×
Europe is pushing back on Washington’s chip war | TechCrunch
Dutch Trade Minister Sjoerd Sjoerdsma visited Washington this week to meet with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and members of Congress to oppose the MATCH Act, a bill that would bar Chinese chipmakers from accessing Western semiconductor equipment, and one that would hit ASML especially hard.

ASML, based in the Netherlands, is Europe’s most valuable company and the only maker in the world of the sophisticated lithography machines that are used to make cutting-edge AI chips.







“It’s exceptional that I’m coming here to broadly outline our concerns to Congress,” Sjoerdsma told Bloomberg after the meetings. “The stakes for the Netherlands may be very high.”

China accounts for 19% of ASML’s net system sales. The MATCH Act would go further than existing controls, extending curbs to ASML’s deep ultraviolet immersion machines on top of the long-standing ban on its most advanced extreme ultraviolet, or EUV, tools reaching China.

As ASML CEO Christophe Fouquet told TechCrunch in May, what China can currently buy are older-generation deep ultraviolet tools — gear first shipped about a decade ago — the same machines the MATCH Act would now relegate as off-limits.

The bill, introduced in April, hasn’t yet faced a full House or Senate vote; Bloomberg notes it would likely need to be folded into a larger package to pass.
#Europe #pushing #Washingtons #chip #war #TechCrunchAI chips,ASML,In Brief

Europe is pushing back on Washington’s chip war | TechCrunch

Dutch Trade Minister Sjoerd Sjoerdsma visited Washington this week to meet with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and members of Congress to oppose the MATCH Act, a bill that would bar Chinese chipmakers from accessing Western semiconductor equipment, and one that would hit ASML especially hard.

ASML, based in the Netherlands, is Europe’s most valuable company and the only maker in the world of the sophisticated lithography machines that are used to make cutting-edge AI chips.

“It’s exceptional that I’m coming here to broadly outline our concerns to Congress,” Sjoerdsma told Bloomberg after the meetings. “The stakes for the Netherlands may be very high.”

China accounts for 19% of ASML’s net system sales. The MATCH Act would go further than existing controls, extending curbs to ASML’s deep ultraviolet immersion machines on top of the long-standing ban on its most advanced extreme ultraviolet, or EUV, tools reaching China.

As ASML CEO Christophe Fouquet told TechCrunch in May, what China can currently buy are older-generation deep ultraviolet tools — gear first shipped about a decade ago — the same machines the MATCH Act would now relegate as off-limits.

The bill, introduced in April, hasn’t yet faced a full House or Senate vote; Bloomberg notes it would likely need to be folded into a larger package to pass.

#Europe #pushing #Washingtons #chip #war #TechCrunchAI chips,ASML,In Brief

Dutch Trade Minister Sjoerd Sjoerdsma visited Washington this week to meet with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and members of Congress to oppose the MATCH Act, a bill that would bar Chinese chipmakers from accessing Western semiconductor equipment, and one that would hit ASML especially hard.

ASML, based in the Netherlands, is Europe’s most valuable company and the only maker in the world of the sophisticated lithography machines that are used to make cutting-edge AI chips.

“It’s exceptional that I’m coming here to broadly outline our concerns to Congress,” Sjoerdsma told Bloomberg after the meetings. “The stakes for the Netherlands may be very high.”

China accounts for 19% of ASML’s net system sales. The MATCH Act would go further than existing controls, extending curbs to ASML’s deep ultraviolet immersion machines on top of the long-standing ban on its most advanced extreme ultraviolet, or EUV, tools reaching China.

As ASML CEO Christophe Fouquet told TechCrunch in May, what China can currently buy are older-generation deep ultraviolet tools — gear first shipped about a decade ago — the same machines the MATCH Act would now relegate as off-limits.

The bill, introduced in April, hasn’t yet faced a full House or Senate vote; Bloomberg notes it would likely need to be folded into a larger package to pass.

Source link
#Europe #pushing #Washingtons #chip #war #TechCrunch


When Anthropic first disclosed Mythos in April, it sent an anxious shockwave through much of the cybersecurity sector. The new AI model was allegedly so ruthlessly effective at finding and exploiting security vulnerabilities in existing software that the company said it was holding off on a public release and would only grant access to a small group of early testers, including the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA).

Another wave of fear reverberated this week after the NSA reportedly discovered multiple vulnerabilities within its own cybersecurity systems during its tests with Mythos. If that agency—which supposedly boasts the most impenetrable cyberdefenses in the world—can be hacked by Mythos, what hope does the rest of the world’s cybersecurity infrastructure have?

This latest round of panic began with what seems to have been something of a game of telephone: Someone says one thing, which gets repeated by another, and another after that, and along that chain of communication, the original statement is distorted. Last week, The Economist reported that during a June 11 hearing before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said that Mythos had broken into “almost all of [the NSA’s] classified systems, not in weeks, but in hours.” Warner said he’d received that information from the head of the NSA himself, General Joshua Rudd, who also leads the Pentagon’s Cyber Command division. On Monday, a coalition of intelligence agencies—including the NSA and its counterparts in Canada, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand— issued an unusually public warning that the risk that AI now poses for cybersecurity warrants a “whole-of-society response.”

The Economist’s report was seen by some as evidence that the worst fears about Mythos were true, a reaction that was undoubtedly fueled also by the aura of power and mystery that has coalesced around the model in recent months. That aura has arguably been a boon for Anthropic, which recently usurped OpenAI as the most valuable startup in the world and is preparing for what’s expected to be a historic IPO. 

But it’s also been a contributing factor in its latest skirmish with the Trump administration, which ordered the company earlier this month to restrict access for all foreign nationals to Fable 5, a “Mythos-class” model that had recently been made publicly available and which was built with safeguards that to some users were annoyingly stringent. Citing national security concerns, the administration invoked an obscure piece of export control legislation, a move that, according to some legal experts, is spurious. Many cybersecurity experts, meanwhile, argued that the ban would hamstring U.S. cybersecurity defenses and give adversaries like China the upper hand.

That argument was seemingly vindicated by a Tuesday report from the New York Times which said that Trump’s ban—which also targeted another model called Mythos 5, which had only been made available to a small group of organizations—had put the kibosh on the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos, and that the administration was now working with Anthropic to reinstate the agency’s access for limited purposes related to national security. The NSA did not immediately respond to Gizmodo’s request for comment. 

That same report from the Times also clarified that the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos were less apocalyptic than online rumors might suggest. According to federal officials cited in the report, the tests were carried out in a digital environment so robustly controlled that it’s very unlikely any hacker or foreign intelligence agency could replicate them. The officials also told the Times that even though Mythos was able to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities, it didn’t actually exploit them.

The author of the report in The Economist—the one that had been the initial cause of all the worry—has also admitted that his portrayal of the NSA’s tests with Mythos had been misleading. The tests “surely [involved] using Mythos alongside other tools under very particular conditions,” he wrote in a X post on Sunday. “I quoted [Senator Warner] to give a sense of Mythos’ potency. But it was a mistake not to have added caveats.”

#Anthropics #Mythos #Reportedly #Hacked #NSAs #Sensitive #Systems #HoursAI,Anthropic,Mythos,NSA,Trump,White House">Anthropic’s Mythos AI Reportedly Hacked the NSA’s Most Sensitive Systems ‘in Hours’
                When Anthropic first disclosed Mythos in April, it sent an anxious shockwave through much of the cybersecurity sector. The new AI model was allegedly so ruthlessly effective at finding and exploiting security vulnerabilities in existing software that the company said it was holding off on a public release and would only grant access to a small group of early testers, including the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). Another wave of fear reverberated this week after the NSA reportedly discovered multiple vulnerabilities within its own cybersecurity systems during its tests with Mythos. If that agency—which supposedly boasts the most impenetrable cyberdefenses in the world—can be hacked by Mythos, what hope does the rest of the world’s cybersecurity infrastructure have? This latest round of panic began with what seems to have been something of a game of telephone: Someone says one thing, which gets repeated by another, and another after that, and along that chain of communication, the original statement is distorted. Last week, The Economist reported that during a June 11 hearing before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said that Mythos had broken into “almost all of [the NSA’s] classified systems, not in weeks, but in hours.” Warner said he’d received that information from the head of the NSA himself, General Joshua Rudd, who also leads the Pentagon’s Cyber Command division. On Monday, a coalition of intelligence agencies—including the NSA and its counterparts in Canada, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand— issued an unusually public warning that the risk that AI now poses for cybersecurity warrants a “whole-of-society response.”

 The Economist’s report was seen by some as evidence that the worst fears about Mythos were true, a reaction that was undoubtedly fueled also by the aura of power and mystery that has coalesced around the model in recent months. That aura has arguably been a boon for Anthropic, which recently usurped OpenAI as the most valuable startup in the world and is preparing for what’s expected to be a historic IPO. 

 But it’s also been a contributing factor in its latest skirmish with the Trump administration, which ordered the company earlier this month to restrict access for all foreign nationals to Fable 5, a “Mythos-class” model that had recently been made publicly available and which was built with safeguards that to some users were annoyingly stringent. Citing national security concerns, the administration invoked an obscure piece of export control legislation, a move that, according to some legal experts, is spurious. Many cybersecurity experts, meanwhile, argued that the ban would hamstring U.S. cybersecurity defenses and give adversaries like China the upper hand. That argument was seemingly vindicated by a Tuesday report from the New York Times which said that Trump’s ban—which also targeted another model called Mythos 5, which had only been made available to a small group of organizations—had put the kibosh on the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos, and that the administration was now working with Anthropic to reinstate the agency’s access for limited purposes related to national security. The NSA did not immediately respond to Gizmodo’s request for comment. 

 That same report from the Times also clarified that the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos were less apocalyptic than online rumors might suggest. According to federal officials cited in the report, the tests were carried out in a digital environment so robustly controlled that it’s very unlikely any hacker or foreign intelligence agency could replicate them. The officials also told the Times that even though Mythos was able to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities, it didn’t actually exploit them. The author of the report in The Economist—the one that had been the initial cause of all the worry—has also admitted that his portrayal of the NSA’s tests with Mythos had been misleading. The tests “surely [involved] using Mythos alongside other tools under very particular conditions,” he wrote in a X post on Sunday. “I quoted [Senator Warner] to give a sense of Mythos’ potency. But it was a mistake not to have added caveats.”      #Anthropics #Mythos #Reportedly #Hacked #NSAs #Sensitive #Systems #HoursAI,Anthropic,Mythos,NSA,Trump,White House

grant access to a small group of early testers, including the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA).

Another wave of fear reverberated this week after the NSA reportedly discovered multiple vulnerabilities within its own cybersecurity systems during its tests with Mythos. If that agency—which supposedly boasts the most impenetrable cyberdefenses in the world—can be hacked by Mythos, what hope does the rest of the world’s cybersecurity infrastructure have?

This latest round of panic began with what seems to have been something of a game of telephone: Someone says one thing, which gets repeated by another, and another after that, and along that chain of communication, the original statement is distorted. Last week, The Economist reported that during a June 11 hearing before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said that Mythos had broken into “almost all of [the NSA’s] classified systems, not in weeks, but in hours.” Warner said he’d received that information from the head of the NSA himself, General Joshua Rudd, who also leads the Pentagon’s Cyber Command division. On Monday, a coalition of intelligence agencies—including the NSA and its counterparts in Canada, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand— issued an unusually public warning that the risk that AI now poses for cybersecurity warrants a “whole-of-society response.”

The Economist’s report was seen by some as evidence that the worst fears about Mythos were true, a reaction that was undoubtedly fueled also by the aura of power and mystery that has coalesced around the model in recent months. That aura has arguably been a boon for Anthropic, which recently usurped OpenAI as the most valuable startup in the world and is preparing for what’s expected to be a historic IPO. 

But it’s also been a contributing factor in its latest skirmish with the Trump administration, which ordered the company earlier this month to restrict access for all foreign nationals to Fable 5, a “Mythos-class” model that had recently been made publicly available and which was built with safeguards that to some users were annoyingly stringent. Citing national security concerns, the administration invoked an obscure piece of export control legislation, a move that, according to some legal experts, is spurious. Many cybersecurity experts, meanwhile, argued that the ban would hamstring U.S. cybersecurity defenses and give adversaries like China the upper hand.

That argument was seemingly vindicated by a Tuesday report from the New York Times which said that Trump’s ban—which also targeted another model called Mythos 5, which had only been made available to a small group of organizations—had put the kibosh on the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos, and that the administration was now working with Anthropic to reinstate the agency’s access for limited purposes related to national security. The NSA did not immediately respond to Gizmodo’s request for comment. 

That same report from the Times also clarified that the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos were less apocalyptic than online rumors might suggest. According to federal officials cited in the report, the tests were carried out in a digital environment so robustly controlled that it’s very unlikely any hacker or foreign intelligence agency could replicate them. The officials also told the Times that even though Mythos was able to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities, it didn’t actually exploit them.

The author of the report in The Economist—the one that had been the initial cause of all the worry—has also admitted that his portrayal of the NSA’s tests with Mythos had been misleading. The tests “surely [involved] using Mythos alongside other tools under very particular conditions,” he wrote in a X post on Sunday. “I quoted [Senator Warner] to give a sense of Mythos’ potency. But it was a mistake not to have added caveats.”

#Anthropics #Mythos #Reportedly #Hacked #NSAs #Sensitive #Systems #HoursAI,Anthropic,Mythos,NSA,Trump,White House">Anthropic’s Mythos AI Reportedly Hacked the NSA’s Most Sensitive Systems ‘in Hours’Anthropic’s Mythos AI Reportedly Hacked the NSA’s Most Sensitive Systems ‘in Hours’
                When Anthropic first disclosed Mythos in April, it sent an anxious shockwave through much of the cybersecurity sector. The new AI model was allegedly so ruthlessly effective at finding and exploiting security vulnerabilities in existing software that the company said it was holding off on a public release and would only grant access to a small group of early testers, including the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). Another wave of fear reverberated this week after the NSA reportedly discovered multiple vulnerabilities within its own cybersecurity systems during its tests with Mythos. If that agency—which supposedly boasts the most impenetrable cyberdefenses in the world—can be hacked by Mythos, what hope does the rest of the world’s cybersecurity infrastructure have? This latest round of panic began with what seems to have been something of a game of telephone: Someone says one thing, which gets repeated by another, and another after that, and along that chain of communication, the original statement is distorted. Last week, The Economist reported that during a June 11 hearing before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said that Mythos had broken into “almost all of [the NSA’s] classified systems, not in weeks, but in hours.” Warner said he’d received that information from the head of the NSA himself, General Joshua Rudd, who also leads the Pentagon’s Cyber Command division. On Monday, a coalition of intelligence agencies—including the NSA and its counterparts in Canada, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand— issued an unusually public warning that the risk that AI now poses for cybersecurity warrants a “whole-of-society response.”

 The Economist’s report was seen by some as evidence that the worst fears about Mythos were true, a reaction that was undoubtedly fueled also by the aura of power and mystery that has coalesced around the model in recent months. That aura has arguably been a boon for Anthropic, which recently usurped OpenAI as the most valuable startup in the world and is preparing for what’s expected to be a historic IPO. 

 But it’s also been a contributing factor in its latest skirmish with the Trump administration, which ordered the company earlier this month to restrict access for all foreign nationals to Fable 5, a “Mythos-class” model that had recently been made publicly available and which was built with safeguards that to some users were annoyingly stringent. Citing national security concerns, the administration invoked an obscure piece of export control legislation, a move that, according to some legal experts, is spurious. Many cybersecurity experts, meanwhile, argued that the ban would hamstring U.S. cybersecurity defenses and give adversaries like China the upper hand. That argument was seemingly vindicated by a Tuesday report from the New York Times which said that Trump’s ban—which also targeted another model called Mythos 5, which had only been made available to a small group of organizations—had put the kibosh on the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos, and that the administration was now working with Anthropic to reinstate the agency’s access for limited purposes related to national security. The NSA did not immediately respond to Gizmodo’s request for comment. 

 That same report from the Times also clarified that the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos were less apocalyptic than online rumors might suggest. According to federal officials cited in the report, the tests were carried out in a digital environment so robustly controlled that it’s very unlikely any hacker or foreign intelligence agency could replicate them. The officials also told the Times that even though Mythos was able to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities, it didn’t actually exploit them. The author of the report in The Economist—the one that had been the initial cause of all the worry—has also admitted that his portrayal of the NSA’s tests with Mythos had been misleading. The tests “surely [involved] using Mythos alongside other tools under very particular conditions,” he wrote in a X post on Sunday. “I quoted [Senator Warner] to give a sense of Mythos’ potency. But it was a mistake not to have added caveats.”      #Anthropics #Mythos #Reportedly #Hacked #NSAs #Sensitive #Systems #HoursAI,Anthropic,Mythos,NSA,Trump,White House

When Anthropic first disclosed Mythos in April, it sent an anxious shockwave through much of the cybersecurity sector. The new AI model was allegedly so ruthlessly effective at finding and exploiting security vulnerabilities in existing software that the company said it was holding off on a public release and would only grant access to a small group of early testers, including the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA).

Another wave of fear reverberated this week after the NSA reportedly discovered multiple vulnerabilities within its own cybersecurity systems during its tests with Mythos. If that agency—which supposedly boasts the most impenetrable cyberdefenses in the world—can be hacked by Mythos, what hope does the rest of the world’s cybersecurity infrastructure have?

This latest round of panic began with what seems to have been something of a game of telephone: Someone says one thing, which gets repeated by another, and another after that, and along that chain of communication, the original statement is distorted. Last week, The Economist reported that during a June 11 hearing before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said that Mythos had broken into “almost all of [the NSA’s] classified systems, not in weeks, but in hours.” Warner said he’d received that information from the head of the NSA himself, General Joshua Rudd, who also leads the Pentagon’s Cyber Command division. On Monday, a coalition of intelligence agencies—including the NSA and its counterparts in Canada, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand— issued an unusually public warning that the risk that AI now poses for cybersecurity warrants a “whole-of-society response.”

The Economist’s report was seen by some as evidence that the worst fears about Mythos were true, a reaction that was undoubtedly fueled also by the aura of power and mystery that has coalesced around the model in recent months. That aura has arguably been a boon for Anthropic, which recently usurped OpenAI as the most valuable startup in the world and is preparing for what’s expected to be a historic IPO. 

But it’s also been a contributing factor in its latest skirmish with the Trump administration, which ordered the company earlier this month to restrict access for all foreign nationals to Fable 5, a “Mythos-class” model that had recently been made publicly available and which was built with safeguards that to some users were annoyingly stringent. Citing national security concerns, the administration invoked an obscure piece of export control legislation, a move that, according to some legal experts, is spurious. Many cybersecurity experts, meanwhile, argued that the ban would hamstring U.S. cybersecurity defenses and give adversaries like China the upper hand.

That argument was seemingly vindicated by a Tuesday report from the New York Times which said that Trump’s ban—which also targeted another model called Mythos 5, which had only been made available to a small group of organizations—had put the kibosh on the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos, and that the administration was now working with Anthropic to reinstate the agency’s access for limited purposes related to national security. The NSA did not immediately respond to Gizmodo’s request for comment. 

That same report from the Times also clarified that the NSA’s internal tests with Mythos were less apocalyptic than online rumors might suggest. According to federal officials cited in the report, the tests were carried out in a digital environment so robustly controlled that it’s very unlikely any hacker or foreign intelligence agency could replicate them. The officials also told the Times that even though Mythos was able to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities, it didn’t actually exploit them.

The author of the report in The Economist—the one that had been the initial cause of all the worry—has also admitted that his portrayal of the NSA’s tests with Mythos had been misleading. The tests “surely [involved] using Mythos alongside other tools under very particular conditions,” he wrote in a X post on Sunday. “I quoted [Senator Warner] to give a sense of Mythos’ potency. But it was a mistake not to have added caveats.”

#Anthropics #Mythos #Reportedly #Hacked #NSAs #Sensitive #Systems #HoursAI,Anthropic,Mythos,NSA,Trump,White House

smart thermostats, one for the highest floor and another for the lower two. I asked to turn on the AC, which Gemini immediately did, but it didn’t ask me to specify which one and decided it was time for the upstairs AC to shine. It also defaulted to Eco mode, so I had to request that the thermostats be set to 75 degrees instead of the high 70s. Still, I was able to casually say “Can you set the temperature in the living room to 75, and upstairs too?” and it applied that to both smart thermostats.

Gemini Live is another way to converse with the Google Home Speaker (it’s only available on some older devices). You’ll tell the speaker “Hey Google, let’s talk,” and it’ll activate a conversational mode that will chat back and forth with you about any topics you bring up. I had a back-and-forth conversation with Gemini about my 3-year-old’s sleep schedule, how to treat sunburns on your scalp (you’ll never guess what I got this weekend), and asked about a summary of the previous night’s episode of Love Island (though Gemini didn’t have a recap yet of the episode that had premiered a few hours before).

Gemini also asked follow-up questions with each topic to keep the conversation going, but would change gears to whatever topic I introduced. It works as intended, but I’m not sure how useful it is in the home context—you’re more likely to use something like this on your smartphone. It’s just not my preferred way to learn or discuss new information, but audio learners might really like it.

I was excited to ask Gemini what it sees around the home via my Google security cameras, but the experience didn’t impress me as much as I hoped. Time and time again, I asked questions like whether the car was in the garage, and Gemini said that either it didn’t have access to that information or that I needed to upgrade my subscription tier to get the answer (you need Google Home Advanced).

Echo Chamber

Image may contain Electronics and Speaker

Photograph: Nena Farrell

Google and Amazon made the same move at roughly the same time: a new small-sized smart speaker that promises the sound quality of larger speakers, retailing for $100. Smaller speakers like the previous Echo Dot models and the Google Home Mini have been popular because they can be placed anywhere, whether it’s on a crowded shelf or tucked into a corner of the kitchen, but they were also much cheaper.

#Googles #Smart #Speaker #Takes #Leadgoogle,shopping,smart home,review,speakers,google gemini,smart speakers,reviews">Google’s New Smart Speaker Takes the LeadGemini did a pretty good job with more conversational commands, though you still need to be specific for some requests. For example, my three-story townhouse has two smart thermostats, one for the highest floor and another for the lower two. I asked to turn on the AC, which Gemini immediately did, but it didn’t ask me to specify which one and decided it was time for the upstairs AC to shine. It also defaulted to Eco mode, so I had to request that the thermostats be set to 75 degrees instead of the high 70s. Still, I was able to casually say “Can you set the temperature in the living room to 75, and upstairs too?” and it applied that to both smart thermostats.Gemini Live is another way to converse with the Google Home Speaker (it’s only available on some older devices). You’ll tell the speaker “Hey Google, let’s talk,” and it’ll activate a conversational mode that will chat back and forth with you about any topics you bring up. I had a back-and-forth conversation with Gemini about my 3-year-old’s sleep schedule, how to treat sunburns on your scalp (you’ll never guess what I got this weekend), and asked about a summary of the previous night’s episode of Love Island (though Gemini didn’t have a recap yet of the episode that had premiered a few hours before).Gemini also asked follow-up questions with each topic to keep the conversation going, but would change gears to whatever topic I introduced. It works as intended, but I’m not sure how useful it is in the home context—you’re more likely to use something like this on your smartphone. It’s just not my preferred way to learn or discuss new information, but audio learners might really like it.I was excited to ask Gemini what it sees around the home via my Google security cameras, but the experience didn’t impress me as much as I hoped. Time and time again, I asked questions like whether the car was in the garage, and Gemini said that either it didn’t have access to that information or that I needed to upgrade my subscription tier to get the answer (you need Google Home Advanced).Echo ChamberPhotograph: Nena FarrellGoogle and Amazon made the same move at roughly the same time: a new small-sized smart speaker that promises the sound quality of larger speakers, retailing for 0. Smaller speakers like the previous Echo Dot models and the Google Home Mini have been popular because they can be placed anywhere, whether it’s on a crowded shelf or tucked into a corner of the kitchen, but they were also much cheaper.#Googles #Smart #Speaker #Takes #Leadgoogle,shopping,smart home,review,speakers,google gemini,smart speakers,reviews

, one for the highest floor and another for the lower two. I asked to turn on the AC, which Gemini immediately did, but it didn’t ask me to specify which one and decided it was time for the upstairs AC to shine. It also defaulted to Eco mode, so I had to request that the thermostats be set to 75 degrees instead of the high 70s. Still, I was able to casually say “Can you set the temperature in the living room to 75, and upstairs too?” and it applied that to both smart thermostats.

Gemini Live is another way to converse with the Google Home Speaker (it’s only available on some older devices). You’ll tell the speaker “Hey Google, let’s talk,” and it’ll activate a conversational mode that will chat back and forth with you about any topics you bring up. I had a back-and-forth conversation with Gemini about my 3-year-old’s sleep schedule, how to treat sunburns on your scalp (you’ll never guess what I got this weekend), and asked about a summary of the previous night’s episode of Love Island (though Gemini didn’t have a recap yet of the episode that had premiered a few hours before).

Gemini also asked follow-up questions with each topic to keep the conversation going, but would change gears to whatever topic I introduced. It works as intended, but I’m not sure how useful it is in the home context—you’re more likely to use something like this on your smartphone. It’s just not my preferred way to learn or discuss new information, but audio learners might really like it.

I was excited to ask Gemini what it sees around the home via my Google security cameras, but the experience didn’t impress me as much as I hoped. Time and time again, I asked questions like whether the car was in the garage, and Gemini said that either it didn’t have access to that information or that I needed to upgrade my subscription tier to get the answer (you need Google Home Advanced).

Echo Chamber

Image may contain Electronics and Speaker

Photograph: Nena Farrell

Google and Amazon made the same move at roughly the same time: a new small-sized smart speaker that promises the sound quality of larger speakers, retailing for $100. Smaller speakers like the previous Echo Dot models and the Google Home Mini have been popular because they can be placed anywhere, whether it’s on a crowded shelf or tucked into a corner of the kitchen, but they were also much cheaper.

#Googles #Smart #Speaker #Takes #Leadgoogle,shopping,smart home,review,speakers,google gemini,smart speakers,reviews">Google’s New Smart Speaker Takes the Lead

Gemini did a pretty good job with more conversational commands, though you still need to be specific for some requests. For example, my three-story townhouse has two smart thermostats, one for the highest floor and another for the lower two. I asked to turn on the AC, which Gemini immediately did, but it didn’t ask me to specify which one and decided it was time for the upstairs AC to shine. It also defaulted to Eco mode, so I had to request that the thermostats be set to 75 degrees instead of the high 70s. Still, I was able to casually say “Can you set the temperature in the living room to 75, and upstairs too?” and it applied that to both smart thermostats.

Gemini Live is another way to converse with the Google Home Speaker (it’s only available on some older devices). You’ll tell the speaker “Hey Google, let’s talk,” and it’ll activate a conversational mode that will chat back and forth with you about any topics you bring up. I had a back-and-forth conversation with Gemini about my 3-year-old’s sleep schedule, how to treat sunburns on your scalp (you’ll never guess what I got this weekend), and asked about a summary of the previous night’s episode of Love Island (though Gemini didn’t have a recap yet of the episode that had premiered a few hours before).

Gemini also asked follow-up questions with each topic to keep the conversation going, but would change gears to whatever topic I introduced. It works as intended, but I’m not sure how useful it is in the home context—you’re more likely to use something like this on your smartphone. It’s just not my preferred way to learn or discuss new information, but audio learners might really like it.

I was excited to ask Gemini what it sees around the home via my Google security cameras, but the experience didn’t impress me as much as I hoped. Time and time again, I asked questions like whether the car was in the garage, and Gemini said that either it didn’t have access to that information or that I needed to upgrade my subscription tier to get the answer (you need Google Home Advanced).

Echo Chamber

Image may contain Electronics and Speaker

Photograph: Nena Farrell

Google and Amazon made the same move at roughly the same time: a new small-sized smart speaker that promises the sound quality of larger speakers, retailing for $100. Smaller speakers like the previous Echo Dot models and the Google Home Mini have been popular because they can be placed anywhere, whether it’s on a crowded shelf or tucked into a corner of the kitchen, but they were also much cheaper.

#Googles #Smart #Speaker #Takes #Leadgoogle,shopping,smart home,review,speakers,google gemini,smart speakers,reviews

Post Comment