also would be scuttled.
Google would also have to make changes to how it preferences its own services on Android or else sell, or be forced to sell, Android. The proposals call for Google to give advertisers a stream of data to help them study their purchases.
To give competitors a leg up, the government wants Google to share its search index and the data it collects about users when determining which results to show. The argument is that potential rivals would then be able to match the information advantage Google has amassed over decades studying the behavior patterns of its billions of users. In addition, Colorado’s attorney general proposed in Wednesday’s filing that Google fund “reasonable, short-term incentive payments” to users who opt for non-Google default search engines.
On top of having to divest of Chrome, Google would be banned from launching a new browser or investing in search, ad tech, and AI rivals for five to 10 years. The government says the restrictions would enable “fostering innovation and transforming the general search and search text ads markets over the next decade.”
Rauch, the Vercel CEO, believes that Google is unfairly using Chrome to direct people toward its AI chatbot, Gemini, as well as other services it owns, such as Google Docs, through a mix of nudges and incentives built into its search engine. “Google is stacking every advantage that they can by monopolizing this very important piece of software infrastructure,” Rauch says.
Turning over Chrome to a neutral steward like a nonprofit organization or an academic institution, Rauch says, would burst open the search box on the world’s most popular browser and give people access to a plethora of alternatives. Chrome already allows users to change their default search provider, but Google still nudges users back through alerts as they browse. “I could imagine, in a world where people are more equipped to choose rather than default, a lot of consumers might end up choosing Perplexity or ChatGPT, whereas today it’s a very roundabout thing,” Rauch says.
But financial and legal analysts have expressed doubts about how much the government’s proposals could really achieve. The former Google executives who spoke with WIRED are just as skeptical. Rajen Sheth, who oversaw parts of the Chrome business and now runs a software startup for building online courses, says users are gravitating toward what they are used to in what he believes is already an open marketplace. “Given the technology landscape and the different levers, are there things that will make a difference? It will be tough,” he says.
Getting access to Google’s proprietary data and having the opportunity to court iPhone users may help increase the odds that people turn to alternative search engines. But Google also has unmatched computing infrastructure, unique data from sibling services such as Maps, and more than a quarter-century of brand recognition with consumers. “No matter how much you level the playing field, people are going to go to the best product for the job,” the former Chrome business leader says.
Former Google executives say that what will supplant the company one day isn’t another traditional search engine, but something akin to ChatGPT that presents content to users in a more interactive way. That new technology isn’t fully developed yet, but it might be by the time the government’s lawsuit against Google is finally settled. That means Google’s place in the market could look vastly different before enforcement of the judge’s order even begins.
The web’s collective memory is stored in the servers of the Internet Archive. Legal battles threaten to wipe it all away.
If you step into the headquarters of the Internet Archive on a Friday after lunch, when it offers public tours, chances are you’ll be greeted by its founder and merriest cheerleader, Brewster Kahle.
You cannot miss the building; it looks like it was designed for some sort of Grecian-themed Las Vegas attraction and plopped down at random in San Francisco’s foggy, mellow Richmond district. Once you pass the entrance’s white Corinthian columns, Kahle will show you the vintage Prince of Persia arcade game and a gramophone that can play century-old phonograph cylinders on display in the foyer. He’ll lead you into the great room, filled with rows of wooden pews sloping toward a pulpit. Baroque ceiling moldings frame a grand stained glass dome. Before it was the Archive’s headquarters, the building housed a Christian Science church.
I made this pilgrimage on a breezy afternoon last May. Along with around a dozen other visitors, I followed Kahle, 63, clad in a rumpled orange button-down and round wire-rimmed glasses, as he showed us his life’s work. When the afternoon light hits the great hall’s dome, it gives everyone a halo. Especially Kahle, whose silver curls catch the sun and who preaches his gospel with an amiable evangelism, speaking with his hands and laughing easily. “I think people are feeling run over by technology these days,” Kahle says. “We need to rehumanize it.”
In the great room, where the tour ends, hundreds of colorful, handmade clay statues line the walls. They represent the Internet Archive’s employees, Kahle’s quirky way of immortalizing his circle. They are beautiful and weird, but they’re not the grand finale. Against the back wall, where one might find confessionals in a different kind of church, there’s a tower of humming black servers. These servers hold around 10 percent of the Internet Archive’s vast digital holdings, which includes 835 billion web pages, 44 million books and texts, and 15 million audio recordings, among other artifacts. Tiny lights on each server blink on and off each time someone opens an old webpage or checks out a book or otherwise uses the Archive’s services. The constant, arrhythmic flickers make for a hypnotic light show. Nobody looks more delighted about this display than Kahle.
It is no exaggeration to say that digital archiving as we know it would not exist without the Internet Archive—and that, as the world’s knowledge repositories increasingly go online, archiving as we know it would not be as functional. Its most famous project, the Wayback Machine, is a repository of web pages that functions as an unparalleled record of the internet. Zoomed out, the Internet Archive is one of the most important historical-preservation organizations in the world. The Wayback Machine has assumed a default position as a safety valve against digital oblivion. The rhapsodic regard the Internet Archive inspires is earned—without it, the world would lose its best public resource on internet history.
Its employees are some of its most devoted congregants. “It is the best of the old internet, and it’s the best of old San Francisco, and neither one of those things really exist in large measures anymore,” says the Internet Archive’s director of library services, Chris Freeland, another longtime staffer, who loves cycling and favors black nail polish. “It’s a window into the late-’90s web ethos and late-’90s San Francisco culture—the crunchy side, before it got all tech bro. It’s utopian, it’s idealistic.”
But the Internet Archive also has its foes. Since 2020, it’s been mired in legal battles. In Hachette v. Internet Archive, book publishers complained that the nonprofit infringed on copyright by loaning out digitized versions of physical books. In UMG Recordings v. Internet Archive, music labels have alleged that the Internet Archive infringed on copyright by digitizing recordings.
In both cases, the Internet Archive has mounted “fair use” defenses, arguing that it is permitted to use copyrighted materials as a noncommercial entity creating archival materials. In both cases, the plaintiffs characterized it as a hub for piracy. In 2023, it lost Hachette. This month, it lost an appeal in the case. The Archive could appeal once more, to the Supreme Court of the United States, but has no immediate plans to do so. (“We have not decided,” Kahle told me the day after the decision.)
A judge rebuffed an attempt to dismiss the music labels’ case earlier this year. Kahle says he’s thinking about settling, if that’s even an option.
The combined weight of these legal cases threatens to crush the Internet Archive. The UMG case could prove existential, with potential fines running into the hundreds of millions. The internet has entrusted its collective memory to this one idiosyncratic institution. It now faces the prospect of losing it all.
Kahle has been obsessed with creating a digital library since he was young, a calling that spurred him to study artificial intelligence at MIT. “I wanted to build the library of everything, and we needed computers that were big enough to be able to deal with it,” he says.
After graduating in 1982, he worked at the supercomputing startup Thinking Machines Corporation. While there, he developed a program called Wide Area Information Server (WAIS), a way to search for data on remote computers. He left to cocreate a startup of the same name, which he sold to AOL in 1995. The next year, he launched a two-headed project from his attic: “AI and IA.”That “AI” was a for-profit company called Alexa Internet—“Alexa” a nod to the Library of Alexandria—alongside the nonprofit Internet Archive. The two projects were interlinked; Alexa Internet crawled the web, then donated what it collected to the Internet Archive. Kahle couldn’t quite make the business model work. When Amazon made an offer in 1999, it seemed prudent to accept. The Everything Store paid a reported $250 million in stock for Alexa, severing the AI from IA and leaving Kahle a wealthy man.
Kahle stayed on with Alexa for a few years but left in 2002 to focus on the Internet Archive. It has been his vocation ever since. “His entire being is committed to the Archive,” says copyright scholar Pam Samuelson, who has known Kahle since the ’90s. “He lives and breathes it.”
If Silicon Valley has a Mr. Fezziwig, it’s Kahle. He’s not an ascetic; he owns a handsome black sailboat anchored in a slip at a tony yacht club. But his day-to-day life is modest. He ebikes to work and dresses like a guy who doesn’t care about clothes, and while he used to love Burning Man—he and his wife, Mary Austin, got married there in 1992—now he thinks it’s gotten too big. (Their current bougie-hippie pastime is the seasteading gathering Ephemerisle, where boaters hitch themselves together and create temporary islands in the Sacramento River Delta every July.)
What he really loves, above all, is his job.
“The story of Brewster Kahle is that of a guy who wins the lottery,” says longtime archivist Jason Scott. “And he and his wife, Mary, turned around and said, awesome, we get to be librarians now.”
Kahle is now the merry custodian to a uniquely comprehensive catalog, spanning all manner of digital and physical media, from classic video games to live recordings of concerts to magazines and newspapers to books from around the world. It recently backed up the island of Aruba’s cultural institutions. It’s an essential tool for everything from legal research—particularly around patent law—to accountability journalism. “There are other online archiving tools,” says ProPublica reporter Craig Silverman, “but none of them touch the Internet Archive.” It is, in short, a proof machine.What makes the Internet Archive unique is its willingness to push boundaries in ways that traditional libraries do not. The Library of Congress also archives the web—but only after it has notified, and often asked permission from, the websites it scrapes.
“The Internet Archive has always been a little risky,” says University of Waterloo historian Ian Milligan, who has a forthcoming book on web archiving. Its distinctive utility is entwined with its long-standing outré approach to copyright. In fact, Kahle and the Internet Archive sued the government more than two decades ago, challenging the way the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992 and the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 had expanded copyright law. He lost that case—but, certainly, not his desire to keep pushing.
One of those pushes came in 2005. At the time, beloved hacker Aaron Swartz was often working on Internet Archive projects, and he cocreated and led the development of a new initiative called the Open Library program along with Kahle. The goal was to create one webpage for every book in the world. Kahle saw it as an alternative to Google Books, one that wasn’t driven by commercial interests but loftier and decidedly kumbaya information-wants-to-be-free ambitions.
In addition to its attempt to catalog every book ever, the project sought to make copies available to readers. To that end, it scans physical books, then allows people to check out the digitized versions. For over a decade, it has operated using a framework called controlled digital lending (CDL), where digitized books are treated as old-fashioned physical books rather than ebooks. The books it lends out were either purchased by the Internet Archive or donated by other libraries, organizations, or individuals; according to CDL principles, libraries that own a physical copy of a book should be able to lend it digitally.
The project primarily appeals to researchers for whom specific books are hard to attain elsewhere, rather than casual readers. “Try checking out one of our books and then reading it—it’s tough going,” Kahle says. He’s not lying. A blurry scan of a physical book on a desktop screen compared to a regular ebook on a Kindle is like music from a tinny iPhone speaker versus a Bose surround sound system. Most borrowers read what they check out for less than five minutes.
Like other digital media, ebooks are typically licensed rather than sold outright, at a much higher rate than the cover price. Libraries who license ebooks get a limited number of loans; if they stop paying, the book vanishes. CDL is an attempt to give libraries more control over their inventory, and to expand access to books in a library’s collection that exist only as physical copies.
For years, publishers ignored the Internet Archive’s book-scanning spree. Finally, during the pandemic, after the Internet Archive took one liberty too many with its approach to CDL, they snapped.
In March 2020, as schools and libraries abruptly shut down, they faced a dilemma. Demand for ebooks far outstripped their ability to loan them out under restrictive licensing deals, and they had no way of lending out books that existed only in physical form. In response, the Internet Archive made a bold decision: It allowed multiple people to check out digital versions of the same book simultaneously. It called this program the National Emergency Library. “We acted at the request of librarians and educators and writers,” says Chris Freeland.
Kahle remembers feeling a vocational tug in that moment for the Internet Archive to do whatever it could to expand access. He thought they had broad support, too. “We got over 100 libraries to sign on and say ‘help us,’” Kahle says. “They stood behind the National Emergency Library and said ‘do this under our names.’”
Dave Hansen, now executive director of the nonprofit Authors Alliance, was a librarian at Duke University at the time. “We had tremendous challenges getting books for our students,” he says. “What they did was a good-faith effort.”
Not everyone agreed. Prominent writers vehemently criticized the project, as did the Authors Guild and the National Writers Union. “They are not a library. Libraries buy books and respect copyright. They are fraudsters posing as saints,” author James Gleick wrote on Twitter. (Today, Gleick maintains that the Internet Archive is not a library, though he says “fraudsters was a little harsh.”)
“They seem to work by fiat,” says Bhamati Viswanathan, a copyright lawyer who signed an amicus brief on behalf of the publishers in the Hachette case. Viswanathan thinks it was arrogant to circumvent the licensing system. “Very much like what the tech companies seem to be doing, which is, ‘we’re going to ask forgiveness, not permission.’”
The Internet Archive was in its first full-blown PR crisis. The coalition of publishing houses filed its lawsuit in June 2020, alleging that both the National Emergency Library and the Internet Archive’s broader Open Library program violated copyright. A few weeks later, the Internet Archive scuttled the National Emergency Library and reverted to its traditional, capped loan system, but it made no difference to the publishers.
The publishing houses and their supporters maintain that the Archive’s behavior harmed authors. “Internet Archive is arguing that it is OK to make and publicly distribute unauthorized copies of an author’s work to the global public,” Terrance Hart, the general counsel for the Association of American Publishers, tells WIRED. “Imagine if everyone started doing the same. The only existential threat here is the one posed by Internet Archive to the livelihoods of authors and to the copyright system itself in the digital age.”
AI Lab
WIRED’s resident AI expert Will Knight takes you to the cutting edge of this fast-changing field and beyond—keeping you informed about where AI and technology are headed. Delivered on Wednesdays.
After the lawsuit was filed, over a thousand writers signed a letter in support of libraries and the Internet Archive to be able to loan digital books, including Naomi Klein and Daniel Ellsberg. One supportive author, Chuck Wendig, had very publicly changed his mind after initially tweeting criticism. Even some writers who currently belong to and support the Authors Guild, like Joanne McNeil, were staunch supporters of the Archive. She sometimes reads out-of-print books using the lending service and still sees it as a vital tool. “I hope my books are in the Open Library project,” she says, telling me that she’s already aware that her critically acclaimed but modestly popular books aren’t widely available. “At least I’ll know that way there’s someplace someone can find them.”
The shows of support didn’t matter. The publishers didn’t back down. In March 2023, the Internet Archive lost the case. This September, it lost its appeal. The court refuted the fair use arguments, insisting that the organization had not proved that it wasn’t financially harming publishers. In the meantime, legal bills continue to pile up for the Internet Archive’s next challenge.
After the initial ruling in Hachette v. Internet Archive, the parties agreed upon settlement terms; although those terms are confidential, Kahle has confirmed that the Internet Archive can financially survive it thanks to the help of donors. If the Internet Archive decides not to file a second appeal, it will have to fulfill those settlement terms. A blow, but not a death knell.The other lawsuit may be far harder to survive. In 2023, several major record labels, including Universal Music Group, Sony, and Capitol, sued the Internet Archive over its Great 78 Project, a digital archive of a niche collection of recordings of albums in the obsolete record format known as 78s, which was used from the 1890s to the late 1950s. The complaint alleges that the project “undermines the value of music.” It lists 2,749 recordings as infringed, which means damages could potentially be over $400 million.
“One thing that you can say about the recording industry,” Pam Samuelson says, “is that there are no statutory damages that are too large for them to claim.”
As with the book publishing case, the Internet Archive’s defense hinges on fair use. It argues that preserving obsolete versions of these records, complete with the crackles and pops from the old shellac resin, makes history accessible. Copyright law is notoriously unpredictable, and some find the Internet Archive’s case shaky. “It doesn’t strike me, necessarily, as a winning fair use argument,” says Zvi Rosen, a law professor at Southern Illinois University who focuses on copyright.
James Grimmelmann, a professor of digital and information law at Cornell University, thinks the labels are “vastly exaggerating the commercial harm” from the project. (If there was a sizable audience for extremely low-quality versions of songs, he reasons, why wouldn’t the labels be putting out 78-style releases?) On average, each recording is accessed only once a month. Still, Grimmelmann isn’t convinced that will matter. “They are directly reproducing these works,” he says. “That’s a very hard lift for a judge.”
It may be years before the case is resolved, which means the uncertainty about the Internet Archive’s future is likely to linger, and potentially spread. And if it is resolved through either a settlement or a win for the recording industry, other copyright holders could be inspired to sue. “I’m worried about the blast radius from the music lawsuit,” Grimmelmann says.In Kahle’s view, the Internet Archive’s legal challenges are part of a larger story about beleaguered libraries in the United States. He likes to frame his plight as a battle against a cadre of nefarious publishers, one piece of a larger struggle to wrest back the right to own books in the digital age. (Get him started on the topic, and he’ll likely point out that both ebook distributor OverDrive and publishing company Simon & Schuster are owned by the global investment firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.) He’s keenly aware that everything he has built is in danger. “It’s the time of Orwell but with corporations,” Kahle says. “It’s scary.”
Losing the Archive is, indeed, a frightening prospect. “There is a misperception that things on the web are forever—but they really, really aren’t,” says Craig Silverman, who thinks the nonprofit’s demise would make certain types of scholarship and reporting “way more difficult, if not impossible,” in addition to representing a disappearance of a bastion of collective memory.
Just this September, Google and the Internet Archive announced a partnership to allow people to see previous versions of websites surfaced through Google Search by linking to the Wayback Machine. Google previously offered its own cached historical websites; now it leans on a small nonprofit.
The Internet Archive also has challenges beyond its legal woes. For starters, it’s getting harder to archive things. As Mark Graham, director of the Wayback Machine, told me, the rise of apps with functions like livestreaming, especially when they’re limited to certain operating systems, presents a technical challenge. On top of that, paywalls are an obstacle, as is the sheer and ever-increasing amount of content. “There’s just so much material,” he says. “How does one know what to prioritize?”
Then there’s AI, once again. Thus far, the Internet Archive has sidestepped or been exempt from the new scrutiny on web crawling as it relates to AI training data. This June, for example, when Reddit announced that it was updating its scraping policy, it specifically noted that it was still allowing “good faith actors” like the Internet Archive to crawl it. But as opposition to rampant AI data scraping grows, the Internet Archive may yet face a new obstacle: If regulators and lawmakers are clumsy in attempts to curb permissionless AI web scraping, it could kneecap services like the Wayback Machine, which functions precisely because it can trawl and reproduce vast amounts of data.
The rise of AI has already soured some creative types on the Internet Archive’s approach to copyright. While Kahle views his creation as a library on the side of the little guy, opponents strenuously dispute this view. They paint Kahle as a tech-wolf disguised in librarian-sheep clothing, stuck in a mentality better suited for the Napster era. “The Internet Archive is really fighting the battles of 20 years ago, when it was as simple as ‘publishers bad, anything that hurts publishers good,’” says Neil Turkewitz, a former Recording Industry Association of America executive who has criticized the Archive’s copyright stances. “But that’s not the world we live in.”
When I talk to Kahle over Zoom this September, shortly after he’d learned that the Internet Archive had lost the appeal, he’s agitated—an internet prophet literally wandering around in the wilderness. He’s perched in front of jagged cliffs while hiking outside of Arles, France, a blue baseball cap pulled over his hair, cheeks extra-ruddy in the sun, his default affability tempered by a sense of despondency. He hadn’t known about the timing of the ruling in advance, so he interrupted a weeklong vacation with Mary to jump back into work crisis mode. “It’s just so depressing,” he says.
As he sits on a rock with his phone in his hand, Kahle says the US legal system is broken. He says he doesn’t think this is the end of the lawsuits. “I think the copyright cartel is on a roll,” he says. He frets that copycat cases could be on the way. He’s the most bummed-out guy I’ve ever seen on vacation in the south of France. But he’s also defiant. There’s no inkling of regret, only a renewed sense that what he’s doing is righteous. “We have such an opportunity here. It’s the dream of the internet,” he says. “It’s ours to lose.” It sounds less like a statement and more like a prayer.
SocialAI is an online universe where everyone you interact with is a bot—for better or worse.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Arati Prabhakar has the ear of the US president and a massive mission: help manage AI, revive the semiconductor industry, and pull off a cancer moonshot.
one day in March 2023, Arati Prabhakar brought a laptop into the Oval Office and showed the future to Joe Biden. Six months later, the president issued a sweeping executive order that set a regulatory course for AI.
This all happened because ChatGPT had stunned the world. In an instant it became very, very obvious that the United States needed to speed up its efforts to regulate the AI industry—and adopt policies to take advantage of it. While the potential benefits were unlimited (Social Security customer service that works!), so were the potential downsides, like floods of disinformation or even, in the view of some, human extinction. Someone had to demonstrate that to the president.
The job fell to Prabhakar, because she is the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and holds cabinet status as the president’s chief science and technology adviser; she’d already been methodically educating top officials about the transformative power of AI. But she also has the experience and bureaucratic savvy to make an impact with the most powerful person in the world.
Born in India and raised in Texas, Prabhakar has a PhD in applied physics from Caltech and previously ran two US agencies: the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Department of Defense’s Advanced Research Projects Agency. She also spent 15 years in Silicon Valley as a venture capitalist, including as president of Interval Research, Paul Allen’s legendary tech incubator, and has served as vice president or chief technology officer at several companies.
Prabhakar assumed her current job in October 2022—just in time to have AI dominate the agenda—and helped to push out that 20,000-word executive order, which mandates safety standards, boosts innovation, promotes AI in government and education, and even tries to mitigate job losses. She replaced biologist Eric Lander, who had resigned after an investigation concluded that he ran a toxic workplace. Prabhakar is the first person of color and first woman to be appointed director of the office.
We spoke at the kitchen table of Prabhakar’s Silicon Valley condo—a simply decorated space that, if my recollection is correct, is very unlike the OSTP offices in the ghostly, intimidating Eisenhower Executive Office Building in DC. Happily, the California vibes prevailed, and our conversation felt very unintimidating—even at ease. We talked about how Bruce Springsteen figured into Biden’s first ChatGPT demo, her hopes for a semiconductor renaissance in the US, and why Biden’s war on cancer is different from every other president’s war on cancer. I also asked her about the status of the unfilled role of chief technology officer for the nation—a single person, ideally kind of geeky, whose entire job revolves around the technology issues driving the 21st century.
Steven Levy: Why did you sign up for this job?
Arati Prabhakar: Because President Biden asked. He sees science and technology as enabling us to do big things, which is exactly how I think about their purpose.
What kinds of big things?
The mission of OSTP is to advance the entire science and technology ecosystem. We have a system that follows a set of priorities. We spend an enormous amount on R&D in health. But both public and corporate funding are largely focused on pharmaceuticals and medical devices, and very little on prevention or clinical care practices—the things that could change health as opposed to dealing with disease. We also have to meet the climate crisis. For technologies like clean energy, we don’t do a great job of getting things out of research and turning them into impact for Americans. It’s the unfinished business of this country.
It’s almost predestined that you’d be in this job. As soon as you got your physics degree at Caltech, you went to DC and got enmeshed in policy.
Yeah, I left the track I was supposed to be on. My family came here from India when I was 3, and I was raised in a household where my mom started sentences with, “When you get your PhD and become an academic …” It wasn’t a joke. Caltech, especially when I finished my degree in 1984, was extremely ivory tower, a place of worship for science. I learned a tremendous amount, but I also learned that my joy did not come from being in a lab at 2 in the morning and having that eureka moment. Just on a lark, I came to Washington for, quote-unquote, one year on a congressional fellowship. The big change was in 1986, when I went to Darpa as a young program manager. The mission of the organization was to use science and technology to change the arc of the future. I had found my home.
How did you wind up at Darpa?
I had written a study on microelectronics R&D. We were just starting to figure out that the semiconductor industry wasn’t always going to be dominated by the US. We worked on a bunch of stuff that didn’t pan out but also laid the groundwork for things that did. I was there for seven years, left for 19, and came back as director. Two decades later the portfolio was quite different, as it should be. I got to christen the first self-driving ship that could leave a port and navigate across open oceans without a single sailor on board. The other classic Darpa thing is to figure out what might be the foundation for new capabilities. I ended up starting a Biological Technologies Office. One of the many things that came out of that was the rapid development and distribution of mRNA vaccines, which never would have happened without the Darpa investment.
One difference today is that tech giants are doing a lot of their own R&D, though not necessarily for the big leaps Darpa was built for.
Every developed economy has this pattern. First there’s public investment in R&D. That’s part of how you germinate new industries and boost your economy. As those industries grow, so does their investment in R&D, and that ends up being dominant. There was a time when it was sort of 50-50 public-private. Now it’s much more private investment. For Darpa, of course, the mission is breakthrough technologies and capabilities for national security.
Are you worried about that shift?
It’s not a competition! Absolutely there’s been a huge shift. That private tech companies are building the leading edge LLMs today has huge implications. It’s a tremendous American advantage, but it has implications for how the technology is developed and used. We have to make sure we get what we need for public purposes.
Is the US government investing enough to make that happen?
I don’t think we are. We need to increase the funding. One component of the AI executive order is a National AI Research Resource. Researchers don’t have the access to data and computation that companies have. An initiative that Congress is considering, that the administration is very supportive of, would place something like $3 billion of resources with the National Science Foundation.
That’s a tiny percentage of the funds going into a company like OpenAI.
It costs a lot to build these leading-edge models. The question is, how do we have governance of advanced AI and how do we make sure we can use it for public purposes? The government has got to do more. We need help from Congress. But we also have to chart a different kind of relationship with industry than we’ve had in the past.
What might that look like?
Look at semiconductor manufacturing and the CHIPS Act.
We’ll get to that later. First let’s talk about the president. How deep is his understanding of things like AI?
Some of the most fun I’ve gotten on the job was working with the president and helping him understand where the technology is, like when we got to do the chatbot demonstrations for the president in the Oval Office.
What was that like?
Using a laptop with ChatGPT, we picked a topic that was of particular interest. The president had just been at a ceremony where he gave Bruce Springsteen the National Medal of Arts. He had joked about how Springsteen was from New Jersey, just across the river from his state, Delaware, and then he made reference to a lawsuit between those two states. I had never heard of it. We thought it would be fun to make use of this legal case. For the first prompt, we asked ChatGPT to explain the case to a first grader. Immediately these words start coming out like, “OK, kiddo, let me tell you, if you had a fight with someone …” Then we asked the bot to write a legal brief for a Supreme Court case. And out comes this very formal legal analysis. Then we wrote a song in the style of Bruce Springsteen about the case. We also did image demonstrations. We generated one of his dog Commander sitting behind the Resolute desk in the Oval Office.
So what was the president’s reaction?
He was like, “Wow, I can’t believe it could do that.” It wasn’t the first time he was aware of AI, but it gave him direct experience. It allowed us to dive into what was really going on. It seems like a crazy magical thing, but you need to get under the hood and understand that these models are computer systems that people train on data and then use to make startlingly good statistical predictions.
There are a ton of issues covered in the executive order. Which are the ones that you sense engaged the president most after he saw the demo?
The main thing that changed in that period was his sense of urgency. The task that he put out for all of us was to manage the risks so that we can see the benefits. We deliberately took the approach of dealing with a broad set of categories. That’s why you saw an extremely broad, bulky, large executive order. The risks to the integrity of information from deception and fraud, risks to safety and security, risks to civil rights and civil liberties, discrimination and privacy issues, and then risks to workers and the economy and IP—they’re all going to manifest in different ways for different people over different timelines. Sometimes we have laws that already address those risks—turns out it’s illegal to commit fraud! But other things, like the IP questions, don’t have clean answers.
There are a lot of provisions in the order that must meet set deadlines. How are you doing on those?
They are being met. We just rolled out all the 90-day milestones that were met. One part of the order I’m really getting a kick out of is the AI Council, which includes cabinet secretaries and heads of various regulatory agencies. When they come together, it’s not like most senior meetings where all the work has been done. These are meetings with rich discussion, where people engage with enthusiasm, because they know that we’ve got to get AI right.
There’s a fear that the technology will be concentrated among a few big companies. Microsoft essentially subsumed one leading startup, Inflection. Are you concerned about this centralization?
Competition is absolutely part of this discussion. The executive order talks specifically about that. One of the many dimensions of this issue is the extent to which power will reside only with those who are able to build these massive models.
The order calls for AI technology to embody equity and not include biases. A lot of people in DC are devoted to fighting diversity mandates. Others are uncomfortable with the government determining what constitutes bias. How does the government legally and morally put its finger on the scale?
Here’s what we’re doing. The president signed the executive order at the end of October. A couple of days later, the Office of Management and Budget came out with a memo—a draft of guidance about how all of government will use AI. Now we’re in the deep, wonky part, but this is where the rubber meets the road. It’s that guidance that will build in processes to make sure that when the government uses AI tools it’s not embedding bias.
That’s the strategy? You won’t mandate rules for the private sector but will impose them on the government, and because the government is such a big customer, companies will adopt them for everyone?
That can be helpful for setting a way that things work broadly. But there are also laws and regulations in place that ban discrimination in employment and lending decisions. So you can feel free to use AI, but it doesn’t get you off the hook.
There’s a line in there that basically says that if you’re slowing down the progress of AI, you are the equivalent of a murderer, because going forward without restraints will save lives.
That’s such an oversimplified view of the world. All of human history tells us that powerful technologies get used for good and for ill. The reason I love what I’ve gotten to do across four or five decades now is because I see over and over again that after a lot of work we end up making forward progress. That doesn’t happen automatically because of some cool new technology. It happens because of a lot of very human choices about how we use it, how we don’t use it, how we make sure people have access to it, and how we manage the downsides.
“I’m trying to figure out if you’re going to write a bunch of nice research papers, or you’re gonna move the needle on cancer.”
How are you encouraging the use of AI in government?
Right now AI is being used in government in more modest ways. Veterans Affairs is using it to get feedback from veterans to improve their services. The Social Security Administration is using it to accelerate the processing of disability claims.
Those are older programs. What’s next? Government bureaucrats spend a lot of time drafting documents. Will AI be part of that process?
That’s one place where you can see generative AI being used. Like in a corporation, we have to sort out how to use it responsibly, to make sure that sensitive data aren’t being leaked, and also that it’s not embedding bias. One of the things I’m really excited about in the executive order is an AI talent surge, saying to people who are experts in AI, “If you want to move the world, this is a great time to bring your skills to the government.” We published that on AI.gov.
How far along are you in that process?
We’re in the matchmaking process. We have great people coming in.
OK, let’s turn to the CHIPS Act, which is the Biden administration’s centerpiece for reviving the semiconductor industry in the US. The legislation provides more than $50 billion to grow the US-based chip industry, but it was designed to spur even more private investment, right?
That story starts decades ago with US dominance in semiconductor manufacturing. Over a few decades the industry got globalized, then it got very dangerously concentrated in one geopolitically fragile part of the world. A year and a half ago the president got Congress to act on a bipartisan basis, and we are crafting a completely different way to work with the semiconductor industry in the US.
Different in what sense?
It won’t work if the government goes off and builds its own fabs. So our partnership is one where companies decide what products are the right ones to build and where we will build them, and government incentives come on the basis of that. It’s the first time the US has done that with this industry, but it’s how it was done elsewhere around the world.
Some people say it’s a fantasy to think we can return to the day when the US had a significant share of chip and electronics manufacturing. Obviously, you feel differently.
We’re not trying to turn the clock back to the 1980s and saying, “Bring everything to the US.” Our strategy is to make sure that we have the robustness we need for the US and to make sure we’re meeting our national security needs.
The biggest grant recipient was Intel, which got $8 billion. Its CEO, Pat Gelsinger, said that the CHIPS Act wasn’t enough to make the US competitive, and we’d need a CHIPS 2. Is he right?
I don’t think anyone knows the answer yet. There’s so many factors. The job right now is to build the fabs.
As the former head of Darpa, you were part of the military establishment. How do you view the sentiment among employees of some companies, like Google, that they should not take on military contracts?
It’s great for people in companies to be asking hard questions about how their work is used. I respect that. My personal view is that our national security is essential for all of us. Here in Silicon Valley, we completely take for granted that you get up every morning and try to build and fund businesses. That doesn’t happen by accident. It’s shaped by the work that we do in national security.
Your office is spearheading what the president calls a Cancer Moonshot. It seems every president in my lifetime had some project to cure cancer. I remember President Nixon talking about a war on cancer. Why should we believe this one?
We’ve made real progress. The president and the first lady set two goals. One is to cut the age-adjusted cancer death rate in half over 25 years. The other is to change the experience of people going through cancer. We’ve come to understand that cancer is a very complex disease with many different aspects. American health outcomes are not acceptable for the most wealthy country in the world. When I spoke to Danielle Carnival, who leads the Cancer Moonshot for us—she worked for the vice president in the Obama administration—I said to her, “I’m trying to figure out if you’re going to write a bunch of nice research papers or you’re gonna move the needle on cancer.” She talked about new therapies but also critically important work to expand access to early screening, because if you catch some of them early, it changes the whole story. When I heard that I said, “Good, we’re actually going to move the needle.”
Don’t you think there’s a hostility to science in much of the population?
People are more skeptical about everything. I do think that there has been a shift that is specific to some hot-button issues, like climate and vaccines or other infectious disease measures. Scientists want to explain more, but they should be humble. I don’t think it’s very effective to treat science as a religion. In year two of the pandemic, people kept saying that the guidance keeps changing, and all I could think was, “Of course the guidance is changing, our understanding is changing.” The moment called for a little humility from the research community rather than saying, “We’re the know-it-alls.”
Is it awkward to be in charge of science policy at a time when many people don’t believe in empiricism?
I don’t think it’s as extreme as that. People have always made choices not just based on hard facts but also on the factors in their lives and the network of thought that they are enmeshed in. We have to accept that people are complex.
Part of your job is to hire and oversee the nation’s chief technology officer. But we don’t have one. Why not?
That had already been a long endeavor when I came on board. That’s been a huge challenge. It’s very difficult to recruit, because those working in tech almost always have financial entanglements.
I find it hard to believe that in a country full of great talent there isn’t someone qualified for that job who doesn’t own stock or can’t get rid of their holdings. Is this just a low priority for you?
We spent a lot of time working on that and haven’t succeeded.
Are we going to go through the whole term without a CTO?
I have no predictions. I’ve got nothing more than that.
There are only a few months left in the current term of this administration. President Biden has given your role cabinet status. Have science and technology found their appropriate influence in government?
Yes, I see it very clearly. Look at some of the biggest changes—for example, the first really meaningful advances on climate, deploying solutions at a scale that the climate actually notices. I see these changes in every area and I’m delighted.
Natural Language Interaction:GPT-4o’s advanced natural language processing capabilities allow for seamless, conversational interaction between the driver and the vehicle. This makes controlling the vehicle and accessing information more intuitive and user-friendly.
Personalized Experience:The AI can learn from individual driver behaviors and preferences, offering tailored suggestions for routes, entertainment, climate settings, and more, enhancing overall user satisfaction and engagement.
Enhanced Autonomous Driving and Safety:
Superior Decision-Making:GPT-4o can significantly enhance Tesla’s autonomous driving capabilities by processing and analyzing vast amounts of real-time data to make better driving decisions. This improves the safety, reliability, and efficiency of the vehicle’s self-driving features.
Proactive Safety Features:The AI can provide real-time monitoring of the vehicle’s surroundings and driver behavior, offering proactive alerts and interventions to prevent accidents and ensure passenger safety.
Next-Level Infotainment and Connectivity:
Smart Infotainment System: With GPT-4o, the SUV’s infotainment system can offer highly intelligent and personalized content recommendations, including music, podcasts, audiobooks, and more, making long journeys more enjoyable.
Seamless Connectivity:The AI can integrate with a wide range of apps and services, enabling drivers to manage their schedules, communicate, and access information without distraction, thus enhancing productivity and convenience.
Continuous Improvement and Future-Proofing:
Self-Learning Capabilities:GPT-4o continuously learns and adapts from user interactions and external data, ensuring that the vehicle’s performance and features improve over time. This results in an ever-evolving user experience that keeps getting better.
Over-the-Air Updates: Regular over-the-air updates from OpenAI ensure that the SUV remains at the forefront of technology, with the latest features, security enhancements, and improvements being seamlessly integrated.
Market Differentiation and Brand Leadership:
Innovative Edge:Integrating GPT-4o positions Tesla’s new SUV as a cutting-edge vehicle, showcasing the latest in AI and automotive technology. This differentiates Tesla from competitors and strengthens its reputation as a leader in innovation.
Enhanced Customer Engagement: The unique AI-driven features and personalized experiences can drive stronger customer engagement and loyalty, attracting tech-savvy consumers and enhancing the overall brand image.
By leveraging these advantages, Tesla can create a groundbreaking SUV that not only meets but exceeds consumer expectations, setting new standards for the automotive industry and reinforcing Tesla’s position as a pioneer in automotive and AI technology.
Earth System Science Data
Juli Eberle / TUM / ediundsepp Gestaltungsgesellschaft
TheIdea – The Innovation Agency 