An anonymous reader quotes a report from Fortune: The U.S., Soviet Union, and Japan have all sent robots to the moon over the past 50 years. Now, a group of college students is joining in by building a shoebox-sized rover that they plan to launch in May, Bloomberg reported Wednesday. The lunar rover, called Iris, will be the first privately-made American robot to explore the surface of the moon, according to the project’s website. But that’s not all — it would also be the first student-built rover, and the smallest and lightest one yet. Around 300 students from Carnegie Mellon University have all pitched in on the project.

Iris is tiny and weighs 2 kgs (4.4 lbs) — but the design is deliberately small. The rover will fly on a private rocket carrying 14 payloads to the moon, which includes Iris, projects for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as well as some humans. The project involved around 300 students, who will also control and operate Moonshot Mission Control, the control center for Iris based in CMU’s campus in Pittsburgh. Iris will spend a total of 50 hours on the moon’s surface before it runs out of battery, after which it will be left on the moon. It has two cameras that will help it capture images of dust on the moon’s surface.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Source: Slashdot – A Group of College Students Are Sending a Rover To the Moon

Earlier today, more than 1,100 artificial intelligence experts, industry leaders and researchers signed a petition calling on AI developers to stop training models more powerful than OpenAI’s ChatGPT-4 for at least six months. Among those who refrained from signing it was Eliezer Yudkowsky, a decision theorist from the U.S. and lead researcher at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute. He’s been working on aligning Artificial General Intelligence since 2001 and is widely regarded as a founder of the field.

“This 6-month moratorium would be better than no moratorium,” writes Yudkowsky in an opinion piece for Time Magazine. “I refrained from signing because I think the letter is understating the seriousness of the situation and asking for too little to solve it.” Yudkowsky cranks up the rhetoric to 100, writing: “If somebody builds a too-powerful AI, under present conditions, I expect that every single member of the human species and all biological life on Earth dies shortly thereafter.” Here’s an excerpt from his piece: The key issue is not “human-competitive” intelligence (as the open letter puts it); it’s what happens after AI gets to smarter-than-human intelligence. Key thresholds there may not be obvious, we definitely can’t calculate in advance what happens when, and it currently seems imaginable that a research lab would cross critical lines without noticing. […] It’s not that you can’t, in principle, survive creating something much smarter than you; it’s that it would require precision and preparation and new scientific insights, and probably not having AI systems composed of giant inscrutable arrays of fractional numbers. […]

It took more than 60 years between when the notion of Artificial Intelligence was first proposed and studied, and for us to reach today’s capabilities. Solving safety of superhuman intelligence — not perfect safety, safety in the sense of “not killing literally everyone” — could very reasonably take at least half that long. And the thing about trying this with superhuman intelligence is that if you get that wrong on the first try, you do not get to learn from your mistakes, because you are dead. Humanity does not learn from the mistake and dust itself off and try again, as in other challenges we’ve overcome in our history, because we are all gone.

Trying to get anything right on the first really critical try is an extraordinary ask, in science and in engineering. We are not coming in with anything like the approach that would be required to do it successfully. If we held anything in the nascent field of Artificial General Intelligence to the lesser standards of engineering rigor that apply to a bridge meant to carry a couple of thousand cars, the entire field would be shut down tomorrow. We are not prepared. We are not on course to be prepared in any reasonable time window. There is no plan. Progress in AI capabilities is running vastly, vastly ahead of progress in AI alignment or even progress in understanding what the hell is going on inside those systems. If we actually do this, we are all going to die. You can read the full letter signed by AI leaders here.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Source: Slashdot – ‘Pausing AI Developments Isn’t Enough. We Need To Shut It All Down’

After launching My Ad Center last fall, Google is now introducing the Ads Transparency Center as a “searchable hub of all ads served from verified advertisers.” 9to5Google reports: The Ads Transparency Center will let you view all the advertisements a company has run using Google’s networks. Each ad includes the date it last ran, format (text, video, etc.), and what region (country) it was shown in: “For example, imagine you’re seeing an ad for a skincare product you’re interested in, but you don’t recognize the brand, or you’re curious to understand if you recognize other ads from this brand. With the Ads Transparency Center, you can look up the advertiser and learn more about them before purchasing or visiting their site.”

You can search by advertiser (with approximate ad quantity noted) or website, with filters for topics, time, and country. Once an advertiser is selected, Google will show the feed of ads with the ability to select for more details. You’ll be able to access it directly here or from the My Ad Center, which lets you customize advertising that appears in Search, Discover, Shopping, and YouTube.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Source: Slashdot – Google Launches Ads Transparency Center As a Searchable Database

Binance CEO Changpeng “CZ” Zhao and other senior executives have been for years concealing the crypto exchange ties with China, according to documents obtained by the Financial Times. CoinTelegraph reports: In a report on March 29, FT claims that Binance had substantial ties to China for several years, contrary to the company’s claims that it left the country after a 2017 ban on crypto, including an office still in use by the end of 2019 and a Chinese bank used to pay employees. “We no longer publish our office addresses … people in China can directly say that our office is not in China,” Zhao reportedly said in a company message group in November 2017. Employees were told in 2018 that wages would be paid through a Shanghai-based bank. A year later, personnel on payroll in China were required to attend tax sessions in an office based in the country, according to FT. Based on the messages, Binance employees discussed a media report that claimed the company would open an office in Beijing in 2019. “Reminder: publicly, we have offices in Malta, Singapore, and Uganda. […] Please do not confirm any offices anywhere else, including China.”

The report backs up accusations made in a lawsuit filed on March 27 by the United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) against the exchange, claiming that Binance obscured the location of its executive offices, as well as the “identities and locations of the entities operating the trading platform.” According to the lawsuit, Zhao stated in an internal Binance memo that the policy was intended to “keep countries clean [of violations of law]” by “not landing .com anywhere. This is the main reason .com does not land anywhere.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Source: Slashdot – Binance Concealed Ties To China For Years, Even After 2017 Crypto Crackdown, Report Finds

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: As U.S. lawmakers move forward with their plans for a TikTok ban or forced sale, the app’s Chinese parent company ByteDance is driving another of its social platforms into the Top Charts of the U.S. App Store. ByteDance-owned app Lemon8, an Instagram rival that describes itself as a “lifestyle community,” jumped into the U.S. App Store’s Top Charts on Monday, becoming the No. 10 Overall app, across both apps and games. Today, it’s ranked No. 9 on the App Store’s Top Apps chart, excluding games. This is a dramatic move for the little-known app and one that points to paid user acquisition efforts powering this surge. Prior to yesterday, the Lemon8 app had never before ranked in the Top 200 Overall Charts in the U.S., according to app store intelligence provided to TechCrunch by data.ai.

The firm confirms that such a fast move from being an unranked app to being No. 9 among the top free apps in the U.S. — ahead of YouTube, WhatsApp, Gmail and Facebook — implies a “significant” and “recent” user acquisition push on the app publisher’s part. Unfortunately, because the app is so new to the App Store’s Top Charts, third-party app analytics firms don’t yet have precise data on Lemon8’s U.S. installs, or how those installs have recently changed over the past few days. […] According to app intelligence provider Apptopia’s data, Lemon8 debuted on both iOS and Android in March 2020 and has since gained 16 million global downloads, with Japan as its top market, accounting for 38% of its total installs. While the firm also doesn’t have a figure for its U.S. installs, it was able to estimate the app currently has 4.25 million monthly active users. TechCrunch believes ByteDance may be leveraging TikTok to drive app installs of Lemon8. “Over on TikTok, we noticed a number of creators recently began posting about Lemon8, with many new videos appearing in just the past 24 hours,” reports TechCrunch. “Concerningly, many of their reviews are extremely positive but are not marked as sponsored content. […] In fact, some creators even said they’re getting the app in case TikTok gets banned.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Source: Slashdot – ByteDance-Owned Instagram Rival Lemon8 Hits the US App Store’s Top 10

Electronic Arts (EA) is cutting about 800 jobs, or 6% of its workforce, and reducing office space, the video game company said Wednesday. CNBC reports: The company expects to take impairment charges ranging from $170 to $200 million, according to an SEC filing. “As we drive greater focus across our portfolio, we are moving away from projects that do not contribute to our strategy, reviewing our real estate footprint, and restructuring some of our teams,” CEO Andrew Wilson wrote in a note to employees. Layoffs are “the most difficult part, and we are working through the process with the utmost care and respect,” he wrote. EA had just under 13,000 employees, according to a quarterly filing in March 2022.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Source: Slashdot – EA Is Cutting About 800 Jobs, or 6% of Workforce, and Reducing Office Space

Alphabet’s Google LLC intentionally destroyed employee “chat” evidence in antitrust litigation in California and must pay sanctions and face a possible penalty at trial, a U.S. judge ruled on Tuesday. Reuters reports: U.S. District Judge James Donato in San Francisco said in his order (PDF) that Google “fell strikingly short” in its duties to preserve records. The ruling is part of a multidistrict litigation that includes a consumer class action with as many as 21 million residents; 38 states and the District of Columbia; and companies including Epic Games Inc and Match Group LLC. The consumers and other plaintiffs are challenging Google’s alleged monopoly for distributing Android mobile applications, allegations that Google has denied. Plaintiffs have claimed aggregate damages of $4.7 billion.

The judge asked the plaintiffs’ lawyers by April 21 to provide an amount in legal fees they are seeking as a sanction. Separately, the plaintiffs will have a chance to urge Donato to tell jurors that Google destroyed information that was unfavorable to it. He said he wants to see “the state of play” at a later stage in the case. “Google has tried to downplay the problem and displayed a dismissive attitude ill tuned to the gravity of its conduct,” the judge said.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Source: Slashdot – US Court Sanctions Google For Deleting Evidence In Antitrust Cases