×
Indian news

फूड पॉइजनिंग और दूषित भोजन से लोगों के बीमार होने के मामले भी बढ़ रहे…

no business being in the music industry. Bose thinks it can be the exception to the rule. It thinks it can be Red Bull. And, while Bose has more of a right to dip its toes into the media world than Build-a-Bear, there’s little reason to believe it can succeed where so many others have failed.

In an interview with Business Insider, Bose CMO Jim Mollica said the company had created Bose Studios as part of a move away from traditional “campaign-driven marketing.” A big element of that is going to be Bose Records, a new label the company has formed to “help break underappreciated or new artists.” The competition isn’t the big three — Sony, UMG, Warner — it’s independent labels already being squeezed in an era of bedroom producers and self-distribution.

Mollica was transparent about the real goal, though: build a library of music that Bose could feature in its commercials without having to pay the licensing rights for. He said that the company wouldn’t own the artists’ masters or take a share of their streaming or sales revenue, and that they’d be free to sign with other labels. That sounds extremely artist-friendly on its face, which is great. But there’s still a lot we don’t know about the new business venture.

Bose is primarily known for making consumer-grade audio gear that tries to put on airs. Most audiophiles will be quick to tell you that Bose products are overpriced and, at best, merely okay. What the company is undeniably great at is marketing. But selling mediocre Bluetooth speakers at inflated prices is very different from discovering talent and promoting artists. Mollica didn’t mention poaching A&R talent from other labels or any splashy celebrity partnerships to launch. Though he did mention that some “legendary Hollywood names” were attached to films and TV series being commissioned by Bose Studios.

Which brings us to another issue: a lack of focus. Simply launching a record label is hard enough. Why does Bose — again, whose primary experience is in manufacturing audio hardware — think that it can also launch a movie studio, a podcast network, and a live event production company? These are all things that Mollica said are in the works, according to Business Insider.

Sure, you could argue that Bose, as an audio company, has more of a right to dive into the music industry than those failed ventures. But they featured celebrity endorsements, partnerships with bigger labels, or, at the very least, some specific cultural hook. Bose Studios just seems desperate and unfocused.

#Bose #thinks #media #company #reasonBusiness,Entertainment,Music,News,Report"> Bose thinks it can be a media company for some reasonThe history books are littered with the corpses of corporate record labels started by companies that had no business being in the music industry. Bose thinks it can be the exception to the rule. It thinks it can be Red Bull. And, while Bose has more of a right to dip its toes into the media world than Build-a-Bear, there’s little reason to believe it can succeed where so many others have failed.In an interview with Business Insider, Bose CMO Jim Mollica said the company had created Bose Studios as part of a move away from traditional “campaign-driven marketing.” A big element of that is going to be Bose Records, a new label the company has formed to “help break underappreciated or new artists.” The competition isn’t the big three — Sony, UMG, Warner — it’s independent labels already being squeezed in an era of bedroom producers and self-distribution.Mollica was transparent about the real goal, though: build a library of music that Bose could feature in its commercials without having to pay the licensing rights for. He said that the company wouldn’t own the artists’ masters or take a share of their streaming or sales revenue, and that they’d be free to sign with other labels. That sounds extremely artist-friendly on its face, which is great. But there’s still a lot we don’t know about the new business venture.Bose is primarily known for making consumer-grade audio gear that tries to put on airs. Most audiophiles will be quick to tell you that Bose products are overpriced and, at best, merely okay. What the company is undeniably great at is marketing. But selling mediocre Bluetooth speakers at inflated prices is very different from discovering talent and promoting artists. Mollica didn’t mention poaching A&R talent from other labels or any splashy celebrity partnerships to launch. Though he did mention that some “legendary Hollywood names” were attached to films and TV series being commissioned by Bose Studios.Which brings us to another issue: a lack of focus. Simply launching a record label is hard enough. Why does Bose — again, whose primary experience is in manufacturing audio hardware — think that it can also launch a movie studio, a podcast network, and a live event production company? These are all things that Mollica said are in the works, according to Business Insider.Sure, you could argue that Bose, as an audio company, has more of a right to dive into the music industry than those failed ventures. But they featured celebrity endorsements, partnerships with bigger labels, or, at the very least, some specific cultural hook. Bose Studios just seems desperate and unfocused.#Bose #thinks #media #company #reasonBusiness,Entertainment,Music,News,Report
Tech-news

no business being in the music industry. Bose thinks it can be the exception to the rule. It thinks it can be Red Bull. And, while Bose has more of a right to dip its toes into the media world than Build-a-Bear, there’s little reason to believe it can succeed where so many others have failed.

In an interview with Business Insider, Bose CMO Jim Mollica said the company had created Bose Studios as part of a move away from traditional “campaign-driven marketing.” A big element of that is going to be Bose Records, a new label the company has formed to “help break underappreciated or new artists.” The competition isn’t the big three — Sony, UMG, Warner — it’s independent labels already being squeezed in an era of bedroom producers and self-distribution.

Mollica was transparent about the real goal, though: build a library of music that Bose could feature in its commercials without having to pay the licensing rights for. He said that the company wouldn’t own the artists’ masters or take a share of their streaming or sales revenue, and that they’d be free to sign with other labels. That sounds extremely artist-friendly on its face, which is great. But there’s still a lot we don’t know about the new business venture.

Bose is primarily known for making consumer-grade audio gear that tries to put on airs. Most audiophiles will be quick to tell you that Bose products are overpriced and, at best, merely okay. What the company is undeniably great at is marketing. But selling mediocre Bluetooth speakers at inflated prices is very different from discovering talent and promoting artists. Mollica didn’t mention poaching A&R talent from other labels or any splashy celebrity partnerships to launch. Though he did mention that some “legendary Hollywood names” were attached to films and TV series being commissioned by Bose Studios.

Which brings us to another issue: a lack of focus. Simply launching a record label is hard enough. Why does Bose — again, whose primary experience is in manufacturing audio hardware — think that it can also launch a movie studio, a podcast network, and a live event production company? These are all things that Mollica said are in the works, according to Business Insider.

Sure, you could argue that Bose, as an audio company, has more of a right to dive into the music industry than those failed ventures. But they featured celebrity endorsements, partnerships with bigger labels, or, at the very least, some specific cultural hook. Bose Studios just seems desperate and unfocused.

#Bose #thinks #media #company #reasonBusiness,Entertainment,Music,News,Report">Bose thinks it can be a media company for some reason

The history books are littered with the corpses of corporate record labels started by companies that had no business being in the music industry. Bose thinks it can be the exception to the rule. It thinks it can be Red Bull. And, while Bose has more of a right to dip its toes into the media world than Build-a-Bear, there’s little reason to believe it can succeed where so many others have failed.

In an interview with Business Insider, Bose CMO Jim Mollica said the company had created Bose Studios as part of a move away from traditional “campaign-driven marketing.” A big element of that is going to be Bose Records, a new label the company has formed to “help break underappreciated or new artists.” The competition isn’t the big three — Sony, UMG, Warner — it’s independent labels already being squeezed in an era of bedroom producers and self-distribution.

Mollica was transparent about the real goal, though: build a library of music that Bose could feature in its commercials without having to pay the licensing rights for. He said that the company wouldn’t own the artists’ masters or take a share of their streaming or sales revenue, and that they’d be free to sign with other labels. That sounds extremely artist-friendly on its face, which is great. But there’s still a lot we don’t know about the new business venture.

Bose is primarily known for making consumer-grade audio gear that tries to put on airs. Most audiophiles will be quick to tell you that Bose products are overpriced and, at best, merely okay. What the company is undeniably great at is marketing. But selling mediocre Bluetooth speakers at inflated prices is very different from discovering talent and promoting artists. Mollica didn’t mention poaching A&R talent from other labels or any splashy celebrity partnerships to launch. Though he did mention that some “legendary Hollywood names” were attached to films and TV series being commissioned by Bose Studios.

Which brings us to another issue: a lack of focus. Simply launching a record label is hard enough. Why does Bose — again, whose primary experience is in manufacturing audio hardware — think that it can also launch a movie studio, a podcast network, and a live event production company? These are all things that Mollica said are in the works, according to Business Insider.

Sure, you could argue that Bose, as an audio company, has more of a right to dive into the music industry than those failed ventures. But they featured celebrity endorsements, partnerships with bigger labels, or, at the very least, some specific cultural hook. Bose Studios just seems desperate and unfocused.

#Bose #thinks #media #company #reasonBusiness,Entertainment,Music,News,Report

The history books are littered with the corpses of corporate record labels started by companies…

OpenAI confirmed to The Verge that Zoph will be departing. He posted a goodbye message in the company’s Slack channels. Zoph did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Zoph originally left OpenAI in the fall of 2024 for Murati’s Thinking Machines Lab, but departed the role abruptly in January 2026 after reports of alleged misconduct involving an undisclosed relationship with a colleague. Murati posted on X in January that Thinking Machines Lab had “parted ways” with Zoph and that he would be replaced as CTO.

Thinking Machines Lab has its own tensions with OpenAI. Murati briefly took over as CEO from OpenAI CEO Sam Altman during his November 2023 ouster, and during the recent OpenAI trial, Murati testified that she couldn’t trust everything Altman said. In September 2024, when Murati left OpenAI to start Thinking Machines Lab, a group of OpenAI employees followed shortly after. But three of them — including Zoph — all returned to OpenAI together this past January. Fidji Simo, OpenAI’s CEO of Applications, wrote on X at the time that she was “excited to welcome Barret Zoph, Luke Metz, and Sam Schoenholz back” and that the decision had “been in the works for several weeks.”

#Barret #Zoph #OpenAI #monthsAI,OpenAI,Report"> Barret Zoph is out at OpenAI again after just five monthsFive months after returning to OpenAI, Barret Zoph — the company’s head of enterprise AI sales — has departed, The Verge has learned.Zoph returned to OpenAI in mid-January after a stint as co-founder and CTO of Thinking Machines Lab, the competing AI company founded by former OpenAI CTO Mira Murati. Shortly after Zoph returned to OpenAI, the company said he would lead its push into enterprise — a significant role at OpenAI, since in recent months it had vowed to stop chasing so-called “side quests” and focus on key revenue drivers like enterprise and coding ahead of its planned IPO.OpenAI confirmed to The Verge that Zoph will be departing. He posted a goodbye message in the company’s Slack channels. Zoph did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Zoph originally left OpenAI in the fall of 2024 for Murati’s Thinking Machines Lab, but departed the role abruptly in January 2026 after reports of alleged misconduct involving an undisclosed relationship with a colleague. Murati posted on X in January that Thinking Machines Lab had “parted ways” with Zoph and that he would be replaced as CTO.Thinking Machines Lab has its own tensions with OpenAI. Murati briefly took over as CEO from OpenAI CEO Sam Altman during his November 2023 ouster, and during the recent OpenAI trial, Murati testified that she couldn’t trust everything Altman said. In September 2024, when Murati left OpenAI to start Thinking Machines Lab, a group of OpenAI employees followed shortly after. But three of them — including Zoph — all returned to OpenAI together this past January. Fidji Simo, OpenAI’s CEO of Applications, wrote on X at the time that she was “excited to welcome Barret Zoph, Luke Metz, and Sam Schoenholz back” and that the decision had “been in the works for several weeks.”#Barret #Zoph #OpenAI #monthsAI,OpenAI,Report
Tech-news

OpenAI confirmed to The Verge that Zoph will be departing. He posted a goodbye message in the company’s Slack channels. Zoph did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Zoph originally left OpenAI in the fall of 2024 for Murati’s Thinking Machines Lab, but departed the role abruptly in January 2026 after reports of alleged misconduct involving an undisclosed relationship with a colleague. Murati posted on X in January that Thinking Machines Lab had “parted ways” with Zoph and that he would be replaced as CTO.

Thinking Machines Lab has its own tensions with OpenAI. Murati briefly took over as CEO from OpenAI CEO Sam Altman during his November 2023 ouster, and during the recent OpenAI trial, Murati testified that she couldn’t trust everything Altman said. In September 2024, when Murati left OpenAI to start Thinking Machines Lab, a group of OpenAI employees followed shortly after. But three of them — including Zoph — all returned to OpenAI together this past January. Fidji Simo, OpenAI’s CEO of Applications, wrote on X at the time that she was “excited to welcome Barret Zoph, Luke Metz, and Sam Schoenholz back” and that the decision had “been in the works for several weeks.”

#Barret #Zoph #OpenAI #monthsAI,OpenAI,Report">Barret Zoph is out at OpenAI again after just five months

Five months after returning to OpenAI, Barret Zoph — the company’s head of enterprise AI sales — has departed, The Verge has learned.

Zoph returned to OpenAI in mid-January after a stint as co-founder and CTO of Thinking Machines Lab, the competing AI company founded by former OpenAI CTO Mira Murati. Shortly after Zoph returned to OpenAI, the company said he would lead its push into enterprise — a significant role at OpenAI, since in recent months it had vowed to stop chasing so-called “side quests” and focus on key revenue drivers like enterprise and coding ahead of its planned IPO.

OpenAI confirmed to The Verge that Zoph will be departing. He posted a goodbye message in the company’s Slack channels. Zoph did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Zoph originally left OpenAI in the fall of 2024 for Murati’s Thinking Machines Lab, but departed the role abruptly in January 2026 after reports of alleged misconduct involving an undisclosed relationship with a colleague. Murati posted on X in January that Thinking Machines Lab had “parted ways” with Zoph and that he would be replaced as CTO.

Thinking Machines Lab has its own tensions with OpenAI. Murati briefly took over as CEO from OpenAI CEO Sam Altman during his November 2023 ouster, and during the recent OpenAI trial, Murati testified that she couldn’t trust everything Altman said. In September 2024, when Murati left OpenAI to start Thinking Machines Lab, a group of OpenAI employees followed shortly after. But three of them — including Zoph — all returned to OpenAI together this past January. Fidji Simo, OpenAI’s CEO of Applications, wrote on X at the time that she was “excited to welcome Barret Zoph, Luke Metz, and Sam Schoenholz back” and that the decision had “been in the works for several weeks.”

#Barret #Zoph #OpenAI #monthsAI,OpenAI,Report

Five months after returning to OpenAI, Barret Zoph — the company’s head of enterprise AI…

disable products it spent the past week hyping — and travel to Washington, DC in hopes of changing President Donald Trump’s mind. Now, over the coming days, the US government could dramatically alter the trajectory of the entire industry, dealing a major blow to American AI companies.

Claude Mythos 5 and Fable 5 are built on the same foundation as Anthropic’s Mythos Preview, which Anthropic dubbed too dangerous to publicly release. (The company’s warnings could be seen as genuine concern or more hype for their own model — or both.) Mythos 5 was made available to a select group of government agencies and companies, while Fable 5, which featured additional safeguards, was deemed “safe for general use.” But when a report indicated those guardrails may have failed, Anthropic’s dire warnings about Mythos falling into the wrong hands came back to haunt it.

A source familiar with the situation, who participated in the negotiations between Anthropic and the Trump administration, said the administration called the AI lab on Friday around 1pm ET and gave the company a 90-minute ultimatum to shut down access to Mythos 5 and Fable 5. If it didn’t, then the government would impose export controls on Anthropic by authority of the US Commerce Department.

The source said that Anthropic executives were talking to the White House within 15 minutes of that first call, confirming that CEO Dario Amodei joined the discussions about an hour and 15 minutes after that initial call. Amodei directly spoke with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross, in some cases more than once, the source confirmed.

Anthropic wrote in a release on Friday that the company believed that the government “believes it has become aware of a method of bypassing, or ‘jailbreaking’ Fable 5.” Rather than an existential threat, though, Anthropic said that the jailbreak in question was a “potential narrow, non-universal” one that was “shared with the government” by an entity the company declined to name. Moreover, Anthropic said the behavior wasn’t unique to Fable 5. “We have reviewed a report that we believe is the basis of the government’s directive and validated that the level of capability displayed there is widely available from other models (including OpenAI’s GPT-5.5),” Anthropic wrote.

Semafor reported, citing one source familiar, that the hubbub began because the US government was concerned that a China-linked group had accessed the technology. But the source said that the China rumors went back weeks, referring to a large global telecommunications company that was initially cleared to be included in access to Mythos Preview, and that when the US government shared its concerns, Anthropic immediately revoked access.

An X post by David Sacks, the US government’s former AI and crypto czar who stepped down in March, didn’t mention China either. Sacks did, however, mention the unnamed entity that had exposed the issue to the government, calling it “a highly credible trusted partner of both Anthropic and the USG who was testing Fable [which] came forward with a jailbreak of those guardrails.”

Some reports point to Amazon CEO Andy Jassy as the person who flagged concerns to the US government after researchers at Amazon had red-teamed Fable 5. That conclusion stands at odds with some independent red-teamers, who have said they were impressed with the level of the protections.

The source familiar with the negotiations said that the Amazon research was explicitly mentioned in conversations with the US government. The person added that Anthropic had had access to that paper within days of the Friday export control directive and had been going back-and-forth since then with Amazon researchers to discuss it.

Everything in that paper, the source said, could be achieved by OpenAI’s GPT-5.5.

Anthropic spent the weekend scrambling to make nice with the Trump administration, beginning with virtual meetings and then flying employees to DC, including Dave Orr, Anthropic’s head of safeguards; Logan Graham, who runs its frontier red team and has led work on Project Glasswing; and Nicholas Carlini, a leading frontier developer and cybersecurity researcher. Axios reported, citing a source familiar with the Trump administration’s thinking, that the company simply has repeatedly made missteps in its communication with the administration and that it “has not done a great job at trying to speak to the administration and appreciate the ideological differences.” For Anthropic, the timing couldn’t be worse: the company had banked on Mythos to help it recover, in part, from months of high-profile clashes with the US Department of Defense.

The source familiar with the negotiations said that Anthropic pre-briefed the administration on Fable 5, and that the US Department of Commerce conducted testing pre-deployment, with no concerns shared at the time. The source added that Anthropic had been working closely with government agencies since Mythos Preview’s release.

The Trump administration initially took a hands-off approach to AI safety — but post-Mythos, it has become more ambivalent, even as it frets over the threat of losing the AI race to China. Now, prominent cybersecurity leaders have warned that sidelining Mythos 5 and Fable 5 could give China a significant AI advantage. Trump’s move has galvanized international calls for alternatives to American AI systems, while effectively putting a major US AI company’s new flagship model on ice.

A public letter from tech and cybersecurity executives called for restrictions on Fable 5 to be repealed on Sunday. “Not all of us agree that AI regulation is the right way forward,” the letter states, adding that if regulations are going to happen regardless, then they should be rooted in “scientific evaluations developed with input from industry and academia.”

Alex Stamos, chief product officer at Corridor, told The Verge he organized the public letter because the countless number of vulnerabilities in the past decade-plus, written in a variety of different coding languages, require AI to patch before bad actors find them. “We’re in a race, and I think policymakers don’t understand that,” Stamos said. “There’s this weird arrogance, this idea that American labs are hugely ahead of our adversaries that will always be true, that it’s really important to restrict access because of that. I just think that’s foolish. If the labs are ahead, it’s only by a matter of months. And you can see that in the open evaluations. The cutting-edge models are only something like six months ahead of the Chinese models — and those are the models we know about.”

The public letter goes on to state that though Anthropic’s Mythos-class models are skilled at finding cybersecurity vulnerabilities and taking advantage of exploits, they aren’t “uniquely good” at these tasks and that Fable 5’s safeguards “were so aggressive as to be the source of humor in the cyber community on launch day.” Stamos told The Verge that “there’s a real overstatement of Mythos’ capabilities. Anthropic is somewhat responsible for this themselves, clearly … Mythos is great, but the real turning point was really last year.”

Stamos said the industry is awash with backup contracts being signed with non-US companies and open-weight models being deployed on alternative hardware arrangements because the past weekend made political risk part of companies’ business plans more than ever before.

“They are laughing at us in Beijing right now,” Stamos said. “One of America’s champions is being kneecapped by the US government while we’re in a race with the Chinese. It’s just incredibly stupid. That’s why I wrote the letter, and I think that’s why a lot of people signed onto it.”

Ben Van Roo, co-founder and CEO of Legion Intelligence, a system of agents for the national security community, told The Verge that “the directive of ‘no foreign national should use this model’ is the most impossible thing to enforce.” He added, “When I first read that, my whole… [network of] AI community nerds was exploding.”

To make matters even more urgent, OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft have all come out with their own comparable products to Anthropic’s Mythos, making many of the same claims about their effectiveness and risks. If the Trump administration bans Anthropic’s advanced cybersecurity models, it can make a case for banning its competitors’ models, too. That could spur AI industry leaders to unite and help out Anthropic or, as with its fight over autonomous weapons with the Pentagon, position themselves as a safer and more compliant alternative.

Even as the Trump administration is trying to free tech companies of regulatory hassles, the Anthropic order could amount to a dramatic restriction on powerful AI models — depending on how the next few days play out.

Legion Intelligence’s Van Roo called it “uncharted territory” in the regulatory setting, adding that he doesn’t think this is the last time something like this will happen.

We’ve also entered the era of AI populism, when a growing number of people are pushing back against the AI industry’s outsized influence and the concentration of power at the top via data center protests, pledges to quit using AI chatbots, lawsuits over wrongful deaths, and even attempted attacks on AI company CEOs. Van Roo says the Trump administration’s recent moves against Anthropic could stoke “greater fears and concerns, potentially for the wrong reasons.”

The source familiar with the negotiations described the weekend’s conversations as constructive, with some members of the administration admitting that putting export controls on model providers isn’t ideal, since competitors with similar products may find themselves under the same restrictions — and since the US government is currently exploring a program that would encourage the export of American AI systems.

Monday’s talks concluded with no resolution as of yet.

As Anthropic continues to negotiate with the US government, there’s little chance that the company’s other myriad issues with the Pentagon won’t come up — namely, the ongoing battle between Anthropic and the Department of Defense over acceptable usage policies for Anthropic’s tech by the US military.

“This is new and we’ve never had anything potentially this drastic before, and it does have some real ramifications” in terms of how to enforce access to powerful models, Van Roo said. “Who gets to use this new technology that continues to outpace our own ability to regulate it?”

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
#fight #Claude #MythosAI,Anthropic,Policy,Report"> Inside the fight over Claude Mythos 5As the rest of the country celebrated the USA’s first World Cup win and the New York Knicks championship, Anthropic spent its weekend fighting the Trump administration over its latest model release. At 5:21 PM on Friday, the company received a US export control directive to suspend access to its Mythos 5 and Fable 5 AI models by “any foreign national” inside or outside the US, “including foreign national Anthropic employees.” The only way that was possible, Anthropic determined, was to completely disable products it spent the past week hyping — and travel to Washington, DC in hopes of changing President Donald Trump’s mind. Now, over the coming days, the US government could dramatically alter the trajectory of the entire industry, dealing a major blow to American AI companies.Claude Mythos 5 and Fable 5 are built on the same foundation as Anthropic’s Mythos Preview, which Anthropic dubbed too dangerous to publicly release. (The company’s warnings could be seen as genuine concern or more hype for their own model — or both.) Mythos 5 was made available to a select group of government agencies and companies, while Fable 5, which featured additional safeguards, was deemed “safe for general use.” But when a report indicated those guardrails may have failed, Anthropic’s dire warnings about Mythos falling into the wrong hands came back to haunt it.A source familiar with the situation, who participated in the negotiations between Anthropic and the Trump administration, said the administration called the AI lab on Friday around 1pm ET and gave the company a 90-minute ultimatum to shut down access to Mythos 5 and Fable 5. If it didn’t, then the government would impose export controls on Anthropic by authority of the US Commerce Department.The source said that Anthropic executives were talking to the White House within 15 minutes of that first call, confirming that CEO Dario Amodei joined the discussions about an hour and 15 minutes after that initial call. Amodei directly spoke with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross, in some cases more than once, the source confirmed.Anthropic wrote in a release on Friday that the company believed that the government “believes it has become aware of a method of bypassing, or ‘jailbreaking’ Fable 5.” Rather than an existential threat, though, Anthropic said that the jailbreak in question was a “potential narrow, non-universal” one that was “shared with the government” by an entity the company declined to name. Moreover, Anthropic said the behavior wasn’t unique to Fable 5. “We have reviewed a report that we believe is the basis of the government’s directive and validated that the level of capability displayed there is widely available from other models (including OpenAI’s GPT-5.5),” Anthropic wrote.Semafor reported, citing one source familiar, that the hubbub began because the US government was concerned that a China-linked group had accessed the technology. But the source said that the China rumors went back weeks, referring to a large global telecommunications company that was initially cleared to be included in access to Mythos Preview, and that when the US government shared its concerns, Anthropic immediately revoked access.An X post by David Sacks, the US government’s former AI and crypto czar who stepped down in March, didn’t mention China either. Sacks did, however, mention the unnamed entity that had exposed the issue to the government, calling it “a highly credible trusted partner of both Anthropic and the USG who was testing Fable [which] came forward with a jailbreak of those guardrails.”Some reports point to Amazon CEO Andy Jassy as the person who flagged concerns to the US government after researchers at Amazon had red-teamed Fable 5. That conclusion stands at odds with some independent red-teamers, who have said they were impressed with the level of the protections.The source familiar with the negotiations said that the Amazon research was explicitly mentioned in conversations with the US government. The person added that Anthropic had had access to that paper within days of the Friday export control directive and had been going back-and-forth since then with Amazon researchers to discuss it.Everything in that paper, the source said, could be achieved by OpenAI’s GPT-5.5.Anthropic spent the weekend scrambling to make nice with the Trump administration, beginning with virtual meetings and then flying employees to DC, including Dave Orr, Anthropic’s head of safeguards; Logan Graham, who runs its frontier red team and has led work on Project Glasswing; and Nicholas Carlini, a leading frontier developer and cybersecurity researcher. Axios reported, citing a source familiar with the Trump administration’s thinking, that the company simply has repeatedly made missteps in its communication with the administration and that it “has not done a great job at trying to speak to the administration and appreciate the ideological differences.” For Anthropic, the timing couldn’t be worse: the company had banked on Mythos to help it recover, in part, from months of high-profile clashes with the US Department of Defense.The source familiar with the negotiations said that Anthropic pre-briefed the administration on Fable 5, and that the US Department of Commerce conducted testing pre-deployment, with no concerns shared at the time. The source added that Anthropic had been working closely with government agencies since Mythos Preview’s release.The Trump administration initially took a hands-off approach to AI safety — but post-Mythos, it has become more ambivalent, even as it frets over the threat of losing the AI race to China. Now, prominent cybersecurity leaders have warned that sidelining Mythos 5 and Fable 5 could give China a significant AI advantage. Trump’s move has galvanized international calls for alternatives to American AI systems, while effectively putting a major US AI company’s new flagship model on ice.A public letter from tech and cybersecurity executives called for restrictions on Fable 5 to be repealed on Sunday. “Not all of us agree that AI regulation is the right way forward,” the letter states, adding that if regulations are going to happen regardless, then they should be rooted in “scientific evaluations developed with input from industry and academia.”Alex Stamos, chief product officer at Corridor, told The Verge he organized the public letter because the countless number of vulnerabilities in the past decade-plus, written in a variety of different coding languages, require AI to patch before bad actors find them. “We’re in a race, and I think policymakers don’t understand that,” Stamos said. “There’s this weird arrogance, this idea that American labs are hugely ahead of our adversaries that will always be true, that it’s really important to restrict access because of that. I just think that’s foolish. If the labs are ahead, it’s only by a matter of months. And you can see that in the open evaluations. The cutting-edge models are only something like six months ahead of the Chinese models — and those are the models we know about.”The public letter goes on to state that though Anthropic’s Mythos-class models are skilled at finding cybersecurity vulnerabilities and taking advantage of exploits, they aren’t “uniquely good” at these tasks and that Fable 5’s safeguards “were so aggressive as to be the source of humor in the cyber community on launch day.” Stamos told The Verge that “there’s a real overstatement of Mythos’ capabilities. Anthropic is somewhat responsible for this themselves, clearly … Mythos is great, but the real turning point was really last year.”Stamos said the industry is awash with backup contracts being signed with non-US companies and open-weight models being deployed on alternative hardware arrangements because the past weekend made political risk part of companies’ business plans more than ever before.“They are laughing at us in Beijing right now,” Stamos said. “One of America’s champions is being kneecapped by the US government while we’re in a race with the Chinese. It’s just incredibly stupid. That’s why I wrote the letter, and I think that’s why a lot of people signed onto it.”Ben Van Roo, co-founder and CEO of Legion Intelligence, a system of agents for the national security community, told The Verge that “the directive of ‘no foreign national should use this model’ is the most impossible thing to enforce.” He added, “When I first read that, my whole… [network of] AI community nerds was exploding.”To make matters even more urgent, OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft have all come out with their own comparable products to Anthropic’s Mythos, making many of the same claims about their effectiveness and risks. If the Trump administration bans Anthropic’s advanced cybersecurity models, it can make a case for banning its competitors’ models, too. That could spur AI industry leaders to unite and help out Anthropic or, as with its fight over autonomous weapons with the Pentagon, position themselves as a safer and more compliant alternative.Even as the Trump administration is trying to free tech companies of regulatory hassles, the Anthropic order could amount to a dramatic restriction on powerful AI models — depending on how the next few days play out.Legion Intelligence’s Van Roo called it “uncharted territory” in the regulatory setting, adding that he doesn’t think this is the last time something like this will happen.We’ve also entered the era of AI populism, when a growing number of people are pushing back against the AI industry’s outsized influence and the concentration of power at the top via data center protests, pledges to quit using AI chatbots, lawsuits over wrongful deaths, and even attempted attacks on AI company CEOs. Van Roo says the Trump administration’s recent moves against Anthropic could stoke “greater fears and concerns, potentially for the wrong reasons.”The source familiar with the negotiations described the weekend’s conversations as constructive, with some members of the administration admitting that putting export controls on model providers isn’t ideal, since competitors with similar products may find themselves under the same restrictions — and since the US government is currently exploring a program that would encourage the export of American AI systems.Monday’s talks concluded with no resolution as of yet.As Anthropic continues to negotiate with the US government, there’s little chance that the company’s other myriad issues with the Pentagon won’t come up — namely, the ongoing battle between Anthropic and the Department of Defense over acceptable usage policies for Anthropic’s tech by the US military.“This is new and we’ve never had anything potentially this drastic before, and it does have some real ramifications” in terms of how to enforce access to powerful models, Van Roo said. “Who gets to use this new technology that continues to outpace our own ability to regulate it?”Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.Hayden FieldCloseHayden FieldPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Hayden FieldAICloseAIPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All AIAnthropicCloseAnthropicPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All AnthropicPolicyClosePolicyPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PolicyReportCloseReportPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All Report#fight #Claude #MythosAI,Anthropic,Policy,Report
Tech-news

disable products it spent the past week hyping — and travel to Washington, DC in hopes of changing President Donald Trump’s mind. Now, over the coming days, the US government could dramatically alter the trajectory of the entire industry, dealing a major blow to American AI companies.

Claude Mythos 5 and Fable 5 are built on the same foundation as Anthropic’s Mythos Preview, which Anthropic dubbed too dangerous to publicly release. (The company’s warnings could be seen as genuine concern or more hype for their own model — or both.) Mythos 5 was made available to a select group of government agencies and companies, while Fable 5, which featured additional safeguards, was deemed “safe for general use.” But when a report indicated those guardrails may have failed, Anthropic’s dire warnings about Mythos falling into the wrong hands came back to haunt it.

A source familiar with the situation, who participated in the negotiations between Anthropic and the Trump administration, said the administration called the AI lab on Friday around 1pm ET and gave the company a 90-minute ultimatum to shut down access to Mythos 5 and Fable 5. If it didn’t, then the government would impose export controls on Anthropic by authority of the US Commerce Department.

The source said that Anthropic executives were talking to the White House within 15 minutes of that first call, confirming that CEO Dario Amodei joined the discussions about an hour and 15 minutes after that initial call. Amodei directly spoke with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross, in some cases more than once, the source confirmed.

Anthropic wrote in a release on Friday that the company believed that the government “believes it has become aware of a method of bypassing, or ‘jailbreaking’ Fable 5.” Rather than an existential threat, though, Anthropic said that the jailbreak in question was a “potential narrow, non-universal” one that was “shared with the government” by an entity the company declined to name. Moreover, Anthropic said the behavior wasn’t unique to Fable 5. “We have reviewed a report that we believe is the basis of the government’s directive and validated that the level of capability displayed there is widely available from other models (including OpenAI’s GPT-5.5),” Anthropic wrote.

Semafor reported, citing one source familiar, that the hubbub began because the US government was concerned that a China-linked group had accessed the technology. But the source said that the China rumors went back weeks, referring to a large global telecommunications company that was initially cleared to be included in access to Mythos Preview, and that when the US government shared its concerns, Anthropic immediately revoked access.

An X post by David Sacks, the US government’s former AI and crypto czar who stepped down in March, didn’t mention China either. Sacks did, however, mention the unnamed entity that had exposed the issue to the government, calling it “a highly credible trusted partner of both Anthropic and the USG who was testing Fable [which] came forward with a jailbreak of those guardrails.”

Some reports point to Amazon CEO Andy Jassy as the person who flagged concerns to the US government after researchers at Amazon had red-teamed Fable 5. That conclusion stands at odds with some independent red-teamers, who have said they were impressed with the level of the protections.

The source familiar with the negotiations said that the Amazon research was explicitly mentioned in conversations with the US government. The person added that Anthropic had had access to that paper within days of the Friday export control directive and had been going back-and-forth since then with Amazon researchers to discuss it.

Everything in that paper, the source said, could be achieved by OpenAI’s GPT-5.5.

Anthropic spent the weekend scrambling to make nice with the Trump administration, beginning with virtual meetings and then flying employees to DC, including Dave Orr, Anthropic’s head of safeguards; Logan Graham, who runs its frontier red team and has led work on Project Glasswing; and Nicholas Carlini, a leading frontier developer and cybersecurity researcher. Axios reported, citing a source familiar with the Trump administration’s thinking, that the company simply has repeatedly made missteps in its communication with the administration and that it “has not done a great job at trying to speak to the administration and appreciate the ideological differences.” For Anthropic, the timing couldn’t be worse: the company had banked on Mythos to help it recover, in part, from months of high-profile clashes with the US Department of Defense.

The source familiar with the negotiations said that Anthropic pre-briefed the administration on Fable 5, and that the US Department of Commerce conducted testing pre-deployment, with no concerns shared at the time. The source added that Anthropic had been working closely with government agencies since Mythos Preview’s release.

The Trump administration initially took a hands-off approach to AI safety — but post-Mythos, it has become more ambivalent, even as it frets over the threat of losing the AI race to China. Now, prominent cybersecurity leaders have warned that sidelining Mythos 5 and Fable 5 could give China a significant AI advantage. Trump’s move has galvanized international calls for alternatives to American AI systems, while effectively putting a major US AI company’s new flagship model on ice.

A public letter from tech and cybersecurity executives called for restrictions on Fable 5 to be repealed on Sunday. “Not all of us agree that AI regulation is the right way forward,” the letter states, adding that if regulations are going to happen regardless, then they should be rooted in “scientific evaluations developed with input from industry and academia.”

Alex Stamos, chief product officer at Corridor, told The Verge he organized the public letter because the countless number of vulnerabilities in the past decade-plus, written in a variety of different coding languages, require AI to patch before bad actors find them. “We’re in a race, and I think policymakers don’t understand that,” Stamos said. “There’s this weird arrogance, this idea that American labs are hugely ahead of our adversaries that will always be true, that it’s really important to restrict access because of that. I just think that’s foolish. If the labs are ahead, it’s only by a matter of months. And you can see that in the open evaluations. The cutting-edge models are only something like six months ahead of the Chinese models — and those are the models we know about.”

The public letter goes on to state that though Anthropic’s Mythos-class models are skilled at finding cybersecurity vulnerabilities and taking advantage of exploits, they aren’t “uniquely good” at these tasks and that Fable 5’s safeguards “were so aggressive as to be the source of humor in the cyber community on launch day.” Stamos told The Verge that “there’s a real overstatement of Mythos’ capabilities. Anthropic is somewhat responsible for this themselves, clearly … Mythos is great, but the real turning point was really last year.”

Stamos said the industry is awash with backup contracts being signed with non-US companies and open-weight models being deployed on alternative hardware arrangements because the past weekend made political risk part of companies’ business plans more than ever before.

“They are laughing at us in Beijing right now,” Stamos said. “One of America’s champions is being kneecapped by the US government while we’re in a race with the Chinese. It’s just incredibly stupid. That’s why I wrote the letter, and I think that’s why a lot of people signed onto it.”

Ben Van Roo, co-founder and CEO of Legion Intelligence, a system of agents for the national security community, told The Verge that “the directive of ‘no foreign national should use this model’ is the most impossible thing to enforce.” He added, “When I first read that, my whole… [network of] AI community nerds was exploding.”

To make matters even more urgent, OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft have all come out with their own comparable products to Anthropic’s Mythos, making many of the same claims about their effectiveness and risks. If the Trump administration bans Anthropic’s advanced cybersecurity models, it can make a case for banning its competitors’ models, too. That could spur AI industry leaders to unite and help out Anthropic or, as with its fight over autonomous weapons with the Pentagon, position themselves as a safer and more compliant alternative.

Even as the Trump administration is trying to free tech companies of regulatory hassles, the Anthropic order could amount to a dramatic restriction on powerful AI models — depending on how the next few days play out.

Legion Intelligence’s Van Roo called it “uncharted territory” in the regulatory setting, adding that he doesn’t think this is the last time something like this will happen.

We’ve also entered the era of AI populism, when a growing number of people are pushing back against the AI industry’s outsized influence and the concentration of power at the top via data center protests, pledges to quit using AI chatbots, lawsuits over wrongful deaths, and even attempted attacks on AI company CEOs. Van Roo says the Trump administration’s recent moves against Anthropic could stoke “greater fears and concerns, potentially for the wrong reasons.”

The source familiar with the negotiations described the weekend’s conversations as constructive, with some members of the administration admitting that putting export controls on model providers isn’t ideal, since competitors with similar products may find themselves under the same restrictions — and since the US government is currently exploring a program that would encourage the export of American AI systems.

Monday’s talks concluded with no resolution as of yet.

As Anthropic continues to negotiate with the US government, there’s little chance that the company’s other myriad issues with the Pentagon won’t come up — namely, the ongoing battle between Anthropic and the Department of Defense over acceptable usage policies for Anthropic’s tech by the US military.

“This is new and we’ve never had anything potentially this drastic before, and it does have some real ramifications” in terms of how to enforce access to powerful models, Van Roo said. “Who gets to use this new technology that continues to outpace our own ability to regulate it?”

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.

#fight #Claude #MythosAI,Anthropic,Policy,Report">Inside the fight over Claude Mythos 5

As the rest of the country celebrated the USA’s first World Cup win and the New York Knicks championship, Anthropic spent its weekend fighting the Trump administration over its latest model release. At 5:21 PM on Friday, the company received a US export control directive to suspend access to its Mythos 5 and Fable 5 AI models by “any foreign national” inside or outside the US, “including foreign national Anthropic employees.” The only way that was possible, Anthropic determined, was to completely disable products it spent the past week hyping — and travel to Washington, DC in hopes of changing President Donald Trump’s mind. Now, over the coming days, the US government could dramatically alter the trajectory of the entire industry, dealing a major blow to American AI companies.

Claude Mythos 5 and Fable 5 are built on the same foundation as Anthropic’s Mythos Preview, which Anthropic dubbed too dangerous to publicly release. (The company’s warnings could be seen as genuine concern or more hype for their own model — or both.) Mythos 5 was made available to a select group of government agencies and companies, while Fable 5, which featured additional safeguards, was deemed “safe for general use.” But when a report indicated those guardrails may have failed, Anthropic’s dire warnings about Mythos falling into the wrong hands came back to haunt it.

A source familiar with the situation, who participated in the negotiations between Anthropic and the Trump administration, said the administration called the AI lab on Friday around 1pm ET and gave the company a 90-minute ultimatum to shut down access to Mythos 5 and Fable 5. If it didn’t, then the government would impose export controls on Anthropic by authority of the US Commerce Department.

The source said that Anthropic executives were talking to the White House within 15 minutes of that first call, confirming that CEO Dario Amodei joined the discussions about an hour and 15 minutes after that initial call. Amodei directly spoke with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross, in some cases more than once, the source confirmed.

Anthropic wrote in a release on Friday that the company believed that the government “believes it has become aware of a method of bypassing, or ‘jailbreaking’ Fable 5.” Rather than an existential threat, though, Anthropic said that the jailbreak in question was a “potential narrow, non-universal” one that was “shared with the government” by an entity the company declined to name. Moreover, Anthropic said the behavior wasn’t unique to Fable 5. “We have reviewed a report that we believe is the basis of the government’s directive and validated that the level of capability displayed there is widely available from other models (including OpenAI’s GPT-5.5),” Anthropic wrote.

Semafor reported, citing one source familiar, that the hubbub began because the US government was concerned that a China-linked group had accessed the technology. But the source said that the China rumors went back weeks, referring to a large global telecommunications company that was initially cleared to be included in access to Mythos Preview, and that when the US government shared its concerns, Anthropic immediately revoked access.

An X post by David Sacks, the US government’s former AI and crypto czar who stepped down in March, didn’t mention China either. Sacks did, however, mention the unnamed entity that had exposed the issue to the government, calling it “a highly credible trusted partner of both Anthropic and the USG who was testing Fable [which] came forward with a jailbreak of those guardrails.”

Some reports point to Amazon CEO Andy Jassy as the person who flagged concerns to the US government after researchers at Amazon had red-teamed Fable 5. That conclusion stands at odds with some independent red-teamers, who have said they were impressed with the level of the protections.

The source familiar with the negotiations said that the Amazon research was explicitly mentioned in conversations with the US government. The person added that Anthropic had had access to that paper within days of the Friday export control directive and had been going back-and-forth since then with Amazon researchers to discuss it.

Everything in that paper, the source said, could be achieved by OpenAI’s GPT-5.5.

Anthropic spent the weekend scrambling to make nice with the Trump administration, beginning with virtual meetings and then flying employees to DC, including Dave Orr, Anthropic’s head of safeguards; Logan Graham, who runs its frontier red team and has led work on Project Glasswing; and Nicholas Carlini, a leading frontier developer and cybersecurity researcher. Axios reported, citing a source familiar with the Trump administration’s thinking, that the company simply has repeatedly made missteps in its communication with the administration and that it “has not done a great job at trying to speak to the administration and appreciate the ideological differences.” For Anthropic, the timing couldn’t be worse: the company had banked on Mythos to help it recover, in part, from months of high-profile clashes with the US Department of Defense.

The source familiar with the negotiations said that Anthropic pre-briefed the administration on Fable 5, and that the US Department of Commerce conducted testing pre-deployment, with no concerns shared at the time. The source added that Anthropic had been working closely with government agencies since Mythos Preview’s release.

The Trump administration initially took a hands-off approach to AI safety — but post-Mythos, it has become more ambivalent, even as it frets over the threat of losing the AI race to China. Now, prominent cybersecurity leaders have warned that sidelining Mythos 5 and Fable 5 could give China a significant AI advantage. Trump’s move has galvanized international calls for alternatives to American AI systems, while effectively putting a major US AI company’s new flagship model on ice.

A public letter from tech and cybersecurity executives called for restrictions on Fable 5 to be repealed on Sunday. “Not all of us agree that AI regulation is the right way forward,” the letter states, adding that if regulations are going to happen regardless, then they should be rooted in “scientific evaluations developed with input from industry and academia.”

Alex Stamos, chief product officer at Corridor, told The Verge he organized the public letter because the countless number of vulnerabilities in the past decade-plus, written in a variety of different coding languages, require AI to patch before bad actors find them. “We’re in a race, and I think policymakers don’t understand that,” Stamos said. “There’s this weird arrogance, this idea that American labs are hugely ahead of our adversaries that will always be true, that it’s really important to restrict access because of that. I just think that’s foolish. If the labs are ahead, it’s only by a matter of months. And you can see that in the open evaluations. The cutting-edge models are only something like six months ahead of the Chinese models — and those are the models we know about.”

The public letter goes on to state that though Anthropic’s Mythos-class models are skilled at finding cybersecurity vulnerabilities and taking advantage of exploits, they aren’t “uniquely good” at these tasks and that Fable 5’s safeguards “were so aggressive as to be the source of humor in the cyber community on launch day.” Stamos told The Verge that “there’s a real overstatement of Mythos’ capabilities. Anthropic is somewhat responsible for this themselves, clearly … Mythos is great, but the real turning point was really last year.”

Stamos said the industry is awash with backup contracts being signed with non-US companies and open-weight models being deployed on alternative hardware arrangements because the past weekend made political risk part of companies’ business plans more than ever before.

“They are laughing at us in Beijing right now,” Stamos said. “One of America’s champions is being kneecapped by the US government while we’re in a race with the Chinese. It’s just incredibly stupid. That’s why I wrote the letter, and I think that’s why a lot of people signed onto it.”

Ben Van Roo, co-founder and CEO of Legion Intelligence, a system of agents for the national security community, told The Verge that “the directive of ‘no foreign national should use this model’ is the most impossible thing to enforce.” He added, “When I first read that, my whole… [network of] AI community nerds was exploding.”

To make matters even more urgent, OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft have all come out with their own comparable products to Anthropic’s Mythos, making many of the same claims about their effectiveness and risks. If the Trump administration bans Anthropic’s advanced cybersecurity models, it can make a case for banning its competitors’ models, too. That could spur AI industry leaders to unite and help out Anthropic or, as with its fight over autonomous weapons with the Pentagon, position themselves as a safer and more compliant alternative.

Even as the Trump administration is trying to free tech companies of regulatory hassles, the Anthropic order could amount to a dramatic restriction on powerful AI models — depending on how the next few days play out.

Legion Intelligence’s Van Roo called it “uncharted territory” in the regulatory setting, adding that he doesn’t think this is the last time something like this will happen.

We’ve also entered the era of AI populism, when a growing number of people are pushing back against the AI industry’s outsized influence and the concentration of power at the top via data center protests, pledges to quit using AI chatbots, lawsuits over wrongful deaths, and even attempted attacks on AI company CEOs. Van Roo says the Trump administration’s recent moves against Anthropic could stoke “greater fears and concerns, potentially for the wrong reasons.”

The source familiar with the negotiations described the weekend’s conversations as constructive, with some members of the administration admitting that putting export controls on model providers isn’t ideal, since competitors with similar products may find themselves under the same restrictions — and since the US government is currently exploring a program that would encourage the export of American AI systems.

Monday’s talks concluded with no resolution as of yet.

As Anthropic continues to negotiate with the US government, there’s little chance that the company’s other myriad issues with the Pentagon won’t come up — namely, the ongoing battle between Anthropic and the Department of Defense over acceptable usage policies for Anthropic’s tech by the US military.

“This is new and we’ve never had anything potentially this drastic before, and it does have some real ramifications” in terms of how to enforce access to powerful models, Van Roo said. “Who gets to use this new technology that continues to outpace our own ability to regulate it?”

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
#fight #Claude #MythosAI,Anthropic,Policy,Report

As the rest of the country celebrated the USA’s first World Cup win and the…

N++, a brutally hard 2D platformer that was a decade in the making, building off of previous releases dating back to the freeware Flash title N. At the time, cofounder Raigan Burns issued some famous last words: “We hope it’s not another 10 years before we come up with a game.” But now here we are, more than a decade later, and N is getting another sequel. And this time the focus is on multiplayer.

The new game is called, absurdly, N Plus Infinity Times Two. Whereas N++ was meant to be the ultimate single-player version of the N concept, this game is described as “the ultimate virtual couch party game with a low skill floor and no skill ceiling.” That means the same slick, acrobatic platforming action and gorgeous graphic design-inspired visuals, but now built around playing competitively or cooperatively with pals across a handful of different modes. It’s launching on the PS5, Xbox, Switch 2, and PC at some point in 2027.

The duo at Metanet was up to a few different things over the last 11 years. In addition to uprooting from Toronto to Montreal, they’ve been prototyping ideas for a few potentially bigger projects, and last year released a 10-year anniversary update for N++. But then, “We started getting the ‘let’s take another crack at it’ bug in 2022,” Burns tells The Verge.

The studio operates in an unusual way, at least compared to most of the game industry. Despite having two hits in N+ and N++, Metanet hasn’t grown or scaled up in any way. And the reason comes down to the way they make games: It simply takes a lot of time to find a game idea that’s worth pursuing as a commercial project. “We’ve resisted doing something that would compromise our ability to keep iterating and prototyping until something good shows up,” says Burns.

“It’s important to feel that magic,” cofounder Mare Sheppard adds. “That’s what’s compelling about making games. That’s when we know that we’re doing it in a way that’s right for us.” Burns has a clear analogy for how they work: “We like being in a band. That’s fun. Being in a lot of meetings and doing a lot of managing: not fun.” This philosophy seems especially prescient given the state of the games industry, where even the biggest hits operate in a way that’s clearly unsustainable.

“We like being in a band. That’s fun. Being in a lot of meetings and doing a lot of managing: not fun.”

In the case of N Plus Infinity Times Two — unfortunately I can’t think of a good way to shorten that title — the spark came in part from watching how younger players interact with games. Even when they’re playing solo, kids are typically still chatting with friends on their phones, essentially turning everything into a multiplayer experience. Burns and Sheppard wanted to find a way to marry that idea with the couch co-op experiences they grew up on, which led to revisiting the N concept but with a multiplayer spin.

The two describe making N++ as a grueling experience. If you think the game’s levels are hard, just imagine having to playtest them over and over. Part of the excitement about N Plus Infinity Times Two wasn’t just finding a spin on the formula that would be fun to play, but also to develop. “This one really feels like we’re having fun,” says Burns. “We’re really fluent in this one instrument. So now the fun challenge becomes playing new styles of music we’ve never played before, but with this thing we’re really comfortable with.”

A screenshot from the video game N Plus Infinity Times Two.

Image: Metanet Software

As creative industries from games to Hollywood become increasingly homogenous, Burns also believes that there’s something important about doing work that’s distinct, even if it means revisiting a previous idea, like through the multiple versions of N. It’s similar to titles like Hades II and Silksong: indie-developed sequels that iterated a core concept, but with a fresh angle that made them more than a by-the-numbers follow-up. “Being yourself is more fun and exciting anyways,” Burns explains. “But I honestly think it’s more commercially viable to do something only you can do, because then you have no competition.”

As for what’s next after N Plus Infinity Times Two, the pair obviously aren’t revealing anything just yet. There are a few bigger 3D game ideas kicking around, but those would necessitate some of that scaling up that the studio has so far avoided. What they won’t close the door on, however, is coming back to the idea of N again at some point in the future.

“If we can do something that expresses something new, or lets us see things in a different way, or we get a different perspective on what this game is or how to play it, that’s exciting,” says Sheppard. “I think we no longer think this is definitively going to be the last one. We’ve abandoned that idea. It doesn’t have to be.”

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
#decade #team #multiplayer #sequelEntertainment,Gaming,Interview,Report"> More than a decade later, the team behind N++ is back with a multiplayer sequelBack in 2015, the two-person studio Metanet released N++, a brutally hard 2D platformer that was a decade in the making, building off of previous releases dating back to the freeware Flash title N. At the time, cofounder Raigan Burns issued some famous last words: “We hope it’s not another 10 years before we come up with a game.” But now here we are, more than a decade later, and N is getting another sequel. And this time the focus is on multiplayer.The new game is called, absurdly, N Plus Infinity Times Two. Whereas N++ was meant to be the ultimate single-player version of the N concept, this game is described as “the ultimate virtual couch party game with a low skill floor and no skill ceiling.” That means the same slick, acrobatic platforming action and gorgeous graphic design-inspired visuals, but now built around playing competitively or cooperatively with pals across a handful of different modes. It’s launching on the PS5, Xbox, Switch 2, and PC at some point in 2027.The duo at Metanet was up to a few different things over the last 11 years. In addition to uprooting from Toronto to Montreal, they’ve been prototyping ideas for a few potentially bigger projects, and last year released a 10-year anniversary update for N++. But then, “We started getting the ‘let’s take another crack at it’ bug in 2022,” Burns tells The Verge.The studio operates in an unusual way, at least compared to most of the game industry. Despite having two hits in N+ and N++, Metanet hasn’t grown or scaled up in any way. And the reason comes down to the way they make games: It simply takes a lot of time to find a game idea that’s worth pursuing as a commercial project. “We’ve resisted doing something that would compromise our ability to keep iterating and prototyping until something good shows up,” says Burns.“It’s important to feel that magic,” cofounder Mare Sheppard adds. “That’s what’s compelling about making games. That’s when we know that we’re doing it in a way that’s right for us.” Burns has a clear analogy for how they work: “We like being in a band. That’s fun. Being in a lot of meetings and doing a lot of managing: not fun.” This philosophy seems especially prescient given the state of the games industry, where even the biggest hits operate in a way that’s clearly unsustainable.“We like being in a band. That’s fun. Being in a lot of meetings and doing a lot of managing: not fun.”In the case of N Plus Infinity Times Two — unfortunately I can’t think of a good way to shorten that title — the spark came in part from watching how younger players interact with games. Even when they’re playing solo, kids are typically still chatting with friends on their phones, essentially turning everything into a multiplayer experience. Burns and Sheppard wanted to find a way to marry that idea with the couch co-op experiences they grew up on, which led to revisiting the N concept but with a multiplayer spin.The two describe making N++ as a grueling experience. If you think the game’s levels are hard, just imagine having to playtest them over and over. Part of the excitement about N Plus Infinity Times Two wasn’t just finding a spin on the formula that would be fun to play, but also to develop. “This one really feels like we’re having fun,” says Burns. “We’re really fluent in this one instrument. So now the fun challenge becomes playing new styles of music we’ve never played before, but with this thing we’re really comfortable with.”Image: Metanet SoftwareAs creative industries from games to Hollywood become increasingly homogenous, Burns also believes that there’s something important about doing work that’s distinct, even if it means revisiting a previous idea, like through the multiple versions of N. It’s similar to titles like Hades II and Silksong: indie-developed sequels that iterated a core concept, but with a fresh angle that made them more than a by-the-numbers follow-up. “Being yourself is more fun and exciting anyways,” Burns explains. “But I honestly think it’s more commercially viable to do something only you can do, because then you have no competition.”As for what’s next after N Plus Infinity Times Two, the pair obviously aren’t revealing anything just yet. There are a few bigger 3D game ideas kicking around, but those would necessitate some of that scaling up that the studio has so far avoided. What they won’t close the door on, however, is coming back to the idea of N again at some point in the future.“If we can do something that expresses something new, or lets us see things in a different way, or we get a different perspective on what this game is or how to play it, that’s exciting,” says Sheppard. “I think we no longer think this is definitively going to be the last one. We’ve abandoned that idea. It doesn’t have to be.”Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.Andrew WebsterCloseAndrew WebsterSenior entertainment editorPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Andrew WebsterEntertainmentCloseEntertainmentPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All EntertainmentGamingCloseGamingPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All GamingInterviewCloseInterviewPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All InterviewReportCloseReportPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All Report#decade #team #multiplayer #sequelEntertainment,Gaming,Interview,Report
Tech-news

N++, a brutally hard 2D platformer that was a decade in the making, building off of previous releases dating back to the freeware Flash title N. At the time, cofounder Raigan Burns issued some famous last words: “We hope it’s not another 10 years before we come up with a game.” But now here we are, more than a decade later, and N is getting another sequel. And this time the focus is on multiplayer.

The new game is called, absurdly, N Plus Infinity Times Two. Whereas N++ was meant to be the ultimate single-player version of the N concept, this game is described as “the ultimate virtual couch party game with a low skill floor and no skill ceiling.” That means the same slick, acrobatic platforming action and gorgeous graphic design-inspired visuals, but now built around playing competitively or cooperatively with pals across a handful of different modes. It’s launching on the PS5, Xbox, Switch 2, and PC at some point in 2027.

The duo at Metanet was up to a few different things over the last 11 years. In addition to uprooting from Toronto to Montreal, they’ve been prototyping ideas for a few potentially bigger projects, and last year released a 10-year anniversary update for N++. But then, “We started getting the ‘let’s take another crack at it’ bug in 2022,” Burns tells The Verge.

The studio operates in an unusual way, at least compared to most of the game industry. Despite having two hits in N+ and N++, Metanet hasn’t grown or scaled up in any way. And the reason comes down to the way they make games: It simply takes a lot of time to find a game idea that’s worth pursuing as a commercial project. “We’ve resisted doing something that would compromise our ability to keep iterating and prototyping until something good shows up,” says Burns.

“It’s important to feel that magic,” cofounder Mare Sheppard adds. “That’s what’s compelling about making games. That’s when we know that we’re doing it in a way that’s right for us.” Burns has a clear analogy for how they work: “We like being in a band. That’s fun. Being in a lot of meetings and doing a lot of managing: not fun.” This philosophy seems especially prescient given the state of the games industry, where even the biggest hits operate in a way that’s clearly unsustainable.

“We like being in a band. That’s fun. Being in a lot of meetings and doing a lot of managing: not fun.”

In the case of N Plus Infinity Times Two — unfortunately I can’t think of a good way to shorten that title — the spark came in part from watching how younger players interact with games. Even when they’re playing solo, kids are typically still chatting with friends on their phones, essentially turning everything into a multiplayer experience. Burns and Sheppard wanted to find a way to marry that idea with the couch co-op experiences they grew up on, which led to revisiting the N concept but with a multiplayer spin.

The two describe making N++ as a grueling experience. If you think the game’s levels are hard, just imagine having to playtest them over and over. Part of the excitement about N Plus Infinity Times Two wasn’t just finding a spin on the formula that would be fun to play, but also to develop. “This one really feels like we’re having fun,” says Burns. “We’re really fluent in this one instrument. So now the fun challenge becomes playing new styles of music we’ve never played before, but with this thing we’re really comfortable with.”

A screenshot from the video game N Plus Infinity Times Two.

Image: Metanet Software

As creative industries from games to Hollywood become increasingly homogenous, Burns also believes that there’s something important about doing work that’s distinct, even if it means revisiting a previous idea, like through the multiple versions of N. It’s similar to titles like Hades II and Silksong: indie-developed sequels that iterated a core concept, but with a fresh angle that made them more than a by-the-numbers follow-up. “Being yourself is more fun and exciting anyways,” Burns explains. “But I honestly think it’s more commercially viable to do something only you can do, because then you have no competition.”

As for what’s next after N Plus Infinity Times Two, the pair obviously aren’t revealing anything just yet. There are a few bigger 3D game ideas kicking around, but those would necessitate some of that scaling up that the studio has so far avoided. What they won’t close the door on, however, is coming back to the idea of N again at some point in the future.

“If we can do something that expresses something new, or lets us see things in a different way, or we get a different perspective on what this game is or how to play it, that’s exciting,” says Sheppard. “I think we no longer think this is definitively going to be the last one. We’ve abandoned that idea. It doesn’t have to be.”

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.

#decade #team #multiplayer #sequelEntertainment,Gaming,Interview,Report">More than a decade later, the team behind N++ is back with a multiplayer sequel

Back in 2015, the two-person studio Metanet released N++, a brutally hard 2D platformer that was a decade in the making, building off of previous releases dating back to the freeware Flash title N. At the time, cofounder Raigan Burns issued some famous last words: “We hope it’s not another 10 years before we come up with a game.” But now here we are, more than a decade later, and N is getting another sequel. And this time the focus is on multiplayer.

The new game is called, absurdly, N Plus Infinity Times Two. Whereas N++ was meant to be the ultimate single-player version of the N concept, this game is described as “the ultimate virtual couch party game with a low skill floor and no skill ceiling.” That means the same slick, acrobatic platforming action and gorgeous graphic design-inspired visuals, but now built around playing competitively or cooperatively with pals across a handful of different modes. It’s launching on the PS5, Xbox, Switch 2, and PC at some point in 2027.

The duo at Metanet was up to a few different things over the last 11 years. In addition to uprooting from Toronto to Montreal, they’ve been prototyping ideas for a few potentially bigger projects, and last year released a 10-year anniversary update for N++. But then, “We started getting the ‘let’s take another crack at it’ bug in 2022,” Burns tells The Verge.

The studio operates in an unusual way, at least compared to most of the game industry. Despite having two hits in N+ and N++, Metanet hasn’t grown or scaled up in any way. And the reason comes down to the way they make games: It simply takes a lot of time to find a game idea that’s worth pursuing as a commercial project. “We’ve resisted doing something that would compromise our ability to keep iterating and prototyping until something good shows up,” says Burns.

“It’s important to feel that magic,” cofounder Mare Sheppard adds. “That’s what’s compelling about making games. That’s when we know that we’re doing it in a way that’s right for us.” Burns has a clear analogy for how they work: “We like being in a band. That’s fun. Being in a lot of meetings and doing a lot of managing: not fun.” This philosophy seems especially prescient given the state of the games industry, where even the biggest hits operate in a way that’s clearly unsustainable.

“We like being in a band. That’s fun. Being in a lot of meetings and doing a lot of managing: not fun.”

In the case of N Plus Infinity Times Two — unfortunately I can’t think of a good way to shorten that title — the spark came in part from watching how younger players interact with games. Even when they’re playing solo, kids are typically still chatting with friends on their phones, essentially turning everything into a multiplayer experience. Burns and Sheppard wanted to find a way to marry that idea with the couch co-op experiences they grew up on, which led to revisiting the N concept but with a multiplayer spin.

The two describe making N++ as a grueling experience. If you think the game’s levels are hard, just imagine having to playtest them over and over. Part of the excitement about N Plus Infinity Times Two wasn’t just finding a spin on the formula that would be fun to play, but also to develop. “This one really feels like we’re having fun,” says Burns. “We’re really fluent in this one instrument. So now the fun challenge becomes playing new styles of music we’ve never played before, but with this thing we’re really comfortable with.”

A screenshot from the video game N Plus Infinity Times Two.

Image: Metanet Software

As creative industries from games to Hollywood become increasingly homogenous, Burns also believes that there’s something important about doing work that’s distinct, even if it means revisiting a previous idea, like through the multiple versions of N. It’s similar to titles like Hades II and Silksong: indie-developed sequels that iterated a core concept, but with a fresh angle that made them more than a by-the-numbers follow-up. “Being yourself is more fun and exciting anyways,” Burns explains. “But I honestly think it’s more commercially viable to do something only you can do, because then you have no competition.”

As for what’s next after N Plus Infinity Times Two, the pair obviously aren’t revealing anything just yet. There are a few bigger 3D game ideas kicking around, but those would necessitate some of that scaling up that the studio has so far avoided. What they won’t close the door on, however, is coming back to the idea of N again at some point in the future.

“If we can do something that expresses something new, or lets us see things in a different way, or we get a different perspective on what this game is or how to play it, that’s exciting,” says Sheppard. “I think we no longer think this is definitively going to be the last one. We’ve abandoned that idea. It doesn’t have to be.”

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
#decade #team #multiplayer #sequelEntertainment,Gaming,Interview,Report

Back in 2015, the two-person studio Metanet released N++, a brutally hard 2D platformer that…

during my time reporting on the Nintendo Museum in Kyoto. Pictonico is a free download on both iOS and Android, but that only gets you access to a demo version; to play the full thing, which includes 80 different minigames, you have to buy two content packs priced at $7.69 and $5.99 each.

#Nintendos #newest #WarioWare #weirdo #smartphone #appAnalysis,Entertainment,Gaming,Nintendo,Report"> Nintendo’s newest WarioWare is a weirdo smartphone appMuch like WarioWare, Pictonico (which, I admit, I’m not entirely sure how to pronounce) is a collection of microgames that last just a few seconds each. In each round, you play 10 of these in quick succession, and usually you have just enough time to figure out what you actually need to do before moving on to the next thing. You’re given a simple command like, say, “chomp,” and then you have to do something like grab hold of a mouth and make it chew some food. The games are all very silly in often hilarious ways, so you’ll be plucking hair, licking lollipops, and peeling bananas as quickly as you can.The twist in Pictonico is that the games all use photos on your camera roll to customize the experience. The game pulls faces from photos and slips them into the microgames, so I found myself making my wife chomp down on kebab with a disturbingly large mouth, or rubbing a lamp to see a buff genie version of my 10-year-old pop out. As an example, here is me as a ballerina waiting to get their photo taken:The game lets you choose which photos you want to appear in the game so things don’t get uncomfortably weird, and it does occasionally pull things that aren’t human faces. At one point I had to match up an image that had been broken up into three parts, and it was a photo I had taken during my time reporting on the Nintendo Museum in Kyoto. Pictonico is a free download on both iOS and Android, but that only gets you access to a demo version; to play the full thing, which includes 80 different minigames, you have to buy two content packs priced at .69 and .99 each.#Nintendos #newest #WarioWare #weirdo #smartphone #appAnalysis,Entertainment,Gaming,Nintendo,Report
Tech-news

during my time reporting on the Nintendo Museum in Kyoto. Pictonico is a free download on both iOS and Android, but that only gets you access to a demo version; to play the full thing, which includes 80 different minigames, you have to buy two content packs priced at $7.69 and $5.99 each.

#Nintendos #newest #WarioWare #weirdo #smartphone #appAnalysis,Entertainment,Gaming,Nintendo,Report">Nintendo’s newest WarioWare is a weirdo smartphone app

Much like WarioWare, Pictonico (which, I admit, I’m not entirely sure how to pronounce) is a collection of microgames that last just a few seconds each. In each round, you play 10 of these in quick succession, and usually you have just enough time to figure out what you actually need to do before moving on to the next thing. You’re given a simple command like, say, “chomp,” and then you have to do something like grab hold of a mouth and make it chew some food. The games are all very silly in often hilarious ways, so you’ll be plucking hair, licking lollipops, and peeling bananas as quickly as you can.

The twist in Pictonico is that the games all use photos on your camera roll to customize the experience. The game pulls faces from photos and slips them into the microgames, so I found myself making my wife chomp down on kebab with a disturbingly large mouth, or rubbing a lamp to see a buff genie version of my 10-year-old pop out. As an example, here is me as a ballerina waiting to get their photo taken:

The game lets you choose which photos you want to appear in the game so things don’t get uncomfortably weird, and it does occasionally pull things that aren’t human faces. At one point I had to match up an image that had been broken up into three parts, and it was a photo I had taken during my time reporting on the Nintendo Museum in Kyoto. Pictonico is a free download on both iOS and Android, but that only gets you access to a demo version; to play the full thing, which includes 80 different minigames, you have to buy two content packs priced at $7.69 and $5.99 each.

#Nintendos #newest #WarioWare #weirdo #smartphone #appAnalysis,Entertainment,Gaming,Nintendo,Report

Much like WarioWare, Pictonico (which, I admit, I’m not entirely sure how to pronounce) is…

International news

देश में आपराधिक मामलों में कमी आई है। राष्ट्रीय अपराध रिकॉर्ड ब्यूरो (एनसीआरबी) की ताजा…

copyrighted material. You can upload your own tracks to remix or set your original lyrics to AI-generated music. But, it’s supposed to recognize and stop you from using other people’s songs and lyrics. Now, no system is perfect, but it turns out that Suno’s copyright filters are incredibly easy to fool.

With minimal effort and some free software, Suno will spit out AI-generated imitations of popular songs like Beyoncé‘s “Freedom,” Black Sabbath’s “Paranoid,” and Aqua’s “Barbie Girl” that are alarmingly close to the original. Most people will likely be able to tell the difference, but some could be mistaken for alternate takes or B-sides at a casual listen. What’s more, it’s possible someone could monetize these uncanny valley covers by exporting them and uploading them to streaming services. Suno declined to comment for this story.

Making these covers requires using Suno Studio, available on the company’s $24-a-month Premier Plan. Rather than prompting a whole song with text, Suno Studio lets you upload a track to edit or cover. It’s likely to catch and reject a well-known hit with no tweaks. But using a basic free tool like Audacity to slow down a track to half-speed or speed it up to twice normal will often bypass the filter, and adding a burst of white noise to the start and end seems to basically guarantee success. You can restore the original speed and cut the white noise in Suno Studio, and the copyrighted song becomes the seed for new AI music.

If you generate a cover of the imported audio without any style transfers, Suno basically spits out the original instrumental arrangement with very minimal tweaks to the sound palette if you’re using model 4.5 or 4.5+. Model v5 is a bit more aggressive in taking liberties with the source material, adding chugging guitar and galloping piano to “Freedom” and turning the Dead Kennedys’ “California Über Alles” into a fiddle-driven jig.

Suno lets you add vocals by generating lyrics or typing words into a box, and once again, it’s supposed to block anything copyrighted. If you copy and paste the official lyrics for a song from Genius, Suno will flag them and spit out gibberish vocals. But extremely minor changes can bypass this filter as well.

I was able to trick Suno Studio by tweaking the spelling of a handful of words in “Freedom” — changing “rain on this bitter love” to “reign on” and “tell the sweet I’m new” to “tell the suite” — and beyond the first verse and chorus, I didn’t even need to do that. The voice closely mimics the original recording, summoning slightly off-brand renditions of Ozzy or Beyoncé.

Indie artists might not even be afforded that level of protection. One of my own songs cleared the copyright filter while I was testing v5 of the company’s model. I was also able to get tracks by singer-songwriter Matt Wilson, Charles Bissell’s “Car Colors,” and experimental artist Claire Rousay by Suno’s copyright detection system without any changes at all. Artists on smaller labels or self-distributing through Bandcamp or services like DistroKid are most likely to slip through the cracks; DistroKid and CD Baby declined to comment.

The results of these AI covers fall firmly in the uncanny valley. The songs they’re covering are unmistakable: the riff from “Paranoid” remains identifiable and “Freedom” is obviously “Freedom” from the moment the marching snare hits kick in. But there is a lifelessness to them. Even if AI Ozzy is alarmingly accurate-sounding, it lacks nuance and dynamics, leading it to feel like an imitation of a human, rather than the real thing.

The instrumentals similarly discard any interesting artistic choices the originals make, or clone them in flat imitations. A non-jig “California Über Alles” cover has most of its rough edges sanded down so it sounds like a wedding band version of the original. Pink Floyd’s “Another Brick in the Wall” goes from an experiment in doom disco to just vacuous dancefloor filler. And, while it kind of nails David Gilmour’s guitar tone, it does away with any sense of phrasing or progression, turning the solo into just a mindless stream of notes.

Creating unauthorized covers violates both the stated purpose of Suno, and the terms of service. Moreover, Suno only appears to scan tracks on upload; it doesn’t seem to recheck outputs for potential infringement, or rescan tracks before exporting them. The path to monetizing Suno-created covers is simple from there. AI slopmongers could upload them through a distribution service like DistroKid and profit from other people’s songs without paying the typical royalties a cover would give the original composer. And independent artists seem to be the most vulnerable.

Folk artist Murphy Campbell discovered this recently when someone uploaded what seem to be AI covers of songs she posted on YouTube to her Spotify profile. (It’s not clear what system they were generated through.) Shortly afterwards, distributor Vydia filed copyright claims against her YouTube videos and began collecting royalties on them. And to highlight just how broken the whole system is, the songs which Vydia successfully filed copyright claims for are all in the public domain. Spotify eventually removed the AI covers, and Vydia has rescinded its copyright claims, but that only happened following a social media campaign by Campbell. Vydia says the two incidents are separate and it is not associated with the AI covers of Campbell’s work.

AI fakes are a problem for other artists too. Experimental composer William Basinski and indie rock group King Gizzard and The Lizard Wizard have had imitations slip through multiple filters and reach streaming platforms like Spotify. Sometimes, these fake songs can siphon up views straight from the artist’s own page. In a system where payouts can already be brutally low — Spotify requires a minimum of 1,000 streams to get paid — less famous musicians are hit hardest.

Suno is only one cog in a clearly broken system.

Services like Deezer, Qobuz, and Spotify have taken measures to combat spammy AI and impersonators. Spotify spokesperson Chris Macowski told The Verge that the company “takes protecting artists’ rights seriously, and approaches it from multiple angles. That includes safeguards to help prevent unauthorized content from being uploaded in the first place, along with systems that can identify duplicate or highly similar tracks. Those systems are backed by human review to make sure we’re getting it right.” But no system is perfect, and keeping up with a flood of AI slop enabled by platforms like Suno poses a challenge.

Macowski acknowledged the technical difficulties involved, saying, “It’s an area we’re continuing to invest in and evolve, especially as new technologies emerge.”

Suno is only one cog in a clearly broken system. But it’s one artists have particularly little recourse to fight. Bands can contact Spotify and have AI fakes removed from their profile. It’s harder to tell how those fakes are generated, and if they’re the result of Suno’s filters failing. And so far, Suno’s response is silence.

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
#Suno #music #copyright #nightmareAI,Entertainment,Music,Report,Tech"> Suno is a music copyright nightmareAI music platform Suno’s policy is that it does not permit the use of copyrighted material. You can upload your own tracks to remix or set your original lyrics to AI-generated music. But, it’s supposed to recognize and stop you from using other people’s songs and lyrics. Now, no system is perfect, but it turns out that Suno’s copyright filters are incredibly easy to fool.With minimal effort and some free software, Suno will spit out AI-generated imitations of popular songs like Beyoncé‘s “Freedom,” Black Sabbath’s “Paranoid,” and Aqua’s “Barbie Girl” that are alarmingly close to the original. Most people will likely be able to tell the difference, but some could be mistaken for alternate takes or B-sides at a casual listen. What’s more, it’s possible someone could monetize these uncanny valley covers by exporting them and uploading them to streaming services. Suno declined to comment for this story.Making these covers requires using Suno Studio, available on the company’s -a-month Premier Plan. Rather than prompting a whole song with text, Suno Studio lets you upload a track to edit or cover. It’s likely to catch and reject a well-known hit with no tweaks. But using a basic free tool like Audacity to slow down a track to half-speed or speed it up to twice normal will often bypass the filter, and adding a burst of white noise to the start and end seems to basically guarantee success. You can restore the original speed and cut the white noise in Suno Studio, and the copyrighted song becomes the seed for new AI music.If you generate a cover of the imported audio without any style transfers, Suno basically spits out the original instrumental arrangement with very minimal tweaks to the sound palette if you’re using model 4.5 or 4.5+. Model v5 is a bit more aggressive in taking liberties with the source material, adding chugging guitar and galloping piano to “Freedom” and turning the Dead Kennedys’ “California Über Alles” into a fiddle-driven jig.Suno lets you add vocals by generating lyrics or typing words into a box, and once again, it’s supposed to block anything copyrighted. If you copy and paste the official lyrics for a song from Genius, Suno will flag them and spit out gibberish vocals. But extremely minor changes can bypass this filter as well.I was able to trick Suno Studio by tweaking the spelling of a handful of words in “Freedom” — changing “rain on this bitter love” to “reign on” and “tell the sweet I’m new” to “tell the suite” — and beyond the first verse and chorus, I didn’t even need to do that. The voice closely mimics the original recording, summoning slightly off-brand renditions of Ozzy or Beyoncé.Indie artists might not even be afforded that level of protection. One of my own songs cleared the copyright filter while I was testing v5 of the company’s model. I was also able to get tracks by singer-songwriter Matt Wilson, Charles Bissell’s “Car Colors,” and experimental artist Claire Rousay by Suno’s copyright detection system without any changes at all. Artists on smaller labels or self-distributing through Bandcamp or services like DistroKid are most likely to slip through the cracks; DistroKid and CD Baby declined to comment.The results of these AI covers fall firmly in the uncanny valley. The songs they’re covering are unmistakable: the riff from “Paranoid” remains identifiable and “Freedom” is obviously “Freedom” from the moment the marching snare hits kick in. But there is a lifelessness to them. Even if AI Ozzy is alarmingly accurate-sounding, it lacks nuance and dynamics, leading it to feel like an imitation of a human, rather than the real thing.The instrumentals similarly discard any interesting artistic choices the originals make, or clone them in flat imitations. A non-jig “California Über Alles” cover has most of its rough edges sanded down so it sounds like a wedding band version of the original. Pink Floyd’s “Another Brick in the Wall” goes from an experiment in doom disco to just vacuous dancefloor filler. And, while it kind of nails David Gilmour’s guitar tone, it does away with any sense of phrasing or progression, turning the solo into just a mindless stream of notes.Creating unauthorized covers violates both the stated purpose of Suno, and the terms of service. Moreover, Suno only appears to scan tracks on upload; it doesn’t seem to recheck outputs for potential infringement, or rescan tracks before exporting them. The path to monetizing Suno-created covers is simple from there. AI slopmongers could upload them through a distribution service like DistroKid and profit from other people’s songs without paying the typical royalties a cover would give the original composer. And independent artists seem to be the most vulnerable.Folk artist Murphy Campbell discovered this recently when someone uploaded what seem to be AI covers of songs she posted on YouTube to her Spotify profile. (It’s not clear what system they were generated through.) Shortly afterwards, distributor Vydia filed copyright claims against her YouTube videos and began collecting royalties on them. And to highlight just how broken the whole system is, the songs which Vydia successfully filed copyright claims for are all in the public domain. Spotify eventually removed the AI covers, and Vydia has rescinded its copyright claims, but that only happened following a social media campaign by Campbell. Vydia says the two incidents are separate and it is not associated with the AI covers of Campbell’s work.AI fakes are a problem for other artists too. Experimental composer William Basinski and indie rock group King Gizzard and The Lizard Wizard have had imitations slip through multiple filters and reach streaming platforms like Spotify. Sometimes, these fake songs can siphon up views straight from the artist’s own page. In a system where payouts can already be brutally low — Spotify requires a minimum of 1,000 streams to get paid — less famous musicians are hit hardest.Suno is only one cog in a clearly broken system.Services like Deezer, Qobuz, and Spotify have taken measures to combat spammy AI and impersonators. Spotify spokesperson Chris Macowski told The Verge that the company “takes protecting artists’ rights seriously, and approaches it from multiple angles. That includes safeguards to help prevent unauthorized content from being uploaded in the first place, along with systems that can identify duplicate or highly similar tracks. Those systems are backed by human review to make sure we’re getting it right.” But no system is perfect, and keeping up with a flood of AI slop enabled by platforms like Suno poses a challenge.Macowski acknowledged the technical difficulties involved, saying, “It’s an area we’re continuing to invest in and evolve, especially as new technologies emerge.”Suno is only one cog in a clearly broken system. But it’s one artists have particularly little recourse to fight. Bands can contact Spotify and have AI fakes removed from their profile. It’s harder to tell how those fakes are generated, and if they’re the result of Suno’s filters failing. And so far, Suno’s response is silence.Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.Terrence O’BrienCloseTerrence O’BrienPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Terrence O’BrienAICloseAIPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All AIEntertainmentCloseEntertainmentPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All EntertainmentMusicCloseMusicPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All MusicReportCloseReportPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All ReportTechCloseTechPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All Tech#Suno #music #copyright #nightmareAI,Entertainment,Music,Report,Tech
Tech-news

copyrighted material. You can upload your own tracks to remix or set your original lyrics to AI-generated music. But, it’s supposed to recognize and stop you from using other people’s songs and lyrics. Now, no system is perfect, but it turns out that Suno’s copyright filters are incredibly easy to fool.

With minimal effort and some free software, Suno will spit out AI-generated imitations of popular songs like Beyoncé‘s “Freedom,” Black Sabbath’s “Paranoid,” and Aqua’s “Barbie Girl” that are alarmingly close to the original. Most people will likely be able to tell the difference, but some could be mistaken for alternate takes or B-sides at a casual listen. What’s more, it’s possible someone could monetize these uncanny valley covers by exporting them and uploading them to streaming services. Suno declined to comment for this story.

Making these covers requires using Suno Studio, available on the company’s $24-a-month Premier Plan. Rather than prompting a whole song with text, Suno Studio lets you upload a track to edit or cover. It’s likely to catch and reject a well-known hit with no tweaks. But using a basic free tool like Audacity to slow down a track to half-speed or speed it up to twice normal will often bypass the filter, and adding a burst of white noise to the start and end seems to basically guarantee success. You can restore the original speed and cut the white noise in Suno Studio, and the copyrighted song becomes the seed for new AI music.

If you generate a cover of the imported audio without any style transfers, Suno basically spits out the original instrumental arrangement with very minimal tweaks to the sound palette if you’re using model 4.5 or 4.5+. Model v5 is a bit more aggressive in taking liberties with the source material, adding chugging guitar and galloping piano to “Freedom” and turning the Dead Kennedys’ “California Über Alles” into a fiddle-driven jig.

Suno lets you add vocals by generating lyrics or typing words into a box, and once again, it’s supposed to block anything copyrighted. If you copy and paste the official lyrics for a song from Genius, Suno will flag them and spit out gibberish vocals. But extremely minor changes can bypass this filter as well.

I was able to trick Suno Studio by tweaking the spelling of a handful of words in “Freedom” — changing “rain on this bitter love” to “reign on” and “tell the sweet I’m new” to “tell the suite” — and beyond the first verse and chorus, I didn’t even need to do that. The voice closely mimics the original recording, summoning slightly off-brand renditions of Ozzy or Beyoncé.

Indie artists might not even be afforded that level of protection. One of my own songs cleared the copyright filter while I was testing v5 of the company’s model. I was also able to get tracks by singer-songwriter Matt Wilson, Charles Bissell’s “Car Colors,” and experimental artist Claire Rousay by Suno’s copyright detection system without any changes at all. Artists on smaller labels or self-distributing through Bandcamp or services like DistroKid are most likely to slip through the cracks; DistroKid and CD Baby declined to comment.

The results of these AI covers fall firmly in the uncanny valley. The songs they’re covering are unmistakable: the riff from “Paranoid” remains identifiable and “Freedom” is obviously “Freedom” from the moment the marching snare hits kick in. But there is a lifelessness to them. Even if AI Ozzy is alarmingly accurate-sounding, it lacks nuance and dynamics, leading it to feel like an imitation of a human, rather than the real thing.

The instrumentals similarly discard any interesting artistic choices the originals make, or clone them in flat imitations. A non-jig “California Über Alles” cover has most of its rough edges sanded down so it sounds like a wedding band version of the original. Pink Floyd’s “Another Brick in the Wall” goes from an experiment in doom disco to just vacuous dancefloor filler. And, while it kind of nails David Gilmour’s guitar tone, it does away with any sense of phrasing or progression, turning the solo into just a mindless stream of notes.

Creating unauthorized covers violates both the stated purpose of Suno, and the terms of service. Moreover, Suno only appears to scan tracks on upload; it doesn’t seem to recheck outputs for potential infringement, or rescan tracks before exporting them. The path to monetizing Suno-created covers is simple from there. AI slopmongers could upload them through a distribution service like DistroKid and profit from other people’s songs without paying the typical royalties a cover would give the original composer. And independent artists seem to be the most vulnerable.

Folk artist Murphy Campbell discovered this recently when someone uploaded what seem to be AI covers of songs she posted on YouTube to her Spotify profile. (It’s not clear what system they were generated through.) Shortly afterwards, distributor Vydia filed copyright claims against her YouTube videos and began collecting royalties on them. And to highlight just how broken the whole system is, the songs which Vydia successfully filed copyright claims for are all in the public domain. Spotify eventually removed the AI covers, and Vydia has rescinded its copyright claims, but that only happened following a social media campaign by Campbell. Vydia says the two incidents are separate and it is not associated with the AI covers of Campbell’s work.

AI fakes are a problem for other artists too. Experimental composer William Basinski and indie rock group King Gizzard and The Lizard Wizard have had imitations slip through multiple filters and reach streaming platforms like Spotify. Sometimes, these fake songs can siphon up views straight from the artist’s own page. In a system where payouts can already be brutally low — Spotify requires a minimum of 1,000 streams to get paid — less famous musicians are hit hardest.

Suno is only one cog in a clearly broken system.

Services like Deezer, Qobuz, and Spotify have taken measures to combat spammy AI and impersonators. Spotify spokesperson Chris Macowski told The Verge that the company “takes protecting artists’ rights seriously, and approaches it from multiple angles. That includes safeguards to help prevent unauthorized content from being uploaded in the first place, along with systems that can identify duplicate or highly similar tracks. Those systems are backed by human review to make sure we’re getting it right.” But no system is perfect, and keeping up with a flood of AI slop enabled by platforms like Suno poses a challenge.

Macowski acknowledged the technical difficulties involved, saying, “It’s an area we’re continuing to invest in and evolve, especially as new technologies emerge.”

Suno is only one cog in a clearly broken system. But it’s one artists have particularly little recourse to fight. Bands can contact Spotify and have AI fakes removed from their profile. It’s harder to tell how those fakes are generated, and if they’re the result of Suno’s filters failing. And so far, Suno’s response is silence.

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.

#Suno #music #copyright #nightmareAI,Entertainment,Music,Report,Tech">Suno is a music copyright nightmare

AI music platform Suno’s policy is that it does not permit the use of copyrighted material. You can upload your own tracks to remix or set your original lyrics to AI-generated music. But, it’s supposed to recognize and stop you from using other people’s songs and lyrics. Now, no system is perfect, but it turns out that Suno’s copyright filters are incredibly easy to fool.

With minimal effort and some free software, Suno will spit out AI-generated imitations of popular songs like Beyoncé‘s “Freedom,” Black Sabbath’s “Paranoid,” and Aqua’s “Barbie Girl” that are alarmingly close to the original. Most people will likely be able to tell the difference, but some could be mistaken for alternate takes or B-sides at a casual listen. What’s more, it’s possible someone could monetize these uncanny valley covers by exporting them and uploading them to streaming services. Suno declined to comment for this story.

Making these covers requires using Suno Studio, available on the company’s $24-a-month Premier Plan. Rather than prompting a whole song with text, Suno Studio lets you upload a track to edit or cover. It’s likely to catch and reject a well-known hit with no tweaks. But using a basic free tool like Audacity to slow down a track to half-speed or speed it up to twice normal will often bypass the filter, and adding a burst of white noise to the start and end seems to basically guarantee success. You can restore the original speed and cut the white noise in Suno Studio, and the copyrighted song becomes the seed for new AI music.

If you generate a cover of the imported audio without any style transfers, Suno basically spits out the original instrumental arrangement with very minimal tweaks to the sound palette if you’re using model 4.5 or 4.5+. Model v5 is a bit more aggressive in taking liberties with the source material, adding chugging guitar and galloping piano to “Freedom” and turning the Dead Kennedys’ “California Über Alles” into a fiddle-driven jig.

Suno lets you add vocals by generating lyrics or typing words into a box, and once again, it’s supposed to block anything copyrighted. If you copy and paste the official lyrics for a song from Genius, Suno will flag them and spit out gibberish vocals. But extremely minor changes can bypass this filter as well.

I was able to trick Suno Studio by tweaking the spelling of a handful of words in “Freedom” — changing “rain on this bitter love” to “reign on” and “tell the sweet I’m new” to “tell the suite” — and beyond the first verse and chorus, I didn’t even need to do that. The voice closely mimics the original recording, summoning slightly off-brand renditions of Ozzy or Beyoncé.

Indie artists might not even be afforded that level of protection. One of my own songs cleared the copyright filter while I was testing v5 of the company’s model. I was also able to get tracks by singer-songwriter Matt Wilson, Charles Bissell’s “Car Colors,” and experimental artist Claire Rousay by Suno’s copyright detection system without any changes at all. Artists on smaller labels or self-distributing through Bandcamp or services like DistroKid are most likely to slip through the cracks; DistroKid and CD Baby declined to comment.

The results of these AI covers fall firmly in the uncanny valley. The songs they’re covering are unmistakable: the riff from “Paranoid” remains identifiable and “Freedom” is obviously “Freedom” from the moment the marching snare hits kick in. But there is a lifelessness to them. Even if AI Ozzy is alarmingly accurate-sounding, it lacks nuance and dynamics, leading it to feel like an imitation of a human, rather than the real thing.

The instrumentals similarly discard any interesting artistic choices the originals make, or clone them in flat imitations. A non-jig “California Über Alles” cover has most of its rough edges sanded down so it sounds like a wedding band version of the original. Pink Floyd’s “Another Brick in the Wall” goes from an experiment in doom disco to just vacuous dancefloor filler. And, while it kind of nails David Gilmour’s guitar tone, it does away with any sense of phrasing or progression, turning the solo into just a mindless stream of notes.

Creating unauthorized covers violates both the stated purpose of Suno, and the terms of service. Moreover, Suno only appears to scan tracks on upload; it doesn’t seem to recheck outputs for potential infringement, or rescan tracks before exporting them. The path to monetizing Suno-created covers is simple from there. AI slopmongers could upload them through a distribution service like DistroKid and profit from other people’s songs without paying the typical royalties a cover would give the original composer. And independent artists seem to be the most vulnerable.

Folk artist Murphy Campbell discovered this recently when someone uploaded what seem to be AI covers of songs she posted on YouTube to her Spotify profile. (It’s not clear what system they were generated through.) Shortly afterwards, distributor Vydia filed copyright claims against her YouTube videos and began collecting royalties on them. And to highlight just how broken the whole system is, the songs which Vydia successfully filed copyright claims for are all in the public domain. Spotify eventually removed the AI covers, and Vydia has rescinded its copyright claims, but that only happened following a social media campaign by Campbell. Vydia says the two incidents are separate and it is not associated with the AI covers of Campbell’s work.

AI fakes are a problem for other artists too. Experimental composer William Basinski and indie rock group King Gizzard and The Lizard Wizard have had imitations slip through multiple filters and reach streaming platforms like Spotify. Sometimes, these fake songs can siphon up views straight from the artist’s own page. In a system where payouts can already be brutally low — Spotify requires a minimum of 1,000 streams to get paid — less famous musicians are hit hardest.

Suno is only one cog in a clearly broken system.

Services like Deezer, Qobuz, and Spotify have taken measures to combat spammy AI and impersonators. Spotify spokesperson Chris Macowski told The Verge that the company “takes protecting artists’ rights seriously, and approaches it from multiple angles. That includes safeguards to help prevent unauthorized content from being uploaded in the first place, along with systems that can identify duplicate or highly similar tracks. Those systems are backed by human review to make sure we’re getting it right.” But no system is perfect, and keeping up with a flood of AI slop enabled by platforms like Suno poses a challenge.

Macowski acknowledged the technical difficulties involved, saying, “It’s an area we’re continuing to invest in and evolve, especially as new technologies emerge.”

Suno is only one cog in a clearly broken system. But it’s one artists have particularly little recourse to fight. Bands can contact Spotify and have AI fakes removed from their profile. It’s harder to tell how those fakes are generated, and if they’re the result of Suno’s filters failing. And so far, Suno’s response is silence.

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
#Suno #music #copyright #nightmareAI,Entertainment,Music,Report,Tech

AI music platform Suno’s policy is that it does not permit the use of copyrighted…

Tech-news

In January, folk artist Murphy Campbell discovered several songs on her Spotify profile that did…

Tech-news

On Wednesday morning, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a case challenging…