Author name: Shannon Garcia

inside-the-firm-turning-eerie-blank-streaming-ads-into-useful-nonprofit-messages

Inside the firm turning eerie blank streaming ads into useful nonprofit messages

AdGood’s offerings also include a managed service for ad campaign management for nonprofits. AdGood doesn’t yet offer pixels, but Johns said developments like that are “in the works.”

Johns explained that while many nonprofits use services like Meta and Google AdWords for tracking ads, they’re “hitting plateaus” with their typical methods. He said there is nonprofit interest in reaching younger audiences, who often use CTV devices:

A lot of them have been looking for ways to get [into CTV ads], but, unfortunately, with minimum spend amounts, they’re just not able to access it.

Helping nonprofits make commercials

AdGood also sells a self-serve generative AI ad manager, which it offers via a partnership with Streamr.AI. The tool is designed to simplify the process of creating 30-second video ads that are “completely editable via a chat prompt,” according to Johns.

“It automatically generates all their targeting. They can update their targeting for whatever they want, and then they can swipe a credit card and essentially run that campaign. It goes into our approval queue, which typically takes 24 hours for us to approve because it needs to be deemed TV-quality,” he explained.

The executive said AdGood charges nonprofits a $7 CPM and a $250 flat fee for the service. He added:

Think about a small nonprofit in a local community, for instance, my son’s special needs baseball team. I can get together with five other parents, easily pull together a campaign, and run it in our local town. We get seven kids to show up, and it changes their lives. We’re talking about $250 having a massive impact in a local market.

Looking ahead, Johns said he’d like to see AdGood’s platform and team grow to be able to give every customer “a certain allocation of inventory, whether it’s 50,000 impressions a month or 100,000 a month.”

For some, streaming ads are rarely a good thing. But when those ads can help important causes and replace odd blank ad spaces that make us question our own existence, it brings new meaning to the idea of a “good” commercial.

Inside the firm turning eerie blank streaming ads into useful nonprofit messages Read More »

Why is digital sovereignty important right now?

Sovereignty has mattered since the invention of the nation state—defined by borders, laws, and taxes that apply within and without. While many have tried to define it, the core idea remains: nations or jurisdictions seek to stay in control, usually to the benefit of those within their borders.

Digital sovereignty is a relatively new concept, also difficult to define but straightforward to understand. Data and applications don’t understand borders unless they are specified in policy terms, as coded into the infrastructure.

The World Wide Web had no such restrictions at its inception. Communitarian groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, service providers and hyperscalers, non-profits and businesses all embraced a model that suggested data would look after itself.

But data won’t look after itself, for several reasons. First, data is massively out of control. We generate more of it all the time, and for at least two or three decades (according to historical surveys I’ve run), most organizations haven’t fully understood their data assets. This creates inefficiency and risk—not least, widespread vulnerability to cyberattack.

Risk is probability times impact—and right now, the probabilities have shot up. Invasions, tariffs, political tensions, and more have brought new urgency. This time last year, the idea of switching off another country’s IT systems was not on the radar. Now we’re seeing it happen—including the U.S. government blocking access to services overseas.

Digital sovereignty isn’t just a European concern, though it is often framed as such. In South America for example, I am told that sovereignty is leading conversations with hyperscalers; in African countries, it is being stipulated in supplier agreements. Many jurisdictions are watching, assessing, and reviewing their stance on digital sovereignty.

As the adage goes: a crisis is a problem with no time left to solve it. Digital sovereignty was a problem in waiting—but now it’s urgent. It’s gone from being an abstract ‘right to sovereignty’ to becoming a clear and present issue, in government thinking, corporate risk and how we architect and operate our computer systems.

What does the digital sovereignty landscape look like today?

Much has changed since this time last year. Unknowns remain, but much of what was unclear this time last year is now starting to solidify. Terminology is clearer – for example talking about classification and localisation rather than generic concepts.

We’re seeing a shift from theory to practice. Governments and organizations are putting policies in place that simply didn’t exist before. For example, some countries are seeing “in-country” as a primary goal, whereas others (the UK included) are adopting a risk-based approach based on trusted locales.

We’re also seeing a shift in risk priorities. From a risk standpoint, the classic triad of confidentiality, integrity, and availability are at the heart of the digital sovereignty conversation. Historically, the focus has been much more on confidentiality, driven by concerns about the US Cloud Act: essentially, can foreign governments see my data?

This year however, availability is rising in prominence, due to geopolitics and very real concerns about data accessibility in third countries. Integrity is being talked about less from a sovereignty perspective, but is no less important as a cybercrime target—ransomware and fraud being two clear and present risks.

Thinking more broadly, digital sovereignty is not just about data, or even intellectual property, but also the brain drain. Countries don’t want all their brightest young technologists leaving university only to end up in California or some other, more attractive country. They want to keep talent at home and innovate locally, to the benefit of their own GDP.

How Are Cloud Providers Responding?

Hyperscalers are playing catch-up, still looking for ways to satisfy the letter of the law whilst ignoring (in the French sense) its spirit. It’s not enough for Microsoft or AWS to say they will do everything they can to protect a jurisdiction’s data, if they are already legally obliged to do the opposite. Legislation, in this case US legislation, calls the shots—and we all know just how fragile this is right now.

We see hyperscaler progress where they offer technology to be locally managed by a third party, rather than themselves. For example, Google’s partnership with Thales, or Microsoft with Orange, both in France (Microsoft has similar in Germany). However, these are point solutions, not part of a general standard. Meanwhile, AWS’ recent announcement about creating a local entity doesn’t solve for the problem of US over-reach, which remains a core issue.

Non-hyperscaler providers and software vendors have an increasingly significant play: Oracle and HPE offer solutions that can be deployed and managed locally for example; Broadcom/VMware and Red Hat provide technologies that locally situated, private cloud providers can host. Digital sovereignty is thus a catalyst for a redistribution of “cloud spend” across a broader pool of players.

What Can Enterprise Organizations Do About It?

First, see digital sovereignty as a core element of data and application strategy. For a nation, sovereignty means having solid borders, control over IP, GDP, and so on. That’s the goal for corporations as well—control, self-determination, and resilience.

If sovereignty isn’t seen as an element of strategy, it gets pushed down into the implementation layer, leading to inefficient architectures and duplicated effort. Far better to decide up front what data, applications and processes need to be treated as sovereign, and defining an architecture to support that.

This sets the scene for making informed provisioning decisions. Your organization may have made some big bets on key vendors or hyperscalers, but multi-platform thinking increasingly dominates: multiple public and private cloud providers, with integrated operations and management. Sovereign cloud becomes one element of a well-structured multi-platform architecture.

It is not cost-neutral to deliver on sovereignty, but the overall business value should be tangible. A sovereignty initiative should bring clear advantages, not just for itself, but through the benefits that come with better control, visibility, and efficiency.

Knowing where your data is, understanding which data matters, managing it efficiently so you’re not duplicating or fragmenting it across systems—these are valuable outcomes. In addition, ignoring these questions can lead to non-compliance or be outright illegal. Even if we don’t use terms like ‘sovereignty’, organizations need a handle on their information estate.

Organizations shouldn’t be thinking everything cloud-based needs to be sovereign, but should be building strategies and policies based on data classification, prioritization and risk. Build that picture and you can solve for the highest-priority items first—the data with the strongest classification and greatest risk. That process alone takes care of 80–90% of the problem space, avoiding making sovereignty another problem whilst solving nothing.

Where to start? Look after your own organization first

Sovereignty and systems thinking go hand in hand: it’s all about scope. In enterprise architecture or business design, the biggest mistake is boiling the ocean—trying to solve everything at once.

Instead, focus on your own sovereignty. Worry about your own organization, your own jurisdiction. Know where your own borders are. Understand who your customers are, and what their requirements are. For example, if you’re a manufacturer selling into specific countries—what do those countries require? Solve for that, not for everything else. Don’t try to plan for every possible future scenario.

Focus on what you have, what you’re responsible for, and what you need to address right now. Classify and prioritise your data assets based on real-world risk. Do that, and you’re already more than halfway toward solving digital sovereignty—with all the efficiency, control, and compliance benefits that come with it.

Digital sovereignty isn’t just regulatory, but strategic. Organizations that act now can reduce risk, improve operational clarity, and prepare for a future based on trust, compliance, and resilience.

The post Why is digital sovereignty important right now? appeared first on Gigaom.

Why is digital sovereignty important right now? Read More »

meta-beefs-up-disappointing-ai-division-with-$15-billion-scale-ai-investment

Meta beefs up disappointing AI division with $15 billion Scale AI investment

Meta has invested heavily in generative AI, with the majority of its planned $72 billion in capital expenditure this year earmarked for data centers and servers. The deal underlines the high price AI companies are willing to pay for data that can be used to train AI models.

Zuckerberg pledged last year that his company’s models would outstrip rivals’ efforts in 2025, but Meta’s most recent release, Llama 4, has underperformed on various independent reasoning and coding benchmarks.

The long-term goal of researchers at Meta “has always been to reach human intelligence and go beyond it,” said Yann LeCun, the company’s chief AI scientist at the VivaTech conference in Paris this week.

Building artificial “general” intelligence—AI technologies that have human-level intelligence—is a popular goal for many AI companies. An increasing number of Silicon Valley groups are also seeking to reach “superintelligence,” a hypothetical scenario where AI systems surpass human intelligence.

The core of Scale’s business has been data-labeling, a manual process of ensuring images and text are accurately labeled and categorized before they are used to train AI models.

Wang has forged relationships with Silicon Valley’s biggest investors and technologists, including OpenAI’s Sam Altman. Scale AI’s early customers were autonomous vehicle companies, but the bulk of its expected $2 billion in revenues this year will come from labeling the data used to train the massive AI models built by OpenAI and others.

The deal will result in a substantial payday for Scale’s early venture capital investors, including Accel, Tiger Global Management, and Index Ventures. Tiger’s $200 million investment is worth more than $1 billion at the company’s new valuation, according to a person with knowledge of the matter.

Additional reporting by Tabby Kinder in San Francisco

© 2025 The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved. Not to be redistributed, copied, or modified in any way.

Meta beefs up disappointing AI division with $15 billion Scale AI investment Read More »

isaacman’s-bold-plan-for-nasa:-nuclear-ships,-seven-crew-dragons,-accelerated-artemis

Isaacman’s bold plan for NASA: Nuclear ships, seven-crew Dragons, accelerated Artemis


Needs a Super Administrator

“I was very disappointed, especially because it was so close to confirmation.”

Jared Isaacman speaks at the Spacepower Conference in Orlando, Florida. Credit: John Kraus

Nearly two weeks have passed since Jared Isaacman received a fateful, brief phone call from two officials in President Trump’s Office of Personnel Management. In those few seconds, the trajectory of his life over the next three and a half years changed dramatically.

The president, the callers said, wanted to go in a different direction for NASA’s administrator. At the time, Isaacman was within days of a final vote on the floor of the US Senate and assured of bipartisan support. He had run the gauntlet of six months of vetting, interviews, and a committee hearing. He expected to be sworn in within a week. And then, it was all gone.

“I was very disappointed, especially because it was so close to confirmation and I think we had a good plan to implement,” Isaacman told Ars on Wednesday.

Isaacman’s nomination was pulled for political reasons. As SpaceX founder and one-time President Trump confidant Elon Musk made his exit from the White House, key officials who felt trampled on by Musk took their revenge. They knifed a political appointment, Isaacman, who shared Musk’s passion for extending humanity’s reach to Mars. The dismissal was part of a chain of events that ultimately led to a break in the relationship between Trump and Musk, igniting a war of words.

When I spoke with Isaacman this week, I didn’t want to rehash the political melee. I preferred to talk about his plan. After all, he had six months to look under the hood of NASA, identify the problems that were holding the space agency back, and release its potential in this new era of spaceflight.

A man with a plan

“It shouldn’t be a surprise, the organizational structure is very heavy with management and leadership,” Isaacman said. “Lots of senior leadership with long meetings, who have their deputies, who have their chiefs of staff, who have deputy chiefs of staff and associate deputies. It is not just a NASA problem; across government, there are principal, deputy, assistant-to-the-deputy roles. It makes it very hard to have a culture of ownership and urgent decision-making.”

Isaacman said his plan, a blueprint of more than 100 pages detailing various actions to modernize NASA and make it more efficient, would have started with the bureaucracy. “It was going to be hard to get the big, exciting stuff done without a reorganization, a rebuild, including cultural rebuilding, and an aggressive, hungry, mission-first culture,” he said.

One of his first steps would have been to attempt to accelerate the timeline for the Artemis II mission, which is scheduled to fly four astronauts around the Moon in April 2026. He planned to bring in “strike” teams of engineers to help move Artemis and other programs forward. Isaacman wanted to see the Artemis II vehicle on the pad later this summer, with the goal of launching in December of this year, echoing the historic launch of Apollo 8 in December 1968.

Isaacman also sought to reverse the space agency’s decision to cut utilization of the International Space Station due to budget issues.

“Instead of the current thinking, three crew members every eight months to manage the budget, I wanted to go seven crew members every four months,” he said. “I was even going to pay for one of the missions, if need be, to just get more people up there, more cracks at science, and try and figure out the orbital economy, or else life will be very hard on the commercial LEO destinations.”

As part of this, he would have pushed for certification of SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft to carry seven astronauts—which was in the vehicle’s baseline design—instead of the current four. This would have allowed NASA to fly more professional astronauts, but also payload specialists like the agency used to do during the Space Shuttle program. Essentially, NASA experts of certain experiments would fly and conduct their own research.

“I wanted to bring back the Payload Specialist program and open it up to the NASA workforce,” he said. “Because things are pretty difficult right now, and I wanted to get people excited and reward the best.”

He also planned to seek goodwill by donating his salary as administrator to Space Camp at the US Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama, for scholarships to inspire the next generation of explorers.

Nuclear spaceships

Isaacman’s signature issue was going to be a full-bore push into nuclear electric propulsion, which he views as essential for the sustainable exploration of the Solar System by humans. Nuclear electric propulsion converts heat from a fission reactor to electrical power, like a power plant on Earth, and then uses this energy to produce thrust by accelerating an ionized propellant, such as xenon. Nuclear propulsion requires significantly less fuel than chemical propulsion, and it opens up more launch windows to Mars and other destinations.

“We would have gone right to a 100-kilowatt test vehicle that we would send somewhere inspiring with some great cameras,” he said. “Then we are going right to megawatt class, inside of four years, something you could dock a human-rated spaceship to, or drag a telescope to a Lagrange point and then return, big stuff like that. The goal was to get America underway in space on nuclear power.”

Another key element of this plan is that it would give some of NASA’s field centers, including Marshall Space Flight Center, important work to do after the cancellation of the Space Launch System rocket.

“Pivoting to nuclear spaceships, in my mind, was just the right thing to do for the SLS states, even if it’s not the right locations or the right people. There is a lot of dollars there that those states don’t want to let go of,” he said. “When you speak to those senators, if you give them another kind of bar to grab onto, they can get excited about what comes next. And imagine an SLS-caliber budget going into building, literally, nuclear orbiters that could do all sorts of things. That’s directionally correct, right?”

What direction NASA takes now is unclear, but the loss of Isaacman is acute. The agency’s acting administrator, Janet Petro, is largely taking direction from the White House Office of Management and Budget and has no independence. A confirmed administrator is now months away. The lights at the historic space agency get a little dimmer each day as a result.

Considering politics

As for what he plans to do now that he suddenly has time on his hands—Isaacman stepped down as chief executive of Shift4, the financial payments company he founded, to become NASA administrator—Isaacman is weighing his options.

“I’m sure a lot of supporters in the space community would love to hear me say that I’m done with politics, but I’m not sure that’s the case,” he said. “I want to serve our country, give back, and make a difference. I don’t know what, but I will find something.”

What his role in politics would be, Isaacman, who has described himself as a moderate, Republican-leaning voter, is unsure. However, he wants to help bridge a nation that is riven by partisan politics. “I think if you don’t have more moderates and better communicators try to pull us closer together, we’re just going to keep moving farther apart,” he said. “And that just doesn’t seem like it’s in any way good for the country.”

Photo of Eric Berger

Eric Berger is the senior space editor at Ars Technica, covering everything from astronomy to private space to NASA policy, and author of two books: Liftoff, about the rise of SpaceX; and Reentry, on the development of the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon. A certified meteorologist, Eric lives in Houston.

Isaacman’s bold plan for NASA: Nuclear ships, seven-crew Dragons, accelerated Artemis Read More »

google-left-months-old-dark-mode-bug-in-android-16,-fix-planned-for-next-pixel-drop

Google left months-old dark mode bug in Android 16, fix planned for next Pixel Drop

Google’s Pixel phones got a big update this week with the release of Android 16 and a batch of Pixel Drop features. Pixels now have enhanced security, new contact features, and improved button navigation. However, some of the most interesting features, like desktop windowing and Material 3 Expressive, are coming later. Another thing that’s coming later, it seems, is a fix for an annoying bug Google introduced a few months back.

Google broke the system dark mode schedule in its March Pixel update and did not address it in time for Android 16. The company confirms a fix is coming, though.

The system-level dark theme arrives in Android 10 to offer a less eye-searing option, which is particularly handy in dark environments. It took a while for even Google’s apps to fully adopt this feature, but support is solid five years later. Google even offers a scheduling feature to switch between light and dark mode at custom times or based on sunrise/sunset. However, the scheduling feature was busted in the March update.

Currently, if you manually toggle dark mode on or off, schedules stop working. The only way to get them back is to set up your schedule again and then never toggle dark mode. Google initially marked this as “intended behavior,” but a more recent bug report was accepted as a valid issue.

Google left months-old dark mode bug in Android 16, fix planned for next Pixel Drop Read More »

experimental-retina-implants-give-mice-infrared-vision

Experimental retina implants give mice infrared vision

Finally, the tellurium meshes, especially the infrared vision capability they offered, were tested on healthy macaques, an animal model that’s much closer to humans than mice. It turned out implanted macaques could perceive infrared light, and their normal vision remained unchanged.

However, there are still a few roadblocks before we go all Cyberpunk with eye implants.

Sensitivity issues

Tellurium meshes, as the Fudan team admits in their paper, are far less sensitive to light than natural photoreceptors, and it’s hard to say if they really are a good candidate for retinal prostheses. The problem with using animal models in vision science is that it’s hard to ask a mouse or a macaque what they actually see with the implants and figure out how the electrical signals from their tellurium meshes are converted into perception in the brain.

Based on the Fudan experiments, we know the implanted animals reacted to light, albeit a bit less effectively than those with healthy vision. We also know they needed an adaptation period; the implanted mice didn’t score their impressive results on their first try. They needed to learn what the sudden signals coming from their eyes meant, just like humans who had used electrode arrays in the past. Finally, shapes in the shape recognition tests were projected with lasers, which makes it difficult to tell how the implant would perform in normal daylight.

There are also risks that come with the implantation procedure itself. The surgery involves making a local retina detachment, followed by a small retinal incision to insert the implant. According to Eduardo Fernández, a Spanish bioengineer who published a commentary to Fudan’s work in Science, doing this in fragile, diseased retinas poses a risk of fibrosis and scarring. Still, Fernández found the Chinese implants “promising.” The Fudan team is currently working on long-term safety assessments of their implants in non-human primates and on improving the coupling between the retina and the implant.

The Fudan team’s work on tellurium retinal implants is published in Science.

Science, 2025. DOI: 10.1126/science.ady4439

Experimental retina implants give mice infrared vision Read More »

rfk-jr.-announces-8-appointees-to-cdc-vaccine-panel—they’re-not-good

RFK Jr. announces 8 appointees to CDC vaccine panel—they’re not good

Anti-vaccine advocate and current Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. took to social media Wednesday to announce the names of eight people he is appointing to a critical federal vaccine advisory committee—which is currently empty after Kennedy abruptly fired all 17 previous members Monday.

In the past, the vetting process for appointing new members to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) could take years. But Kennedy has taken just two days.

The panel, typically stocked with vaccine, infectious disease, and public health experts, carefully and publicly reviews, analyzes, and debates vaccine data and offers recommendations to the CDC via votes. The CDC typically adopts the recommendations, which set clinical practices nationwide and determine insurance coverage for vaccinations.

Yesterday, Kennedy pledged that none of the new ACIP members would be “ideological anti-vaxxers.” However, the list of today’s appointees includes Robert Malone, who falsely claims to have invented mRNA vaccines and has spent the past several years spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories about them.

Speaking at an anti-vaccine rally in 2022, Malone spread dangerous falsehoods about mRNA COVID-19 vaccines: “These genetic vaccines can damage your children. They may damage their brains, their heart, their immune system and their ability to have children in the future. Many of these damages cannot be repaired.”

Troubling list

Malone aligned with the anti-vaccine crowd during the pandemic and has become a mainstay in conspiratorial circles and an ally to Kennedy. He has claimed that vaccines cause a “form of AIDS,” amid other nonsense. He has also meddled with responses to the measles outbreak that erupted in West Texas in January. In April, Malone was the first to publicize news that a second child had died from the highly infectious and serious infection, but he did so to falsely claim that measles wasn’t the cause and spread other dangerous misinformation.

RFK Jr. announces 8 appointees to CDC vaccine panel—they’re not good Read More »

the-dream-of-a-gentle-singularity

The Dream of a Gentle Singularity

Sam Altman offers us a new essay, The Gentle Singularity. It’s short (if a little long to quote in full), so given you read my posts it’s probably worth reading the whole thing.

First off, thank you to Altman for publishing this and sharing his thoughts. This was helpful, and contained much that was good. It’s important to say that first, before I start tearing into various passages, and pointing out the ways in which this is trying to convince us that everything is going to be fine when very clearly the default is for everything to be not fine.

I have now done that. So here we go.

Sam Altman (CEO OpenAI): We are past the event horizon; the takeoff has started. Humanity is close to building digital superintelligence, and at least so far it’s much less weird than it seems like it should be.

Robots are not yet walking the streets, nor are most of us talking to AI all day. People still die of disease, we still can’t easily go to space, and there is a lot about the universe we don’t understand.

And yet, we have recently built systems that are smarter than people in many ways, and are able to significantly amplify the output of people using them. The least-likely part of the work is behind us; the scientific insights that got us to systems like GPT-4 and o3 were hard-won, but will take us very far.

Assuming we agree that the takeoff has started, I would call that the ‘calm before the storm,’ or perhaps ‘how exponentials work.’

Being close to building something is not going to make the world look weird. What makes the world look weird is actually building it. Some people (like Tyler Cowen) claim o3 is AGI, but everyone agrees we don’t have ASI (superintelligence) yet.

Also, frankly, yeah, it’s super weird that we have these LLMs we can talk to, it’s just that you get used to ‘weird’ things remarkably quickly. It seems like it ‘should be weird’ (or perhaps ‘weirder’?) because what we do have now is still unevenly distributed and not well-exploited, and many of us including Altman are comparing the current level of weirdness to the near future True High Weirdness that is coming, much of which is already baked in.

If anything, I think the current low level of High Weirdness is due to us. as I argue later, not being used to these new capabilities. Why do we see so few scams, spam and slop and bots and astroturfing and disinformation, deepfakes, cybercrime, giant boosts in productivity, talking mainly to AIs all day, actual learning and so on? Mostly I think it’s because People Don’t Do Things and don’t know what is possible.

Sam Altman: 2025 has seen the arrival of agents that can do real cognitive work; writing computer code will never be the same. 2026 will likely see the arrival of systems that can figure out novel insights. 2027 may see the arrival of robots that can do tasks in the real world.

That’s a bold prediction, modulo the ‘may’ and the values of ‘tasks in the real world’ and ‘novel insights.’

And yes, I agree that the following is true, as long as you notice the word ‘may’:

In the most important ways, the 2030s may not be wildly different. People will still love their families, express their creativity, play games, and swim in lakes.

Note not only the ‘may’ but the low bar for ‘not be wildly different.’ The people of 1000 BCE did all those things, plausibly they also did them in 10,000 BCE or 100,000 BCE. Is that what would count as ‘not wildly different’?

This is essentially asserting that people in the 2030s will be alive. Well, I hope so!

Already we live with incredible digital intelligence, and after some initial shock, most of us are pretty used to it.

I get why one would say this, but it seems very wrong? First of all, who is this ‘us’ of which you speak? If the ‘us’ refers to the people of Earth or of the United States, then the statement to me seems clearly false. If it refers to Altman’s readers, then the claim is at least plausible. But I still think it is false. I’m not used to o3-pro. Even I haven’t found the time to properly figure out what I can fully do with even o3 or Opus without building tools.

We are ‘used to this’ in the sense that we are finding ways to mostly ignore it because life is, as Agnes Callard says, coming at us 15 minutes at a time, and we are busy, so we take some low-hanging fruit and then take it for granted, and don’t notice how much is left to pick. We tell ourselves we are used to it so we can go about our day.

This is how the singularity goes: wonders become routine, and then table stakes.

We already hear from scientists that they are two or three times more productive than they were before AI.

I note that Robin Hanson responded to this here:

Robin Hanson: “We already hear from scientists that they are two or three times more productive than they were before AI.”

If so, wouldn’t their wages now be 2-3x larger too?

Abram: No, why would they be?

Robin Hanson: Supply and demand.

o3 pro, you want to take this one? Oh right, nominal and contratual stickiness, institutional price controls, surplus division, supply response, measurement mismatch, time reallocation, you get maybe a 10% pay bump, wages track bargained marginal revenue not raw technical output, and both lag the technical shock by years.

I did, however, notice my economics being several times more productive there.

From here on, the tools we have already built will help us find further scientific insights and aid us in creating better AI systems. Of course this isn’t the same thing as an AI system completely autonomously updating its own code, but nevertheless this is a larval version of recursive self-improvement.

There are other self-reinforcing loops at play. The economic value creation has started a flywheel of compounding infrastructure buildout to run these increasingly-powerful AI systems. And robots that can build other robots (and in some sense, datacenters that can build other datacenters) aren’t that far off.

If we have to make the first million humanoid robots the old-fashioned way, but then they can operate the entire supply chain—digging and refining minerals, driving trucks, running factories, etc.—to build more robots, which can build more chip fabrication facilities, data centers, etc, then the rate of progress will obviously be quite different.

Yep. Then table stakes, recursive self-improvement, self-perpetuating growth, a robot-based parallel physical production economy. His timeline seems to be AI 2028.

Then true superintelligence, then it keeps going after that, then what?

The rate of technological progress will keep accelerating, and it will continue to be the case that people are capable of adapting to almost anything.

The rate of new wonders being achieved will be immense. It’s hard to even imagine today what we will have discovered by 2035.

It’s important to notice that this ‘adapt to anything’ is true in some ways and not in others. There are some things that are like decapitations, in that you very much cannot adapt because they kill you, dead. Or that deny you the necessary resources to survive, or to compete. You can’t ‘adapt’ to compete with someone or something sufficiently more capable than you.

We probably won’t adopt a new social contract all at once, but when we look back in a few decades, the gradual changes will have amounted to something big.

If history is any guide, we will figure out new things to do and new things to want, and assimilate new tools quickly (job change after the industrial revolution is a good recent example).

I sigh every time I see this ‘well in the past we’ve adapted and there were more things to do so in the future when we make superintelligent things universally better at everything no reason this shouldn’t still be true, we just need some time.’ Um, no? Or at least, definitely not by default?

I seriously don’t understand how you can expect robots by 2028 and wonders beyond the imagination along with superintelligence by 2035 and think mostly humans will do the things we usually do only with more capabilities at our disposal, or something? It’s like there’s some sort of semantic stop sign to not think about the obvious implications? Is there an actual model of what this world looks like?

A subsistence farmer from a thousand years ago would look at what many of us do and say we have fake jobs, and think that we are just playing games to entertain ourselves since we have plenty of food and unimaginable luxuries. I hope we will look at the jobs a thousand years in the future and think they are very fake jobs, and I have no doubt they will feel incredibly important and satisfying to the people doing them.

There are two halves to this.

The first half is, would the subsistence farmer think the jobs were fake? For some jobs yes, but once you explained what was going on and they got over future shock, I don’t think their breakdown of real versus fake would be that different from that of a farmer today. They might think a lot of them are not ‘necessary,’ that they were products of great luxury, but that would not be different than how they thought about the jobs of those at their king’s court.

I too hope that I look a thousand years in the future and I see people at all, who are actually alive, doing things at all. I hope they move beyond thinking of them quite as ‘jobs’ but I will happily take jobs. This time is different, however. Before humans built tools and grew more capable through those tools, opening up our ability to do more things.

The thing Altman is describing is very obviously, as I keep saying, not a mere tool. Humans will no longer be the strongest optimizers, or the smartest minds, or the most capable agents. Anything we can do, AI can do better, except insofar as the thing doesn’t count unless a human does it. Otherwise, an AI does the new job too.

Altman talks about some people deciding to ‘plug in’ to machine-human interfaces while others choose not to. Won’t this be like deciding not to have a phone or not use computers, only vastly more so, and also the computer and phone are applying for your job? Then again, if all the jobs that involve the AI are done better by the AI alone anyway, including manual labor via robots, perhaps you don’t lose that much by not plugging in?

And indeed, if there are jobs that ‘require you be a human’ it might also require that you not be plugged in.

Think about chess. First humans beat AIs. Then AIs beat humans, but for a brief period AI and humans working together, essentially these ‘merges,’ still beat AIs. Then the humans no longer added anything. We’re going through the same process in a lot of places, like diagnostic reasoning, where the doctor is arguably already a net negative when they don’t accept the AI’s opinion.

Now, humans use the AIs to train, perhaps, but they don’t ‘merge’ or ‘plug in’ because if they did that then the AIs would be playing chess. We want two humans to play chess, so they need to be fully unplugged, or the exercise loses its meaning.

So, again, seriously, ‘merge’? Why do people think this is a thing?

Looking forward, this sounds hard to wrap our heads around. But probably living through it will feel impressive but manageable. From a relativistic perspective, the singularity happens bit by bit, and the merge happens slowly.

I have no idea where this expectation is coming from, other than that the people won’t have a say in it. The singularity will, as Douglas Adams wrote about deadlines, give a whoosh as it flies by. That will be that. There’s nothing to manage, your services are no longer required.

Jamie Sevilla notes that Altman’s estimate here that the average ChatGPT query uses about 0.34 watt-hours, about what an oven would use in a little over one second, and roughly one fifteenth of a teaspoon of water, similar to Epoch’s estimate of 0.3 watt-hours, which was a 90% reduction over previous estimates. Compute efficiency is improving rapidly. Also note o3’s 80% price drop.

Like Dario Amodei’s Machines of Loving Grace, the latest Altman essay spends the bulk of its time hand waving away all the important concerns about such futures, both in terms of getting there and where the there is we even want to get. It’s basically wish fulfillment. There’s some value in pointing out that such worlds will, to the extent we can direct those worlds and their AIs to do things, be very good at wish fulfillment. There are some people who need to hear that. But that’s not the hard part.

Finally, we get to the ‘serious challenges to confront’ section.

There are serious challenges to confront along with the huge upsides. We do need to solve the safety issues, technically and societally, but then it’s critically important to widely distribute access to superintelligence given the economic implications. The best path forward might be something like:

  1. Solve the alignment problem, meaning that we can robustly guarantee that we get AI systems to learn and act towards what we collectively really want over the long-term (social media feeds are an example of misaligned AI; the algorithms that power those are incredible at getting you to keep scrolling and clearly understand your short-term preferences, but they do so by exploiting something in your brain that overrides your long-term preference).

  2. Then focus on making superintelligence cheap, widely available, and not too concentrated with any person, company, or country. Society is resilient, creative, and adapts quickly. If we can harness the collective will and wisdom of people, then although we’ll make plenty of mistakes and some things will go really wrong, we will learn and adapt quickly and be able to use this technology to get maximum upside and minimal downside. Giving users a lot of freedom, within broad bounds society has to decide on, seems very important. The sooner the world can start a conversation about what these broad bounds are and how we define collective alignment, the better.

That’s it. Allow me to summarize this plan:

  1. Solve the alignment problem so AIs learn and act towards what we collectively really want over the long term.

  2. Make superintelligence cheap, widely available, and not too concentrated.

  3. We’ll adapt, muddle through, figure it out, user freedom, it’s all good, society is resilient and adapts quickly.

I’m sorry, but that’s contradictory, doesn’t address the hard questions, isn’t an answer.

Instead it passes the buck to ‘society’ to discuss and answer the questions, when for various overdetermined reasons we do not seem capable of having these conversations in any serious fashion – and indeed, the moment Altman comes up against possibly joining such a conversation, he punts, and says ‘you first.’ Indeed, he seems to acknowledge this, and to want to wait until after the singularity to figure out how to deal with the effects of the singularity – he says ‘the sooner the better’ but the plan is clearly not to get to this all that soon.

This all assumes facts not in evidence and likely false in context. Why should we expect society to be resilient in this situation? What even is ‘society’ when the smartest minds, most capable agents, are AIs? How do users have this freedom, how is the intelligence widely available, if the agents all are going to act towards ‘what we collectively really want over the long term?’ and how do you reconcile these conflicting goals? Who decides what all of that means?

If the power is diffused how do we avoid inevitable gradual disempowerment? What ‘broad bounds’ are we going to ‘decide upon’ and how are we deciding? How would certain people feel about the call for diffusion of power outside of ‘any one country’ and how does this square with all the ‘America must win the race’ talk? Either the power diffusion is meaningful or it isn’t. Given history, why would you expect there to be such a voluntary diffusion of power?

That’s in addition to not addressing the technical aspect of any of this, at all. Yes, good, ‘solve the alignment problem,’ how the heck do you propose we do that? For any definition of that plan, especially if this has to survive wide distribution?

I get that none of that is ‘the point’ of The Gentle Singularity. But the right answers to those questions are the only way such a singularity can stay gentle, or end well. It’s not an optional conversation.

Eli Lifland: I’m most concerned about not being able to align superintelligence with any goal, rather than only being able to align them with short-term goals.

I’m concerned about this characterization of the alignment problem [the #1 above].

Appreciate him publishing this.

Jeffrey Ladish: Huh it seems right to me. Being able to align them to a long term goal is a subset of being able to align them to any goal. I think Sam is wildly optimistic but the target doesn’t seem wrong

Eli Lifland: I think with the example it gives the wrong impression.

Social media feeds are in many ways a highly helpful example and intuition pump here, as it illustrates what ‘aligned’ means here. Those feeds are clearly aligned to the companies in question. There’s an additional question of whether such actions are indeed in the best interests of the companies, but for this purpose I think we should accept that they likely are. Thus, alignment here means aligned to the user’s longer term best interests, and how long term and how paternalistic that should be are left as open questions.

The place this is potentially misleading is, if we did get a feed here that was aligned to the user’s ‘true’ preferences in some sense, then is it aligned? What if that was against what we collectively ‘really want,’ let’s say because it encourages too much social media use by being too good, or it doesn’t push you enough towards making new friends? And that’s only a microcosm. Not doing the social media misalignment thing is relatively easy – we all know how to align the algorithm to the user far better, and we all know why it isn’t done. The general case job here is vastly harder.

Matt Yglesias wishes Sam Altman and others would tell us which policy ideas they think we should entertain, since he mentions that a much richer world could entertain new ideas.

My honest-Altman response is two-fold.

  1. We’re not richer yet, so we can’t yet entertain them. There’s a reason Altman says we won’t adapt the new social contract all at once. So it would be unwise to tell the world what they are. I think this is actually a strong argument. There are many aspects of the future that will require sacred value tradeoffs, if you take any side of one of those you open yourself up to attack, and if you do so before it is clear the tradeoff is forced it is vastly worse. There’s no winning doing this.

  2. If we do get into this richer position with the ability to meaningfully enact policy, if we are all still alive and in control over the future, then this is the part where we can adapt and muddle through and fix things in post. We can have that discussion later (and have superintelligent help). There’s no need to get distracted by this.

An obvious objection is, what makes us think we can use, demand or enforce social contracts in such a future? The foundations of social contract theory don’t hold in a world with superintelligence. I think that contra many science fiction writers that a future very rich world will choose to treat its less fortunate rather well even if nothing is forcing the elite to do so, but also nothing will be forcing the elite to do so.

Finally, like Rob Wiblin I notice I am confused by this closing:

Sam Altman: May we scale smoothly, exponentially and uneventfully through superintelligence.

It is hard not to interpret this, and many aspects of the essay, as essentially saying ‘don’t worry, nothing to see here, we got this, wonders beyond your imagination with no downsides that can’t be easily fixed, so don’t regulate me. Just go gently into that good night, and everything will be fine.’

Daniel Faggella: the singularity is going to hit so hard it’ll rip the skin off your fucking bones tbh

It’ll fucking shred not only hominid-ness, put probably almost any semblance of hominid values or works.

It’ll be a million things at once, or a trillion. it sure af won’t be gentle lol

Can’t blame sam for saying what he’s saying, the incentives make it hard to say otherwise.

I don’t understand why people respond so often with the common counterpoint of ‘well the singularity hasn’t happened yet, so the idea that it will hit you hard when it does come hasn’t been borne out.’ That doesn’t bear on the question at all.

Max Kesin sums up the appropriate response:

Discussion about this post

The Dream of a Gentle Singularity Read More »

she-was-a-disney-star-with-platinum-records,-but-bridgit-mendler-gave-it-up-to-change-the-world

She was a Disney star with platinum records, but Bridgit Mendler gave it up to change the world


“The space industry has a ground bottleneck, and the problem is going to get worse.”

The Northwood Space team is all smiles after the first successful test of “Frankie.” Clockwise, from lower left: Shaurya Luthra, Marvin Shu, Josh Lehtonen, Thomas Row, Dan Meinzer, Griffin Cleverly, Bridgit Mendler. Credit: Shaurya Luthra

The Northwood Space team is all smiles after the first successful test of “Frankie.” Clockwise, from lower left: Shaurya Luthra, Marvin Shu, Josh Lehtonen, Thomas Row, Dan Meinzer, Griffin Cleverly, Bridgit Mendler. Credit: Shaurya Luthra

Bridgit Mendler was not in Hollywood anymore. Instead, she found herself in rural North Dakota, where the stars sparkled overhead rather than on the silver screen. And she was freezing.

When her team tumbled out of their rental cars after midnight, temperatures had already plummeted into the 40s. Howling winds carried their breath away before it could fog the air. So it was with no small sense of urgency that the group scrambled to assemble a jury-rigged antenna to talk to a spacecraft that would soon come whizzing over the horizon. A few hours later, the rosy light of dawn shone on the faces of a typically scrappy space startup: mostly male, mostly disheveled.

Then there was Mendler, the former Disney star and pop music sensation—and she was running the whole show.

Mendler followed an improbable path from the Disney Channel to North Dakota. She was among the brightest adolescent stars born in the early 1990s, along with Ariana Grande, Demi Lovato, and Selena Gomez, who gained fame as teenagers on the Disney Channel and Nickelodeon by enthralling Gen Z. During the first decade of the new millennium, before the rise of Musical.ly and then TikTok, television still dominated the attention of young children. And they were watching the Disney Channel in droves.

Like many of her fellow teenage stars, Mendler parlayed television fame into pop stardom, scoring a handful of platinum records. But in her mid-20s, Mendler left that world behind and threw herself into academia. She attended some of the country’s top universities and married an aerospace engineer. A couple of years ago, the two of them founded a company to address what they believed was a limiting factor in the space economy: transferring data from orbit.

Their company, Northwood Space, employed just six people when it deployed to North Dakota last October. But the team already had real hardware. On the windswept plain, they unpacked and assembled “Frankie,” their cobbled-together, phased-array satellite dish affectionately named after Mary Shelley’s masterpiece Frankenstein.

“We had the truck arrive at two o’clock in the morning,” Mendler said. “Six hours later, we were operational. We started running passes. We were able to transmit to a satellite on our first try.” The team had been up all night by then. “I guess that’s when my Celsius addiction kind of kicked in,” she said.

Guzzling energy drinks isn’t the healthiest activity, but it fits with the high-energy, frenetic rush of building a space startup. To survive without a billionaire’s backing, startups must stay lean and move quickly. And it’s not at all clear that Northwood will survive, as most space startups fail due to a lack of funding, long technology horizons, or regulatory hurdles. So within a year of seriously beginning operations, it’s notable that Northwood was already in the field, testing hardware and finding modest success.

From a technological standpoint, a space mission must usually complete three functions. A spacecraft must launch into orbit. It must deploy its solar panels, begin operations, and collect data. Finally, it must send its data back. If satellite data does not return to Earth in a timely manner, it’s worthless. This process is far more difficult than one might think—and not that many people think about it. “Ground stations,” Mendler acknowledges, are some of the most “unsexy and boring problems” in the space industry.

The 32-year-old Mendler now finds herself exactly where she wants to be. The life she has chosen—leading a startup in gritty El Segundo, California, delving into regulatory minutiae, and freezing in rural North Dakota to tackle “boring” problems—lies a world away from a seemingly glamorous life in the entertainment industry. That’s just fine with her.

“When I was growing up, I always said I wanted to be everything,” she said. “So in a certain sense, maybe I wouldn’t be surprised about where I ended up. But I would certainly be happy.”

Good Luck Charlie

Mendler may have wanted to be everything, but in her early years, what she most wanted to be was an actor. In 2001, when Mendler was eight, her parents moved across the country from Washington, DC, to the Bay Area. Her father designed fuel-efficient automobile engines, and her mother was an architect doing green design. Her mom, working from home, enrolled Mendler in an acting camp to help fill the days.

Mendler caught the bug. Although her parents were supportive of these dreams, they told her she would have to work to make it happen.

“We still had the Yellow Pages at the time, and so my little kid self was just flipping through the Yellow Pages trying to figure out how to get an agent,” she said. “And it was a long journey. Something that people outside of acting maybe don’t realize is that you encounter a shit ton of rejection. And so my introduction to acting was a ton of rejection in the entertainment industry. But I was like, ‘I’m gonna freaking figure this out.’”

After three years, Mendler began to get voice-acting roles in small films and video games. In November, 2006, she appeared on television for the first time in an episode of the soap opera General Hospital. Another three years would pass before she had a real breakthrough, appearing as a recurring character on Wizards of Waverly Place, a Disney Channel show starring Selena Gomez. She played a vampire girlfriend.

Mendler starred as “Teddy” in the Disney Channel show Good Luck Charlie. Here, she’s sharing a moment with her sister, “Charlie.”

Credit: Adam Taylor/Disney Channel via Getty Images

Mendler starred as “Teddy” in the Disney Channel show Good Luck Charlie. Here, she’s sharing a moment with her sister, “Charlie.” Credit: Adam Taylor/Disney Channel via Getty Images

Mendler impressed enough in this role to be offered the lead in a new sitcom on Disney Channel, Good Luck Charlie, playing the older sister to a toddler named Charlie. In this role, Mendler made a video diary for Charlie, offering advice on how to be a successful teenager. The warm-hearted series ran for four years. Episodes regularly averaged more than 5 million viewers.

My two daughters were among them. They were a decade younger than Mendler, who was 18 when the first episodes aired in 2010. I would sometimes watch the show with my girls. Mendler’s character was endearing, and her advice to Charlie, I believe, helped my own younger daughters anticipate their teenage years. A decade and a half later, my kids still look up to her not just for being on television but for everything else she has accomplished.

As her star soared on the Disney Channel, Mendler moved into music. She recorded gold and platinum records, including her biggest hit, “Ready or Not,” in 2012.

Prominent childhood actors have always struggled with the transition to adulthood. Disney stars like Lindsay Lohan and Demi Lovato developed serious substance abuse problems, while others, such as Miley Cyrus and Selena Gomez, abruptly adopted new, much more mature images that contrasted sharply with their characters on children’s TV shows.

Mendler chose a different path.

Making an impact

As a pre-teen, Mendler would lie in bed at night listening to her mom working upstairs in the kitchen. They lived in a small house amid the redwoods north of Sausalito, California. When Mendler awoke some mornings, her mom would still be tapping away at her architectural designs. “That’s kind of how I viewed work,” Mendler said.

One of her favorite books as a kid was Miss Rumphius, about a woman who spread lupine seeds (also known as bluebonnets) along the coast of Maine to make the countryside more beautiful. The picture book offered an empowering message: Every person has a choice about how to make an impact on the world.

This environment shaped Mendler. She saw her mom work all night, saw experimental engines built by her dad scattered around the house, and had conversations around the dinner table about the future and how she could find her place in it. As she aged into adulthood, performing before thousands of people on stage and making TV shows and movies, Mendler felt like she was missing something. In her words, life in Los Angeles felt “anemic.” She had always liked to create things herself, and she wasn’t doing that.

“The niche that I had wedged myself into was not allowing me to have my own voice and perspective,” she said. “I wound up going down a path where I was more the vessel for other people’s creations, and I wondered what it would be like to be a little bit more in charge of my voice than I was in Hollywood.”

So Mendler channeled her inner nerd. She began to bring textbooks on game theory to the set of movies and TV shows. She took a few college courses. When a topic intrigued her, she would email an author or professor or reach out to them on Twitter.

Her interest was turbocharged when she neared her 25th birthday. Throughout the mid-2010s, Mendler continued to act and release music. One day, while filming a movie called Father of the Year in Massachusetts for Netflix, she had a day off. Her uncle took Mendler to visit the famed Media Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This research lab brings together grad students, researchers, and entrepreneurs from various disciplines to develop technology—things like socially engaging robots and biologically inspired engineering. It was a vibrant meeting space for brilliant minds who wanted to build a better future.

“I knew right then I needed to go there,” she said. “I needed to find a way.”

But there was a problem. The Media Lab only offered graduate student programs. Mender didn’t have an undergraduate degree. She’d only taken a handful of college courses. Officials at MIT told her that if she could build her own things, they would consider admitting her to the program. So she threw herself into learning how to code, working on starter projects in HTML, JavaScript, CSS, and Python. It worked.

In 2018, Mendler posted on Twitter that she was starting a graduate program at MIT to focus on better understanding social media. “As an entertainer, for years I struggled with social media because I felt like there was a more loving and human way to connect with fans. That is what I’m going to study,” she wrote. “Overall, I just hope that this time can be an adventure, and I have a thousand ideas I want to share with you so please stay tuned!”

That fall she did, in fact, start working on social media. Mendler was fascinated with it—Twitter in particular—and its role as the new public square. But at the Media Lab, there are all manner of interdisciplinary groups. The one right next to Mendler, for example, was focused on space.

Pop startup

In the months before she left Los Angeles for MIT, Mendler’s life changed in an important way. Through friends, she met an aerospace engineer named Griffin Cleverly. Southern California is swarming with aerospace engineers, but it’s perhaps indicative of the different circles between Hollywood and Hawthorne that Cleverly was the first rocket scientist Mendler had ever met.

“The conversations we had were totally different,” she said. “He has so many thoughts about so many things, both in aerospace and other topics.”

They hit it off. Not long after Mendler left for the MIT Lab, Cleverly followed her to Massachusetts, first applying himself to different projects at the lab before taking a job working on satellites for Lockheed Martin. The two married a year later, in 2019.

By the next spring, Mendler was finishing her master’s thesis at MIT on using technology to help resolve conflicts. Then the world shut down due to the COVID-19 pandemic. She and Cleverly suddenly had a lot of time on their hands.

They retreated to a lake house owned by Mendler’s family in rural New Hampshire. The house had been in the family since just after World War II, and the couple decided to experiment with antennas to see what they could do. They would periodically mask up and drive to a Home Depot in nearby Concord for supplies. They built different kinds of antennas, including parabolic and helical designs, to see what they could communicate with far away.

Mendler gave up a successful career in music and acting to earn a master’s degree at MIT.

Mendler gave up a successful career in music and acting to earn a master’s degree at MIT.

As they experimented, Mendler and Cleverly began to think about the changing nature of the space industry. At the time, SpaceX’s Starlink constellation was just coming online to deliver broadband around the world. The company’s Falcon 9 launches were ramping up. Satellites were becoming smaller and cheaper, constellations were proliferating, and companies like K2 were seeking to mass produce.

Mendler and Cleverly believed that the volume of data coming down from space was about to explode—and that existing commercial networks weren’t capable of handling it all.

“The space industry has been on even-keeled growth for a long time,” Cleverly said. “But what happens when you hit that hockey stick across the industry? Launch seemed like it was getting taken care of. Mass manufacturing of satellites appeared to be coming. We saw these trends and were trying to understand how the industry was going to react to them. When we looked at the ground side, it wasn’t clear that anyone really was thinking about the ramifications there.”

As the pandemic waned, the couple resumed more normal lives. Mendler continued her studies at MIT, but she was now thoroughly hooked on space. Her husband excelled at working with technology to communicate with satellites, so Mendler focused on the non-engineering side of the space industry. “With space, so many folks focus on how complicated it is from an engineering perspective, and for good reason, because there are massive engineering problems to solve,” she said. “But these are also really operationally complex problems.”

For example, ground systems that communicate with satellites as they travel around the world operate in different jurisdictions, necessitating contracts and transactions in many countries. Issues with liability, intellectual property, insurance, and regulations abound. So Mendler decided that the next logical step after MIT was to attend law school. Because she lacked an undergraduate degree, most schools wouldn’t admit her. But Harvard University has an exception for exceptional students.

“Harvard was one of the few schools that admitted me,” she said. “I ended up going to law school because I was curious about understanding the operational aspects of working in space.”

These were insanely busy years. In 2022, when she began law school, Mendler was still conducting research at MIT. She soon got an internship at the Federal Communications Commission that gave her a broader view of the space industry from a regulatory standpoint. And in August 2022, she and Cleverly, alongside a software expert from Capella Space named Shaurya Luthra, founded Northwood Space.

So Bridgit Mendler, while studying at MIT and Harvard simultaneously, added a new title to her CV: chief executive officer.

Wizards of Waverly Space

Initially, the founders of Northwood Space did little more than study the market and write a few research papers, assessing the demand for sending data down to Earth, whether there would be customers for a new commercial network to download this data, and if affordable technology solutions could be built for this purpose. After about a year, they were convinced.

“Here’s the vision we ended up with,” Mendler said. “The space industry has a ground bottleneck, and the problem is going to get worse. So let’s build a network that can address that bottleneck and accelerate space capabilities. The best way to go about that was building capacity.”

If you’re like most people, you don’t spend much time pondering how data gets to and from space. To the extent one thinks about Starlink, it’s probably the satellite trains and personal dishes that spring to mind. But SpaceX has also had to build large ground stations around the world, known as gateways, to pipe data into space from the terrestrial Internet. Most companies lack the resources to build global gateways, so they use a shared commercial network. This has drawbacks, though.

Getting data down in a timely manner is not a trivial problem. From the earliest days of NASA through commercial operations today, operators on Earth generally do not maintain continual contact with satellites in space. For spacecraft in a polar orbit, contact might be made several times a day, with a lag in data of perhaps 30 minutes or as high as 90 minutes in some cases.

This is not great. Let’s say you want to use satellite imagery to fight wildfires. Data on the spread of a wildfire can help operators on the ground deploy resources to fight it. But for this information to be useful in real time, it must be downlinked within minutes of its collection. The existing infrastructure incurs delays that make most currently collected data non-actionable for firefighters. So the first problem Northwood wants to solve is persistence, with a network of ground stations around the world that would allow operators to continually connect with their satellites.

After persistence, the next problem faced by satellite operators is constraints on bandwidth. Satellites collect reams of data in orbit and must either process it on board or throw a lot of it away.

Mendler said that within three years, Northwood aims to build a shared network capable of linking to 500 spacecraft at a time. This may not sound like a big deal, but it’s larger than every commercially available shared ground network and the US government’s Satellite Control Network combined. And these tracking centers took decades to build. Each of Northwood’s sites, spread across six continents, is intended to download far more data than can be brought down on commercial networks today, the equivalent of streaming tens of thousands of Blu-ray discs from space concurrently.

“Our job is to figure out how to most efficiently deliver those capabilities,” Mendler said. “We’re asking, how can we reliably deliver a new standard of connectivity to the industry, at a viable price point?”

With these aims in mind, Mendler and Cleverly got serious about their startup in the fall of 2023.

Frankie goes from Hollywood

Over the previous decade, SpaceX had revolutionized the rocket industry, and a second generation of private launch companies was maturing. Some, like Rocket Lab, were succeeding. Others, such as Virgin Orbit, had gone bankrupt. There were important lessons in these ashes for a space startup CEO.

Among the most critical for Mendler was keeping costs low. Virgin Orbit’s payroll had approached 700 people to support a rocket capable of limited revenue. That kind of payroll growth was a ticket to insolvency. She also recognized SpaceX’s relentless push to build things in-house and rapidly prototype hardware through iterative design as key to the company’s success.

By the end of 2023, Mendler was raising the company’s initial funding, a seed round worth $6.3 million. Northwood emerged from “stealth mode” in February 2024 and set about hiring a small team. Early that summer, it began pulling together components to build Frankie, a prototype for the team’s first product—modular phased-array antennas. Northwood put Frankie together in four months.

“Our goal was to build things quickly,” Mendler said. “That’s why the first thing we did after raising our seed round was to build something and put it in the field. We wanted to show people it was real.”

Unlike a parabolic dish antenna—think a DirecTV satellite dish or the large ground-based antennas that Ellie Arroway uses in Contact—phased-array antennas are electrically steerable. Instead of needing to point directly at their target to collect a signal, phased-array antennas produce a beam of radio waves that can “point” in different directions without moving the antenna. The technology is decades old, but its use in commercial applications has been limited because it’s more difficult to work with than parabolic dishes. In theory, however, phased array antennas should let Northwood build more capable ground stations, pulling down vastly more data within a smaller footprint. In business terms, the technology is “scalable.”

But before a technology can scale, it must work.

In late September 2024, the company’s six engineers, a business development director, and Mendler packed Frankie into a truck and sent it rolling off to the Dakotas. They soon followed, flying commercial to Denver and then into Devils Lake Regional Airport. On the first day of October, the party checked into Spirit Lake Casino.

That night, they drove out to a rural site owned by Planet Labs, nearly an hour away, that has a small network station to communicate with its Earth-imaging satellites. This site consisted of two large antennas, a small operations shed for the networking equipment, and a temporary trailer. The truck hauling Frankie arrived at 2 am local time.

The company’s antenna, “Frankie,” arrives early on October 2 and the team begins to unload it.

Credit: Bridgit Mendler

The company’s antenna, “Frankie,” arrives early on October 2 and the team begins to unload it. Credit: Bridgit Mendler

Before sunrise, as the team completed setup, Mendler went into the nearest town, Maddock. The village has one main establishment, Harriman’s Restaurant & Bobcat Bar. The protean facility also serves as an opera house, community library, and meeting place. When Mendler went to the restaurant’s counter and ordered eight breakfast burritos, she attracted notice. But the locals were polite.

Returning to her team, they gathered in the small Planet Labs trailer on the windswept site. There were no lights, so they carried their portable floodlights inside. The space lacked room for chairs, so they huddled around one another in what they affectionately began referring to as the “food closet.” At least it kept them out of the wind.

The team had some success on the first morning, as Frankie communicated with a SkySat flying overhead, a Planet satellite a little larger than a mini refrigerator. First contact came at 7: 34 am, and they had some additional successes throughout the day. But communication remained one-way, from the ground to space. For satellite telemetry, tracking, and command—TT&C in industry parlance—they needed to close the loop. But Frankie could not receive a clear X Band signal from space; it was coming in too weak.

“While we could command the satellite, we could not receive the acknowledgments of the command,” Mendler said.

The best satellite passes were clumped during the overnight hours. So over the next few days, the team napped in their rental cars, waiting to see if Frankie could hear satellites calling home. But as the days ticked by, they had no luck. Time was running out.

Solving their RF problems

As the Northwood engineers troubleshot the problem with low signal power, they realized that with some minor changes, they could probably boost the signal. But this would require reconfiguring and calibrating Frankie.

The team scrambled to make these changes on the afternoon of October 4, before four passes in a row that night starting at 3 am. This was one of their last, best chances to make things work. After implementing the fix, the bedraggled Northwood team ate a muted dinner at their casino hotel before heading back out to the ground station. There, they waited in nervous silence for the first pass of the night.

When the initial satellite passed overhead, the space-to-ground power finally reached the requisite level. But Northwood could not decode the message due to a coaxial cable being plugged into the wrong port.

Then they missed the second pass because an inline amplifier was mistakenly switched off.

The third satellite pass failed due to a misrouted switch in Planet’s radio-frequency equipment.

So they were down to the final pass. But this time, there were no technical snafus. The peak of the signal came in clean and, to the team’s delight, with an even higher signal-to-noise ratio than anticipated. Frankie had done it. High fives and hugs all around. The small team crashed that morning before successfully repeating the process the next day.

After that, it was time to celebrate, Dakota style. The team decamped to Harriman’s, where Mendler’s new friend Jim Walter, the proprietor, served them shots. After a while, he disappeared into the basement and returned with Bobcat Bar T-shirts he wanted them to have as mementos. Later that night, the Northwood team played blackjack at the casino and lost their money at the slot machines.

Yet in the bigger picture, they had gambled and won. Mendler wanted to build fast, to show the world that her company had technical chops. They had thrown Frankie together and rushed headlong into the rough-and-tumble countryside, plugged in the antenna, and waited to see what happened. A lot of bad things could have happened, but instead, the team hit the jackpot.

“We were able to go from the design to actually build and deploy in that four-month time period,” Mendler said. “That resulted in a lot of different customers knocking down our door and helping to shape requirements for this next version of the system that we’re going to be able to start demoing soon. So in half a year, we radically revised our product, and we will begin actually putting them out in the field and operating this year. Time is very much at the forefront of our mind.”

Can ground stations fly high?

The fundamental premise behind Northwood is that a bottleneck constrains the ability to bring down data from space and that a lean, new-space approach can disrupt the existing industry. But is this the case?

“The demand for ground-based connectivity is rising,” said Caleb Henry, director of research at Quilty Space. “And your satellites are only as effective as your gateways.”

This trend is being driven not only by the rise of satellites in general but also by higher-resolution imaging satellites like Planet’s Pelican satellites or BlackSky’s Gen-3 satellites. There has also been a corresponding increase in the volume of data from synthetic aperture radar satellites, Henry said. Recent regulatory filings, such as this one in the United Kingdom, underscore the notion that ongoing data bottlenecks persist. However, Henry said it’s not clear whether this growth in data will be linear or exponential.

The idea of switching from large, single-dish antennas to phased arrays is not new. This is partly because there are questions about how expensive it would be to build large, capable phased-array antennas to talk to satellites hundreds of miles away—and how energy intensive this would be.

Commercial satellite operators currently have a limited number of options for communicating with the ground. A Norwegian company, Kongsberg Satellite Services (or KSAT), has the largest network of ground stations. Other players include Swedish Space Systems, Leaf Space in Italy, Atlas Space Operations in Michigan, and more. Some of these companies have experimented with phased-array antennas, Henry said, but no one has made the technology the backbone of its network.

By far the largest data operator in low-Earth orbit, SpaceX, chose dish-based gateways for its ground stations around the world that talk to Starlink satellites. (The individual user terminals are phased-array antennas, however.)

Like reuse in the launch industry, a switch to phased-array antennas is potentially disruptive. Large dishes can only communicate with a single satellite at a time, whereas phased-array antennas can make multiple connections. This allows an operator to pack much more power into a smaller footprint on the ground. But as with SpaceX and reuse, the existing ground station operators seem to be waiting to see if anyone else can pull it off.

“The industry just has not trusted that the level of disruption phased-array antennas can bring is worth the cost,” Henry said. “Reusability wasn’t trusted, either, because no one could do it affordably and effectively.”

So can Northwood Space do it? One of the very first investors in SpaceX, the Founders Fund, believes so. It participated in the seed round for Northwood and again in a Series A round, valued at $30 million, which closed in April.

When Mendler first approached the fund about 18 months ago, it was an easy decision, said Delian Asparouhov, a partner at the fund.

“We probably only discussed it for about 15 minutes,” Asparouhov said. “Bridgit was perfect for this. I think we met on a Tuesday and had a term sheet signed on a Thursday night. It happened that fast.”

The Founders Fund had been studying the idea for a while. Rocket, satellites, and reentry vehicles get all of the attention, but Asparouhov said there is a huge need for ground systems and that phased-array technology has the ability to unlock a future of abundant data from space. His own company, Varda Space, is only able to communicate with its spacecraft for about 35 minutes every two hours. Varda vehicles conduct autonomous manufacturing in space, and the ability to have continuous data from its vehicles about their health and the work on board would be incredibly helpful.

“Infrastructure is not sexy,” Asparouhov said. “We needed someone who could turn that into a compelling story.”

Mendler, with her novel background, was the person. But she’s not just an eloquent spokesperson for the industry, he said. Building a company is hard, from finding facilities to navigating legal work to staffing up. Mendler appears to be acing these tasks. “Run through the LinkedIn of the team she’s recruited,” he said. “You’ll see that she’s knocked it out of the park.”

Ready or not

At Northwood, Mendler has entered a vastly different world from the entertainment industry or academia. She consults with fast-talking venture capitalists, foreign regulators, lawyers, rocket scientists, and occasionally the odd space journalist. It’s a challenging environment usually occupied by hotshot engineers—often arrogant, hard-charging men.

Mendler stands out in this setting. But her life has always been about thriving in tough environments.

Whatever happens, she has already achieved success in one important way. As an actor and singer, Mendler often felt as though she was dancing to someone else’s tune. No longer. At Northwood, she holds the microphone, but she is also a director and producer. If she fails—and let’s be honest, most new space companies do fail—it will be on her own terms.

Several weeks ago, Mendler was sitting at home, watching the movie Meet the Robinsons with her 6-year-old son. One of the main themes of the animated Disney film is that one should “keep moving forward” in life and that it’s possible to build a future that is optimistic for humanity—say, Star Trek rather than The Terminator or The Matrix.

“It shows you what the future could look like,” Mendler said of the movie. “And it gave me a little sad feeling, because it is so optimistic and beautiful. I think people can get discouraged by a dystopian outlook about what the future can look like. We need to remember we can build something positive.”

She will try to do just that.

Photo of Eric Berger

Eric Berger is the senior space editor at Ars Technica, covering everything from astronomy to private space to NASA policy, and author of two books: Liftoff, about the rise of SpaceX; and Reentry, on the development of the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon. A certified meteorologist, Eric lives in Houston.

She was a Disney star with platinum records, but Bridgit Mendler gave it up to change the world Read More »

ars-live-recap:-where-does-nasa-go-from-here?

Ars Live recap: Where does NASA go from here?

Our discussion with Reuters’ Joey Roulette and WaPo’s Christian Davenport. Click here for transcript.

Recently, during the first Ars Live event of this year, two noted space journalists joined Ars space editor Eric Berger for a discussion of NASA’s future in the age of the second Trump administration.

During the hour-long discussion, Christian Davenport of The Washington Post and Joey Roulette of Reuters covered a range of issues, from uncertainty at the space agency to the likelihood of NASA sponsoring a humans-to-Mars mission any time soon.

This is an especially frenetic time in space policy. In the days since this video was recorded, President Trump canceled the longstanding nomination of private astronaut Jared Isaacman to become NASA administrator—at the time we recorded the video, Senate approval was assured, and a vote was imminent. Then Trump and SpaceX founder Elon Musk had a serious falling out, with the two trading nasty words on social media and culminating in Musk threatening to end Dragon spacecraft missions before pulling back.

“It’s a fascinating time right now to be a space journalist, to do what we get to do, to write about what we get to write about at this time,” Davenport said. “Everyone says, you know, journalism, it’s a first rough draft of history. I believe that to be true. I think people are gonna look back at this time, 10, 20, 30 years from now, as a seminal moment.”

Ars Live recap: Where does NASA go from here? Read More »

full-screen-xbox-handheld-ui-is-coming-to-all-windows-pcs-“starting-next-year”

Full-screen Xbox handheld UI is coming to all Windows PCs “starting next year”

One weakness of Valve’s Steam Deck gaming handheld and SteamOS is that, by default, they will only run Windows games from Steam that are supported by the platform’s Proton compatibility layer (plus the subset of games that run natively on Linux). It’s possible to install alternative game stores, and Proton’s compatibility is generally impressive, but SteamOS still isn’t a true drop-in replacement for Windows.

Microsoft and Asus’ co-developed ROG Xbox Ally is trying to offer PC gamers a more comprehensive compatibility solution that also preserves a SteamOS-like handheld UI by putting a new Xbox-branded user interface on top of traditional Windows. And while this interface will roll out to the ROG Xbox Ally first, Microsoft told The Verge that the interface would come to other Ally handhelds next and that something “similar” would be “rolling out to other Windows handhelds starting next year.”

Bringing a Steam Deck-style handheld-optimized user interface to Windows is something Microsoft has been experimenting with internally since at least 2022, when employees at an internal hackathon identified most of Windows’ handheld deficiencies in a slide deck about a proposed “Windows Handheld Mode.”

The mock-up “gaming shell” that some Microsoft employees were experimenting with in 2022 shares some similarities with the Xbox-branded interface we saw on the ROG Xbox Ally yesterday. Credit: Microsoft/Twitter user _h0x0d_

It’s not clear whether this new Xbox interface is a direct outgrowth of that slide presentation, but it pitches a tile-based Switch-style gamepad UI with some superficial similarities to what Microsoft revealed yesterday. This theoretical Handheld Mode would also have come with “optimizations for your handheld’s touch screen to improve touch points and visibility” and Windows’ “lack of controller support” outside of the Steam app and actual games.

On the ROG Xbox Ally, the new full-screen interface completely replaces the traditional desktop-and-taskbar interface of Windows, saving what Microsoft says is a couple of gigabytes’ worth of RAM while also using less energy and other system resources. On a handheld running the normal version of Windows, like the regular ROG Ally, that Windows overhead is joined by additional overhead from things like Asus’ Armoury Crate software, which these handhelds currently need to bridge the functionality gap between SteamOS and Windows.

Full-screen Xbox handheld UI is coming to all Windows PCs “starting next year” Read More »

microsoft-dives-into-the-handheld-gaming-pc-wars-with-the-asus-rog-xbox-ally

Microsoft dives into the handheld gaming PC wars with the Asus ROG Xbox Ally

Back in March, we outlined six features we wanted to see on what was then just a rumored Xbox-branded, Windows-powered handheld gaming device. Today, Microsoft’s announcement of the Asus ROG Xbox Ally hardware line looks like it fulfills almost all of our wishes for Microsoft’s biggest foray into portable gaming yet.

The Windows-11-powered Xbox Ally devices promise access to “all of the games available on Windows,” including “games from Xbox, Game Pass, Battle.net, and other leading PC storefronts [read: Steam, Epic Games Store, Ubisoft Connect, etc].” But instead of having to install and boot up those games through the stock Windows interface, as you often do on handhelds like the original ROG Ally line, all these games will be available through what Microsoft is calling an “aggregated gaming library.”

Asus and Microsoft are stressing how that integrated experience can be used with games across multiple different Windows-based launchers, promising “access to games you can’t get elsewhere.” That could be seen as a subtle dig at SteamOS-powered devices like the Steam Deck, which can have significant trouble with certain titles that don’t play well with Steam and/or Linux for one reason or another. Microsoft also highlights how support apps like Discord, Twitch, and downloadable game mods will also be directly available via the Xbox Ally’s Windows backbone.

And while the Xbox Ally devices run Windows 11, they will boot to what Microsoft is calling the “Xbox Experience for Handheld,” a bespoke full-screen interface that hides the nitty-gritty of the Windows desktop by default. That gaming-focused interface will “minimize background activity and defer non-essential tasks,” meaning “more [and] higher framerates” for the games themselves, Microsoft says. A rhombus-shaped Xbox button located near the left stick will also launch an Xbox Game Bar overlay with quick access to functions like settings, performance metrics, and fast switching between titles. Microsoft also says it is working on a “Deck Verified”-style program for identifying Windows titles that “have been optimized for handhelds.”

Microsoft dives into the handheld gaming PC wars with the Asus ROG Xbox Ally Read More »