×
Google’s Ambitious Privacy Sandbox Project Signals Its End

Google’s Ambitious Privacy Sandbox Project Signals Its End

Tech-news , ,

Google just quietly killed something you may never have used or heard of: Privacy Sandbox. You should grieve this death anyway, because the implications are grim.

This basically means six years’ worth of work toward ending third-party cookies in Chrome—which might have ultimately made cookies obsolete across all major browsers—has amounted to nothing.

Reading between the lines of Google’s bureaucratic language aimed at not alienating advertisers, Privacy Sandbox seems to have been a Hail Mary effort to shift away from the invasive cookies that track us all online, with their famously murky and seemingly coerced approach to consent.

The dream was a built-in Chrome system that would have allowed the data used for ad customization to live on your device. This system would have used AI to sort you into relevant groups of users with certain traits. Had it worked, advertisers would have still been allowed to target you with ads, but without tracking you as an individual.

Needless to say, it would have also put an end to those awful pop-ups.

But according to an announcement Friday by Anthony Chavez, the Google VP in charge of the Privacy Sandbox initiative, “low levels of adoption” have led Google to “retire” a long list of Privacy Sandbox technologies. AdWeek then managed to get confirmation that this long list of dead sub-projects also spells the end of the broader initiative. Google will be “moving away from the Privacy Sandbox branding,” according to a spokesperson quoted by Adweek.

This is especially depressing for cookie haters because after years of delays, early last year, it was starting to look like Google was making major progress. Last January Google ended cookie support for about 30 million Chrome users, and the following month it rolled out a privacy-focused preview version of the Android operating system, aimed at speeding adoption of the new ad regime. With about 65% of the browser market share at the time, mass adoption of the Privacy Sandbox system in Chrome could have signaled to advertisers that the cookie era was over.

And apparently, it never took. In April of this year, it became clear that a Google-led effort to end cookies was on the ropes when Chavez wrote that Google would maintain its “current approach to offering users third-party cookie choice in Chrome,” and that it would “not be rolling out a new standalone prompt for third-party cookies.” This latest announcement is the final nail in the coffin of Google’s cookie-free internet plan.

We reached out to Google to find out if this means Google is shifting to full-throated support of third-party cookies, or switching to another alternative plan. We’ll update if we hear back.

But with Privacy Sandbox completely gone, it’s clear that somewhere along the line, the long deferred plan fizzled. Individual tracking of users is a load-bearing structure of the free, ad-supported internet, and that’s not about to change.

Source link
#Googles #Ambitious #Privacy #Sandbox #Project #Signals

Tag

Related Posts

Ready for the 2026 World Cup final? You might think you are, but your body is going to have to be prepared to put in some work—especially if your favorite team makes it.

Research shows that watching high-pressure matches can raise your heart rate, increase your stress levels, and put extra strain on your cardiovascular system.

According to a recent study from researchers at Bielefeld University in Germany, fans’ physiological stress increases by about 41 percent during a soccer final compared to a normal day. Heart rate also rose significantly, jumping from 70.9 beats per minute to 78.7 beats per minute—a difference even when compared to other weekends.

Researchers at Bielefeld tracked 229 fans of the German club Arminia Bielefeld for three months. Participants wore smartwatches that continuously recorded heart rate and an estimated stress index based on heart rate variability, allowing researchers to compare the day of the 2025 German Cup final with the days leading up to the match.

The physiological reaction to the soccer final began long before the match began. The researchers saw fans’ stress levels begin to rise in the morning and peak just before kickoff. Even after the final whistle, viewers showed signs of elevated stress.

Where you watch the game also makes a difference. The study found that fans who watched at the stadium had an average heart rate of 94.2 beats per minute compared to 79.4 among those who watched the match on television. After their team’s first goal, those in the stands saw their heart rate climb to an average of up to 108 beats per minute—a much more intense response than that observed in other contexts.

Alcohol consumption appeared to amplify that effect. Participants who reported drinking during the game had a heart rate approximately 5 percent higher than the rest of the fans during the match and nearly 12 percent higher after their team’s first goal. Although the researchers did not assess medical risks, they note that alcohol can increase cardiovascular strain when people are in an emotional state.

During the first few minutes of the match, when the outcome was still uncertain, heart rates reached their highest levels. Once the game seemed to be decided, fans’ heart rates dropped.

However, two goals scored in the final minutes caused them to spike again, even though the chances of a comeback were practically nil. (You can only imagine how fast Argentina fans’ hearts were thumping during this week’s furious comeback against Egypt.) For the authors, this reflects that the body responds not only to the objective chances of winning but also to emotions such as hope, pride, or attachment to the team.

The findings align with the results of previous studies on the physiological impacts of soccer. That incluides a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine after the 2006 World Cup in Germany, found that the risk of suffering an acute cardiovascular event nearly triples during German national team matches among people with preexisting heart conditions.

Subsequent research shows that matches can lead to an increase in stress hormones such as cortisol and found that fans who identify more strongly with their team exhibit more intense biological responses during decisive matches.

This article originally appeared on WIRED en Español and has been translated from Spanish.

#Watching #Soccer #Final #Body #Scienceworld cup 2026,sports,health,soccer,stress,fandom">What Watching a Soccer Final Does to Your Body, According to ScienceReady for the 2026 World Cup final? You might think you are, but your body is going to have to be prepared to put in some work—especially if your favorite team makes it.Research shows that watching high-pressure matches can raise your heart rate, increase your stress levels, and put extra strain on your cardiovascular system.According to a recent study from researchers at Bielefeld University in Germany, fans’ physiological stress increases by about 41 percent during a soccer final compared to a normal day. Heart rate also rose significantly, jumping from 70.9 beats per minute to 78.7 beats per minute—a difference even when compared to other weekends.Researchers at Bielefeld tracked 229 fans of the German club Arminia Bielefeld for three months. Participants wore smartwatches that continuously recorded heart rate and an estimated stress index based on heart rate variability, allowing researchers to compare the day of the 2025 German Cup final with the days leading up to the match.The physiological reaction to the soccer final began long before the match began. The researchers saw fans’ stress levels begin to rise in the morning and peak just before kickoff. Even after the final whistle, viewers showed signs of elevated stress.Where you watch the game also makes a difference. The study found that fans who watched at the stadium had an average heart rate of 94.2 beats per minute compared to 79.4 among those who watched the match on television. After their team’s first goal, those in the stands saw their heart rate climb to an average of up to 108 beats per minute—a much more intense response than that observed in other contexts.Alcohol consumption appeared to amplify that effect. Participants who reported drinking during the game had a heart rate approximately 5 percent higher than the rest of the fans during the match and nearly 12 percent higher after their team’s first goal. Although the researchers did not assess medical risks, they note that alcohol can increase cardiovascular strain when people are in an emotional state.During the first few minutes of the match, when the outcome was still uncertain, heart rates reached their highest levels. Once the game seemed to be decided, fans’ heart rates dropped.However, two goals scored in the final minutes caused them to spike again, even though the chances of a comeback were practically nil. (You can only imagine how fast Argentina fans’ hearts were thumping during this week’s furious comeback against Egypt.) For the authors, this reflects that the body responds not only to the objective chances of winning but also to emotions such as hope, pride, or attachment to the team.The findings align with the results of previous studies on the physiological impacts of soccer. That incluides a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine after the 2006 World Cup in Germany, found that the risk of suffering an acute cardiovascular event nearly triples during German national team matches among people with preexisting heart conditions.Subsequent research shows that matches can lead to an increase in stress hormones such as cortisol and found that fans who identify more strongly with their team exhibit more intense biological responses during decisive matches.This article originally appeared on WIRED en Español and has been translated from Spanish.#Watching #Soccer #Final #Body #Scienceworld cup 2026,sports,health,soccer,stress,fandom

2026 World Cup final? You might think you are, but your body is going to have to be prepared to put in some work—especially if your favorite team makes it.

Research shows that watching high-pressure matches can raise your heart rate, increase your stress levels, and put extra strain on your cardiovascular system.

According to a recent study from researchers at Bielefeld University in Germany, fans’ physiological stress increases by about 41 percent during a soccer final compared to a normal day. Heart rate also rose significantly, jumping from 70.9 beats per minute to 78.7 beats per minute—a difference even when compared to other weekends.

Researchers at Bielefeld tracked 229 fans of the German club Arminia Bielefeld for three months. Participants wore smartwatches that continuously recorded heart rate and an estimated stress index based on heart rate variability, allowing researchers to compare the day of the 2025 German Cup final with the days leading up to the match.

The physiological reaction to the soccer final began long before the match began. The researchers saw fans’ stress levels begin to rise in the morning and peak just before kickoff. Even after the final whistle, viewers showed signs of elevated stress.

Where you watch the game also makes a difference. The study found that fans who watched at the stadium had an average heart rate of 94.2 beats per minute compared to 79.4 among those who watched the match on television. After their team’s first goal, those in the stands saw their heart rate climb to an average of up to 108 beats per minute—a much more intense response than that observed in other contexts.

Alcohol consumption appeared to amplify that effect. Participants who reported drinking during the game had a heart rate approximately 5 percent higher than the rest of the fans during the match and nearly 12 percent higher after their team’s first goal. Although the researchers did not assess medical risks, they note that alcohol can increase cardiovascular strain when people are in an emotional state.

During the first few minutes of the match, when the outcome was still uncertain, heart rates reached their highest levels. Once the game seemed to be decided, fans’ heart rates dropped.

However, two goals scored in the final minutes caused them to spike again, even though the chances of a comeback were practically nil. (You can only imagine how fast Argentina fans’ hearts were thumping during this week’s furious comeback against Egypt.) For the authors, this reflects that the body responds not only to the objective chances of winning but also to emotions such as hope, pride, or attachment to the team.

The findings align with the results of previous studies on the physiological impacts of soccer. That incluides a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine after the 2006 World Cup in Germany, found that the risk of suffering an acute cardiovascular event nearly triples during German national team matches among people with preexisting heart conditions.

Subsequent research shows that matches can lead to an increase in stress hormones such as cortisol and found that fans who identify more strongly with their team exhibit more intense biological responses during decisive matches.

This article originally appeared on WIRED en Español and has been translated from Spanish.

#Watching #Soccer #Final #Body #Scienceworld cup 2026,sports,health,soccer,stress,fandom">What Watching a Soccer Final Does to Your Body, According to Science

Ready for the 2026 World Cup final? You might think you are, but your body is going to have to be prepared to put in some work—especially if your favorite team makes it.

Research shows that watching high-pressure matches can raise your heart rate, increase your stress levels, and put extra strain on your cardiovascular system.

According to a recent study from researchers at Bielefeld University in Germany, fans’ physiological stress increases by about 41 percent during a soccer final compared to a normal day. Heart rate also rose significantly, jumping from 70.9 beats per minute to 78.7 beats per minute—a difference even when compared to other weekends.

Researchers at Bielefeld tracked 229 fans of the German club Arminia Bielefeld for three months. Participants wore smartwatches that continuously recorded heart rate and an estimated stress index based on heart rate variability, allowing researchers to compare the day of the 2025 German Cup final with the days leading up to the match.

The physiological reaction to the soccer final began long before the match began. The researchers saw fans’ stress levels begin to rise in the morning and peak just before kickoff. Even after the final whistle, viewers showed signs of elevated stress.

Where you watch the game also makes a difference. The study found that fans who watched at the stadium had an average heart rate of 94.2 beats per minute compared to 79.4 among those who watched the match on television. After their team’s first goal, those in the stands saw their heart rate climb to an average of up to 108 beats per minute—a much more intense response than that observed in other contexts.

Alcohol consumption appeared to amplify that effect. Participants who reported drinking during the game had a heart rate approximately 5 percent higher than the rest of the fans during the match and nearly 12 percent higher after their team’s first goal. Although the researchers did not assess medical risks, they note that alcohol can increase cardiovascular strain when people are in an emotional state.

During the first few minutes of the match, when the outcome was still uncertain, heart rates reached their highest levels. Once the game seemed to be decided, fans’ heart rates dropped.

However, two goals scored in the final minutes caused them to spike again, even though the chances of a comeback were practically nil. (You can only imagine how fast Argentina fans’ hearts were thumping during this week’s furious comeback against Egypt.) For the authors, this reflects that the body responds not only to the objective chances of winning but also to emotions such as hope, pride, or attachment to the team.

The findings align with the results of previous studies on the physiological impacts of soccer. That incluides a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine after the 2006 World Cup in Germany, found that the risk of suffering an acute cardiovascular event nearly triples during German national team matches among people with preexisting heart conditions.

Subsequent research shows that matches can lead to an increase in stress hormones such as cortisol and found that fans who identify more strongly with their team exhibit more intense biological responses during decisive matches.

This article originally appeared on WIRED en Español and has been translated from Spanish.

#Watching #Soccer #Final #Body #Scienceworld cup 2026,sports,health,soccer,stress,fandom

These days, new versions of AI chatbots don’t just launch; they’re unshackled and released to the public following government scrutiny. OpenAI’s new GPT-5.6 models were – like Anthropic’s Claude Mythos and Fable – apparently too powerful to just launch; but now, after some tinkering, they’re available to you, dear customer.

In practice, it simply means that the new GPT-5.6 models are very powerful and smarter than before. In its introductory post, OpenAI shared a bunch of graphs showing just how much better GPT-5.6 is than the competition, whilst using fewer tokens and generally costing less.

OK, great. But GPT-5.6 is not just one model; it comes in three distinct flavors: Sol, Terra, and Luna. So what do different kinds of users get, what should they pay for, and which models should they (mostly) use? Let’s dive in.

Free users get (almost) nothing

Sorry; if you’re not a paying customer, you’ll have to make do with OpenAI’s previous flagship model, GPT-5.5. Any sort of access to GPT-5.6 models requires a subscription of some sort. Fortunately, GPT-5.5 is still quite capable at most tasks, but if you want the best of the best, you’ll have to cough up the dough.

There’s an exception to this: Free and Go users can access GPT-5.6 through ChatGPT Work. More on that below.

If you’re a Plus or Business user, you can only get Sol (the most powerful model) at medium and higher effort settings. There’s another, higher level of performance called Sol Pro, but that’s only available for Pro and Enterprise users.

In terms of availability per one million tokens, the prices are: $5 input and $30 output for Sol. $2.5 input and $15 output for Terra, and $1 input and $6 output for Luna.

SEE ALSO: Visa is connecting with ChatGPT to let AI agents automatically make purchases

Sol, Terra, or Luna?

Why are there three models in the first place? Well, OpenAI always had a multi-tier model; for example, previously users were able to choose a “mini” version of the main model to get results done cheaper. Now, the model has been split into three tiers.

If you’re a paying customer, you’re free to use all three. But you know how it is in the world of LLMs: If you pick the smartest one, your usage limits will get hit faster (yes, there are always usage limits, even if you throw a ton of money at OpenAI).

In the simplest sense, GPT-5.6 Sol is the smartest model, Terra is in between (with roughly GPT-5.5 level of performance), and Luna is the cheapest, fastest, but also least capable of the bunch.

The breakdown is as follows: Terra is a “balanced” model for everyday work. That’s the one you should be asking most of your questions. Don’t underestimate it, though, as OpenAI claims it performs better than Anthropic’s Fable 5 in some cases.

Luna is cost-efficient, and should be used for easy, non crucial everyday tasks; think recipes and movie recommendations. Again, OpenAI says it outperforms Anthropic’s Opus 4.8 in some cases, so it’s not a slouch, either.

Sol should be reserved for coding, deep research, planning, and cybersecurity: The most demanding tasks. Of course it comes at a (literal) cost: While OpenAI claims it spends less tokens than Anthropic’s Fable 5, Sol will still hit usage limits a lot faster than the other variants.

Fun fact: If you ask GPT-5.5 about any of this, right now, it’ll give you completely wrong answers. Hopefully OpenAI will fix this soon.

Wait, what’s this ChatGPT Work thing, then?

Oh yeah, OpenAI also launched ChatGPT Work, which is a new agent in ChatGPT that can access and take actions on your apps and files, and work in the background until a task is finished. It’s powered by Codex (OpenAI’s software engineering agent) and GPT-5.6. Think about it as your buddy that will go through your emails and files, browse the web, fetch the relevant data, and create that presentation your boss wants before the day is done.

ChatGPT Work is rolling out to Pro, Enterprise and Edu users first on web and mobile; this will be expanded to Plus and Business users “over the next few days.”

On the desktop, Work is available for everyone, including Free users.

Oh, and one more thing: The fact that ChatGPT Work has a built-in browser also means that OpenAI is sunsetting its standalone web browser, Atlas. Sorry.

How about GPT Live?

GPT Live is a new version of ChatGPT Voice and it will show up when you start talking to ChatGPT.

We’ve covered this in more depth here, but the bottom line is that GPT Live can listen and speak at the same time, allowing it to keep up a more realistic conversation.

Wrapping it all up

The new GPT-5.6 model is smart. It comes in three flavors: Luna, Terra, and Sol, with Sol being the most capable variant, Luna the most affordable one, and Terra somewhere in the middle. You can currently only get them on paid tiers, unless you’re using ChatGPT Work on desktop. And ChatGPT Voice has also gotten smarter with GPT-Live underneath, a model that can listen and speak at the same time.

Topics Artificial Intelligence OpenAI

#GPT5.6 #Sol #Terra #Luna">GPT-5.6 Sol, Terra, and Luna are here. See which one’s best for you. These days, new versions of AI chatbots don’t just launch; they’re unshackled and released to the public following government scrutiny. OpenAI’s new GPT-5.6 models were – like Anthropic’s Claude Mythos and Fable – apparently too powerful to just launch; but now, after some tinkering, they’re available to you, dear customer.In practice, it simply means that the new GPT-5.6 models are very powerful and smarter than before. In its introductory post, OpenAI shared a bunch of graphs showing just how much better GPT-5.6 is than the competition, whilst using fewer tokens and generally costing less. OK, great. But GPT-5.6 is not just one model; it comes in three distinct flavors: Sol, Terra, and Luna. So what do different kinds of users get, what should they pay for, and which models should they (mostly) use? Let’s dive in. Free users get (almost) nothingSorry; if you’re not a paying customer, you’ll have to make do with OpenAI’s previous flagship model, GPT-5.5. Any sort of access to GPT-5.6 models requires a subscription of some sort. Fortunately, GPT-5.5 is still quite capable at most tasks, but if you want the best of the best, you’ll have to cough up the dough. There’s an exception to this: Free and Go users can access GPT-5.6 through ChatGPT Work. More on that below. If you’re a Plus or Business user, you can only get Sol (the most powerful model) at medium and higher effort settings. There’s another, higher level of performance called Sol Pro, but that’s only available for Pro and Enterprise users. In terms of availability per one million tokens, the prices are: input and output for Sol. .5 input and output for Terra, and input and output for Luna. SEE ALSO: Visa is connecting with ChatGPT to let AI agents automatically make purchases Sol, Terra, or Luna?Why are there three models in the first place? Well, OpenAI always had a multi-tier model; for example, previously users were able to choose a “mini” version of the main model to get results done cheaper. Now, the model has been split into three tiers. If you’re a paying customer, you’re free to use all three. But you know how it is in the world of LLMs: If you pick the smartest one, your usage limits will get hit faster (yes, there are always usage limits, even if you throw a ton of money at OpenAI). Mashable Light Speed In the simplest sense, GPT-5.6 Sol is the smartest model, Terra is in between (with roughly GPT-5.5 level of performance), and Luna is the cheapest, fastest, but also least capable of the bunch. The breakdown is as follows: Terra is a “balanced” model for everyday work. That’s the one you should be asking most of your questions. Don’t underestimate it, though, as OpenAI claims it performs better than Anthropic’s Fable 5 in some cases. Luna is cost-efficient, and should be used for easy, non crucial everyday tasks; think recipes and movie recommendations. Again, OpenAI says it outperforms Anthropic’s Opus 4.8 in some cases, so it’s not a slouch, either.Sol should be reserved for coding, deep research, planning, and cybersecurity: The most demanding tasks. Of course it comes at a (literal) cost: While OpenAI claims it spends less tokens than Anthropic’s Fable 5, Sol will still hit usage limits a lot faster than the other variants. Fun fact: If you ask GPT-5.5 about any of this, right now, it’ll give you completely wrong answers. Hopefully OpenAI will fix this soon.Wait, what’s this ChatGPT Work thing, then?Oh yeah, OpenAI also launched ChatGPT Work, which is a new agent in ChatGPT that can access and take actions on your apps and files, and work in the background until a task is finished. It’s powered by Codex (OpenAI’s software engineering agent) and GPT-5.6. Think about it as your buddy that will go through your emails and files, browse the web, fetch the relevant data, and create that presentation your boss wants before the day is done. ChatGPT Work is rolling out to Pro, Enterprise and Edu users first on web and mobile; this will be expanded to Plus and Business users “over the next few days.”On the desktop, Work is available for everyone, including Free users. Oh, and one more thing: The fact that ChatGPT Work has a built-in browser also means that OpenAI is sunsetting its standalone web browser, Atlas. Sorry. How about GPT Live?GPT Live is a new version of ChatGPT Voice and it will show up when you start talking to ChatGPT. We’ve covered this in more depth here, but the bottom line is that GPT Live can listen and speak at the same time, allowing it to keep up a more realistic conversation.Wrapping it all upThe new GPT-5.6 model is smart. It comes in three flavors: Luna, Terra, and Sol, with Sol being the most capable variant, Luna the most affordable one, and Terra somewhere in the middle. You can currently only get them on paid tiers, unless you’re using ChatGPT Work on desktop. And ChatGPT Voice has also gotten smarter with GPT-Live underneath, a model that can listen and speak at the same time. Topics Artificial Intelligence OpenAI #GPT5.6 #Sol #Terra #Luna

Fable – apparently too powerful to just launch; but now, after some tinkering, they’re available to you, dear customer.

In practice, it simply means that the new GPT-5.6 models are very powerful and smarter than before. In its introductory post, OpenAI shared a bunch of graphs showing just how much better GPT-5.6 is than the competition, whilst using fewer tokens and generally costing less.

OK, great. But GPT-5.6 is not just one model; it comes in three distinct flavors: Sol, Terra, and Luna. So what do different kinds of users get, what should they pay for, and which models should they (mostly) use? Let’s dive in.

Free users get (almost) nothing

Sorry; if you’re not a paying customer, you’ll have to make do with OpenAI’s previous flagship model, GPT-5.5. Any sort of access to GPT-5.6 models requires a subscription of some sort. Fortunately, GPT-5.5 is still quite capable at most tasks, but if you want the best of the best, you’ll have to cough up the dough.

There’s an exception to this: Free and Go users can access GPT-5.6 through ChatGPT Work. More on that below.

If you’re a Plus or Business user, you can only get Sol (the most powerful model) at medium and higher effort settings. There’s another, higher level of performance called Sol Pro, but that’s only available for Pro and Enterprise users.

In terms of availability per one million tokens, the prices are: $5 input and $30 output for Sol. $2.5 input and $15 output for Terra, and $1 input and $6 output for Luna.

SEE ALSO: Visa is connecting with ChatGPT to let AI agents automatically make purchases

Sol, Terra, or Luna?

Why are there three models in the first place? Well, OpenAI always had a multi-tier model; for example, previously users were able to choose a “mini” version of the main model to get results done cheaper. Now, the model has been split into three tiers.

If you’re a paying customer, you’re free to use all three. But you know how it is in the world of LLMs: If you pick the smartest one, your usage limits will get hit faster (yes, there are always usage limits, even if you throw a ton of money at OpenAI).

In the simplest sense, GPT-5.6 Sol is the smartest model, Terra is in between (with roughly GPT-5.5 level of performance), and Luna is the cheapest, fastest, but also least capable of the bunch.

The breakdown is as follows: Terra is a “balanced” model for everyday work. That’s the one you should be asking most of your questions. Don’t underestimate it, though, as OpenAI claims it performs better than Anthropic’s Fable 5 in some cases.

Luna is cost-efficient, and should be used for easy, non crucial everyday tasks; think recipes and movie recommendations. Again, OpenAI says it outperforms Anthropic’s Opus 4.8 in some cases, so it’s not a slouch, either.

Sol should be reserved for coding, deep research, planning, and cybersecurity: The most demanding tasks. Of course it comes at a (literal) cost: While OpenAI claims it spends less tokens than Anthropic’s Fable 5, Sol will still hit usage limits a lot faster than the other variants.

Fun fact: If you ask GPT-5.5 about any of this, right now, it’ll give you completely wrong answers. Hopefully OpenAI will fix this soon.

Wait, what’s this ChatGPT Work thing, then?

Oh yeah, OpenAI also launched ChatGPT Work, which is a new agent in ChatGPT that can access and take actions on your apps and files, and work in the background until a task is finished. It’s powered by Codex (OpenAI’s software engineering agent) and GPT-5.6. Think about it as your buddy that will go through your emails and files, browse the web, fetch the relevant data, and create that presentation your boss wants before the day is done.

ChatGPT Work is rolling out to Pro, Enterprise and Edu users first on web and mobile; this will be expanded to Plus and Business users “over the next few days.”

On the desktop, Work is available for everyone, including Free users.

Oh, and one more thing: The fact that ChatGPT Work has a built-in browser also means that OpenAI is sunsetting its standalone web browser, Atlas. Sorry.

How about GPT Live?

GPT Live is a new version of ChatGPT Voice and it will show up when you start talking to ChatGPT.

We’ve covered this in more depth here, but the bottom line is that GPT Live can listen and speak at the same time, allowing it to keep up a more realistic conversation.

Wrapping it all up

The new GPT-5.6 model is smart. It comes in three flavors: Luna, Terra, and Sol, with Sol being the most capable variant, Luna the most affordable one, and Terra somewhere in the middle. You can currently only get them on paid tiers, unless you’re using ChatGPT Work on desktop. And ChatGPT Voice has also gotten smarter with GPT-Live underneath, a model that can listen and speak at the same time.

Topics Artificial Intelligence OpenAI

#GPT5.6 #Sol #Terra #Luna">GPT-5.6 Sol, Terra, and Luna are here. See which one’s best for you.

These days, new versions of AI chatbots don’t just launch; they’re unshackled and released to the public following government scrutiny. OpenAI’s new GPT-5.6 models were – like Anthropic’s Claude Mythos and Fable – apparently too powerful to just launch; but now, after some tinkering, they’re available to you, dear customer.

In practice, it simply means that the new GPT-5.6 models are very powerful and smarter than before. In its introductory post, OpenAI shared a bunch of graphs showing just how much better GPT-5.6 is than the competition, whilst using fewer tokens and generally costing less.

OK, great. But GPT-5.6 is not just one model; it comes in three distinct flavors: Sol, Terra, and Luna. So what do different kinds of users get, what should they pay for, and which models should they (mostly) use? Let’s dive in.

Free users get (almost) nothing

Sorry; if you’re not a paying customer, you’ll have to make do with OpenAI’s previous flagship model, GPT-5.5. Any sort of access to GPT-5.6 models requires a subscription of some sort. Fortunately, GPT-5.5 is still quite capable at most tasks, but if you want the best of the best, you’ll have to cough up the dough.

There’s an exception to this: Free and Go users can access GPT-5.6 through ChatGPT Work. More on that below.

If you’re a Plus or Business user, you can only get Sol (the most powerful model) at medium and higher effort settings. There’s another, higher level of performance called Sol Pro, but that’s only available for Pro and Enterprise users.

In terms of availability per one million tokens, the prices are: $5 input and $30 output for Sol. $2.5 input and $15 output for Terra, and $1 input and $6 output for Luna.

SEE ALSO: Visa is connecting with ChatGPT to let AI agents automatically make purchases

Sol, Terra, or Luna?

Why are there three models in the first place? Well, OpenAI always had a multi-tier model; for example, previously users were able to choose a “mini” version of the main model to get results done cheaper. Now, the model has been split into three tiers.

If you’re a paying customer, you’re free to use all three. But you know how it is in the world of LLMs: If you pick the smartest one, your usage limits will get hit faster (yes, there are always usage limits, even if you throw a ton of money at OpenAI).

In the simplest sense, GPT-5.6 Sol is the smartest model, Terra is in between (with roughly GPT-5.5 level of performance), and Luna is the cheapest, fastest, but also least capable of the bunch.

The breakdown is as follows: Terra is a “balanced” model for everyday work. That’s the one you should be asking most of your questions. Don’t underestimate it, though, as OpenAI claims it performs better than Anthropic’s Fable 5 in some cases.

Luna is cost-efficient, and should be used for easy, non crucial everyday tasks; think recipes and movie recommendations. Again, OpenAI says it outperforms Anthropic’s Opus 4.8 in some cases, so it’s not a slouch, either.

Sol should be reserved for coding, deep research, planning, and cybersecurity: The most demanding tasks. Of course it comes at a (literal) cost: While OpenAI claims it spends less tokens than Anthropic’s Fable 5, Sol will still hit usage limits a lot faster than the other variants.

Fun fact: If you ask GPT-5.5 about any of this, right now, it’ll give you completely wrong answers. Hopefully OpenAI will fix this soon.

Wait, what’s this ChatGPT Work thing, then?

Oh yeah, OpenAI also launched ChatGPT Work, which is a new agent in ChatGPT that can access and take actions on your apps and files, and work in the background until a task is finished. It’s powered by Codex (OpenAI’s software engineering agent) and GPT-5.6. Think about it as your buddy that will go through your emails and files, browse the web, fetch the relevant data, and create that presentation your boss wants before the day is done.

ChatGPT Work is rolling out to Pro, Enterprise and Edu users first on web and mobile; this will be expanded to Plus and Business users “over the next few days.”

On the desktop, Work is available for everyone, including Free users.

Oh, and one more thing: The fact that ChatGPT Work has a built-in browser also means that OpenAI is sunsetting its standalone web browser, Atlas. Sorry.

How about GPT Live?

GPT Live is a new version of ChatGPT Voice and it will show up when you start talking to ChatGPT.

We’ve covered this in more depth here, but the bottom line is that GPT Live can listen and speak at the same time, allowing it to keep up a more realistic conversation.

Wrapping it all up

The new GPT-5.6 model is smart. It comes in three flavors: Luna, Terra, and Sol, with Sol being the most capable variant, Luna the most affordable one, and Terra somewhere in the middle. You can currently only get them on paid tiers, unless you’re using ChatGPT Work on desktop. And ChatGPT Voice has also gotten smarter with GPT-Live underneath, a model that can listen and speak at the same time.

Topics Artificial Intelligence OpenAI

#GPT5.6 #Sol #Terra #Luna
Microsoft may once again be struggling to keep up with its own climate goals, according to its 2026 sustainability report. As reported by GeekWire, the report states that Microsoft’s carbon emissions increased 25 percent in 2025, totalling 34 million metric tons “without select interventions.” Microsoft says this was “driven primarily by the expansion of our datacenter infrastructure,” as well as the company’s decision last February to stop purchasing “non-additional, unbundled renewable energy certificates.”

Several years ago, Microsoft set itself a goal to be carbon negative by 2030, meaning it will need to remove more carbon emissions than it produces. This isn’t the first time Microsoft has faced setbacks toward accomplishing that goal, as its 2024 sustainability report showed a similar rise in climate pollution. This year’s report admits that, “While AI infrastructure is driving demand for energy, water, land, and materials, sustainability solutions are not scaling fast enough to meet demand.”

#Microsofts #carbon #emissions #percent #yearAI,Environment,Microsoft,News,Science,Tech">Microsoft’s carbon emissions went up 25 percent last yearMicrosoft may once again be struggling to keep up with its own climate goals, according to its 2026 sustainability report. As reported by GeekWire, the report states that Microsoft’s carbon emissions increased 25 percent in 2025, totalling 34 million metric tons “without select interventions.” Microsoft says this was “driven primarily by the expansion of our datacenter infrastructure,” as well as the company’s decision last February to stop purchasing “non-additional, unbundled renewable energy certificates.”Several years ago, Microsoft set itself a goal to be carbon negative by 2030, meaning it will need to remove more carbon emissions than it produces. This isn’t the first time Microsoft has faced setbacks toward accomplishing that goal, as its 2024 sustainability report showed a similar rise in climate pollution. This year’s report admits that, “While AI infrastructure is driving demand for energy, water, land, and materials, sustainability solutions are not scaling fast enough to meet demand.”#Microsofts #carbon #emissions #percent #yearAI,Environment,Microsoft,News,Science,Tech

2026 sustainability report. As reported by GeekWire, the report states that Microsoft’s carbon emissions increased 25 percent in 2025, totalling 34 million metric tons “without select interventions.” Microsoft says this was “driven primarily by the expansion of our datacenter infrastructure,” as well as the company’s decision last February to stop purchasing “non-additional, unbundled renewable energy certificates.”

Several years ago, Microsoft set itself a goal to be carbon negative by 2030, meaning it will need to remove more carbon emissions than it produces. This isn’t the first time Microsoft has faced setbacks toward accomplishing that goal, as its 2024 sustainability report showed a similar rise in climate pollution. This year’s report admits that, “While AI infrastructure is driving demand for energy, water, land, and materials, sustainability solutions are not scaling fast enough to meet demand.”

#Microsofts #carbon #emissions #percent #yearAI,Environment,Microsoft,News,Science,Tech">Microsoft’s carbon emissions went up 25 percent last year

Microsoft may once again be struggling to keep up with its own climate goals, according to its 2026 sustainability report. As reported by GeekWire, the report states that Microsoft’s carbon emissions increased 25 percent in 2025, totalling 34 million metric tons “without select interventions.” Microsoft says this was “driven primarily by the expansion of our datacenter infrastructure,” as well as the company’s decision last February to stop purchasing “non-additional, unbundled renewable energy certificates.”

Several years ago, Microsoft set itself a goal to be carbon negative by 2030, meaning it will need to remove more carbon emissions than it produces. This isn’t the first time Microsoft has faced setbacks toward accomplishing that goal, as its 2024 sustainability report showed a similar rise in climate pollution. This year’s report admits that, “While AI infrastructure is driving demand for energy, water, land, and materials, sustainability solutions are not scaling fast enough to meet demand.”

#Microsofts #carbon #emissions #percent #yearAI,Environment,Microsoft,News,Science,Tech

Post Comment