verge-rss

Image: xAI

Elon Musk’s AI company xAI has launched Grok-2 and Grok-2 mini: two new models of its Grok chatbot that offer upgraded performance and new image-generation capabilities. Grok’s prompt-based image maker is powered by Black Forest Lab’s Flux 1 AI model, and allows users to generate and publish images directly to the X social platform — with seemingly few guardrails in place to prevent abuse.
xAI says that Grok-2 and Grok-2 mini are available in beta on X (where Grok access is currently limited to Premium and Premium Plus subscribers) and that both models will be available through the AI developer’s enterprise API later this month.
“We are excited to release an early preview of Grok-2, a significant step forward from our previous model Grok-1.5, featuring frontier capabilities in chat, coding, and reasoning,” xAI said in its announcement, describing the chatbot as “more intuitive, steerable, and versatile” than its predecessor. Meanwhile, Grok-2 mini is a “small but capable sibling” of Grok-2 that “offers a balance between speed and answer quality,” according to xAI.

Grok 2.0 …. Ohh boyyyy pic.twitter.com/TjzB7WMhVp— Benjamin De Kraker ‍☠️ (@BenjaminDEKR) August 14, 2024

Some early examples produced by Grok’s new image-generator have already appeared online, which indicate there are very few restrictions regarding what users can make. Generated images depict recognizable political figures like Donald Trump and Barack Obama shooting guns and taking illegal drugs — which could exacerbate concerns about the chatbot spreading false election information.

it’s really good at this pic.twitter.com/gpAg54BWsg— shb (@himbodhisattva) August 14, 2024

These Grok-generated images also don’t appear to sport any kind of disclosure to flag them as being AI generated. We’ve asked X if it will place restrictions on image generation, though the platform has persistently shunned media inquiries since Musk purchased it in 2022.

Image: xAI

Elon Musk’s AI company xAI has launched Grok-2 and Grok-2 mini: two new models of its Grok chatbot that offer upgraded performance and new image-generation capabilities. Grok’s prompt-based image maker is powered by Black Forest Lab’s Flux 1 AI model, and allows users to generate and publish images directly to the X social platform — with seemingly few guardrails in place to prevent abuse.

xAI says that Grok-2 and Grok-2 mini are available in beta on X (where Grok access is currently limited to Premium and Premium Plus subscribers) and that both models will be available through the AI developer’s enterprise API later this month.

“We are excited to release an early preview of Grok-2, a significant step forward from our previous model Grok-1.5, featuring frontier capabilities in chat, coding, and reasoning,” xAI said in its announcement, describing the chatbot as “more intuitive, steerable, and versatile” than its predecessor. Meanwhile, Grok-2 mini is a “small but capable sibling” of Grok-2 that “offers a balance between speed and answer quality,” according to xAI.

Some early examples produced by Grok’s new image-generator have already appeared online, which indicate there are very few restrictions regarding what users can make. Generated images depict recognizable political figures like Donald Trump and Barack Obama shooting guns and taking illegal drugs — which could exacerbate concerns about the chatbot spreading false election information.

These Grok-generated images also don’t appear to sport any kind of disclosure to flag them as being AI generated. We’ve asked X if it will place restrictions on image generation, though the platform has persistently shunned media inquiries since Musk purchased it in 2022.

Read More 

Image: Cath Virginia / The Verge

Spotify will begin showing in-app pricing information for iPhone users in the European Union starting today, following a yearslong legal battle against Apple. In an update to an old blog post, Spotify says that EU iPhone users will now see things like promotional offers and pricing information for each subscription tier — including how much a plan costs once a promotion ends.
One thing that’s missing is the ability to click a link to make those purchases from outside the Apple App Store. Spotify says it’s opting into the “music streaming services entitlement” that Apple introduced after being served a €1.84 billion (about $2 billion) EU antitrust fine in March for “abusing its dominant position” in music streaming, rather than accepting the complicated new developer terms Apple outlined last week. Unlike the entitlement, the latter would allow EU developers to link to external payment options with Apple taking a cut of off-platform sales. Spotify clearly doesn’t want to do that, saying that Apple is demanding “illegal and predatory taxes.”

Image: Spotify / The Verge
Here’s what iPhone users in the EU saw before…

Image: Spotify
…and after, now with transparent pricing. Some options will also direct customers to purchase Premium subscriptions via Spotify’s website.

Spotify has been battling Apple in the EU ever since 2019 when it first filed an antitrust complaint over App Store rules. As recently as March, Spotify said that Apple was blocking efforts like today’s changes.

Image: Cath Virginia / The Verge

Spotify will begin showing in-app pricing information for iPhone users in the European Union starting today, following a yearslong legal battle against Apple. In an update to an old blog post, Spotify says that EU iPhone users will now see things like promotional offers and pricing information for each subscription tier — including how much a plan costs once a promotion ends.

One thing that’s missing is the ability to click a link to make those purchases from outside the Apple App Store. Spotify says it’s opting into the “music streaming services entitlement” that Apple introduced after being served a €1.84 billion (about $2 billion) EU antitrust fine in March for “abusing its dominant position” in music streaming, rather than accepting the complicated new developer terms Apple outlined last week. Unlike the entitlement, the latter would allow EU developers to link to external payment options with Apple taking a cut of off-platform sales. Spotify clearly doesn’t want to do that, saying that Apple is demanding “illegal and predatory taxes.”

Spotify has been battling Apple in the EU ever since 2019 when it first filed an antitrust complaint over App Store rules. As recently as March, Spotify said that Apple was blocking efforts like today’s changes.

Read More 

Valve once imagined that every PC maker could have their own “Steam Machine,” a PC game console running the company’s Linux-based SteamOS. It took a decade for that dream to evolve into the company’s own internally developed Steam Deck gaming handheld, but the original dream isn’t dead.
The company’s long said it plans to let other companies use SteamOS, too — and that means explicitly supporting the rival Asus ROG Ally gaming handheld, Valve designer Lawrence Yang now confirms to The Verge.
A few days ago, some spotted an intriguing line in Valve’s latest SteamOS release notes: “Added support for extra ROG Ally keys.” We didn’t know Valve was supporting any ROG Ally keys at all, let alone extras!
Maybe Valve was just supporting those keys in the Steam desktop client on a Windows, where it offers a Steam Deck-like Big Picture Mode interface for any PC, and the line mistakenly made it into these patch notes? I asked to be safe.
But no: this is indeed about Valve eventually supporting the ROG Ally and other rival handhelds!
“The note about ROG Ally keys is related to third-party device support for SteamOS. The team is continuing to work on adding support for additional handhelds on SteamOS,” Yang tells me.

That doesn’t mean Asus will officially bless Valve’s installer or sell the Ally with SteamOS, of course. (Asus has told me there are many reasons why it ships with Windows; a big one is that Microsoft has dedicated validation teams that ensure its operating system works across many different hardware configurations and chips.)
And it’s not like Valve is suggesting it’ll offer SteamOS for rival handhelds anytime soon, either. Valve is “making steady progress,” Yang tells me, but it “isn’t ready to run out of the box yet.”
We already knew Valve plans a general release of SteamOS 3 that you can theoretically install on non-handheld PCs as well; Yang says it’s similarly making progress there but it’s not ready quite yet.
So that’s the update on turning Windows handhelds into Steam Machines; what about Valve’s promise to let you turn Steam Decks into dual-booting Windows machines too, letting you swap between the two OS at will? Here’s Yang on that:
As for Windows, we’re preparing to make the remaining Windows drivers for Steam Deck OLED available (you might have seen that we are prepping firmware for the Bluetooth driver). There’s no update on the timing for dual boot support—it’s still a priority, but we haven’t been able to get to it just yet.
Valve isn’t the only one adapting its compelling combination of Linux and controller-friendly Steam UI to Windows handhelds. Universal Blue touted that its Bazzite operating system had already achieved support for the Asus ROG Ally X before it even came out.

Valve once imagined that every PC maker could have their own “Steam Machine,” a PC game console running the company’s Linux-based SteamOS. It took a decade for that dream to evolve into the company’s own internally developed Steam Deck gaming handheld, but the original dream isn’t dead.

The company’s long said it plans to let other companies use SteamOS, too — and that means explicitly supporting the rival Asus ROG Ally gaming handheld, Valve designer Lawrence Yang now confirms to The Verge.

A few days ago, some spotted an intriguing line in Valve’s latest SteamOS release notes: “Added support for extra ROG Ally keys.” We didn’t know Valve was supporting any ROG Ally keys at all, let alone extras!

Maybe Valve was just supporting those keys in the Steam desktop client on a Windows, where it offers a Steam Deck-like Big Picture Mode interface for any PC, and the line mistakenly made it into these patch notes? I asked to be safe.

But no: this is indeed about Valve eventually supporting the ROG Ally and other rival handhelds!

“The note about ROG Ally keys is related to third-party device support for SteamOS. The team is continuing to work on adding support for additional handhelds on SteamOS,” Yang tells me.

That doesn’t mean Asus will officially bless Valve’s installer or sell the Ally with SteamOS, of course. (Asus has told me there are many reasons why it ships with Windows; a big one is that Microsoft has dedicated validation teams that ensure its operating system works across many different hardware configurations and chips.)

And it’s not like Valve is suggesting it’ll offer SteamOS for rival handhelds anytime soon, either. Valve is “making steady progress,” Yang tells me, but it “isn’t ready to run out of the box yet.”

We already knew Valve plans a general release of SteamOS 3 that you can theoretically install on non-handheld PCs as well; Yang says it’s similarly making progress there but it’s not ready quite yet.

So that’s the update on turning Windows handhelds into Steam Machines; what about Valve’s promise to let you turn Steam Decks into dual-booting Windows machines too, letting you swap between the two OS at will? Here’s Yang on that:

As for Windows, we’re preparing to make the remaining Windows drivers for Steam Deck OLED available (you might have seen that we are prepping firmware for the Bluetooth driver). There’s no update on the timing for dual boot support—it’s still a priority, but we haven’t been able to get to it just yet.

Valve isn’t the only one adapting its compelling combination of Linux and controller-friendly Steam UI to Windows handhelds. Universal Blue touted that its Bazzite operating system had already achieved support for the Asus ROG Ally X before it even came out.

Read More 

Photo by Chris Welch / The Verge

In between the reveal of new Pixel phones and AI features at its event today, Google snuck in a few burns targeted at Apple. Some were subtle — others far from it.
While it’s not uncommon for companies like Google to draw comparisons to competitors during big events like this, Google seemed to sprinkle references to Apple all throughout its showcase. Maybe that’s because Google has become especially competitive in the AI industry, which Apple has only just barely begun to dip into.
Here are all the moments of comparison that we caught during the event.
Gemini is going “far beyond English speakers”

Image: Google
Gemini is available globally in 45 different languages.

When introducing Gemini, Sameer Samat, the president of the Android ecosystem at Google, bragged that Gemini is available in 45 languages and more than 200 countries and territories, highlighting its expansion to older and non-flagship Android devices.
To top it all off, Samat mentioned that “Gemini is available around the world right now, far beyond English speakers and a single market.” That final clarification seems to be a direct shot at Apple Intelligence, which isn’t widely rolled out yet and will only be available to English speakers in the US once it launches this fall.
Google won’t send your data to a third party

Image: Google
Google says Gemini processes requests through its own “secure” cloud.

Google also called out Gemini’s ability to process tasks, such as using your resume in Drive to write a short bio, without offloading it to a third party. “Gemini can handle these kinds of complex personal queries within Google’s own secure cloud without sending any of your personal data to a third-party AI provider who may not know or trust,” Samat said.
That seemed like a clear shot at Apple, which partnered with OpenAI to put ChatGPT into Siri. When Siri isn’t capable of answering a question, it will get your permission to ask ChatGPT instead. (Of course, Google’s system still requires you to trust Google, so it doesn’t entirely escape the same criticism.)
Google wanted to make sure you knew its demos were live

Image: Google

It took three tries for Gemini to come up with a response.

While Apple is known for carefully crafting its live events, Google events tend to be a bit more relaxed. You could see that on display when Google’s Dave Citron took the stage to demonstrate some of Gemini’s AI features, boldly announcing: “All of the demos we’re doing today are live, by the way.” Google took that risk head-on — and things didn’t go exactly as planned.
After taking a picture of a Sabrina Carpenter concert poster, Citron asked Gemini if it could check his calendar to see if he’s free when she comes to San Francisco this year. Gemini didn’t respond on the first two tries, but it eventually issued a response when Citron switched phones.
The Pixel 9 Pro and 9 Pro XL come “without compromises”

Photo by Chris Welch / The Verge
The Google Pixel 9 Pro beside a Pixel 9 Pro XL.

The only difference between the Pixel 9 Pro XL and the new, smaller Pixel Pro option is size. “You can choose between Pixel 9 Pro and Pixel 9 Pro XL without compromises,” Brian Rakowski, Google’s vice president of product management, said. “They have the same incredible display, sleek design, premium craftsmanship, processing power, and the same Pro Pixel camera.”
Meanwhile, there are some slight differences between the iPhone 15 Pro and the larger iPhone 15 Pro Max. The iPhone 15 Pro Max offers up to a 5x optical Zoom, while the regular 15 Pro is limited to 3x. The larger variant also comes with up to 29 hours of video playback instead of 23 hours.
Google Pixel 9 Pro vs. iPhone 15 Pro Max

Image: Google
Google referred to Apple as “another smartphone company.”

When showing off the Pixel 9 Pro’s camera, Google compared it directly to the iPhone 15 Pro Max. Google’s Kenny Sulaimon said the company “rebuilt” the Pixel 9’s panorama mode, which now supports Night Sight to improve the look of low-light images.
To demonstrate these changes, Sulaimon invited the audience to look at a panorama of the Tetons at night. He then immediately compared it to a more shadowy-looking photo from “another smartphone company” — namely, Apple.

Photo by Chris Welch / The Verge

In between the reveal of new Pixel phones and AI features at its event today, Google snuck in a few burns targeted at Apple. Some were subtle — others far from it.

While it’s not uncommon for companies like Google to draw comparisons to competitors during big events like this, Google seemed to sprinkle references to Apple all throughout its showcase. Maybe that’s because Google has become especially competitive in the AI industry, which Apple has only just barely begun to dip into.

Here are all the moments of comparison that we caught during the event.

Gemini is going “far beyond English speakers”

Image: Google
Gemini is available globally in 45 different languages.

When introducing Gemini, Sameer Samat, the president of the Android ecosystem at Google, bragged that Gemini is available in 45 languages and more than 200 countries and territories, highlighting its expansion to older and non-flagship Android devices.

To top it all off, Samat mentioned that “Gemini is available around the world right now, far beyond English speakers and a single market.” That final clarification seems to be a direct shot at Apple Intelligence, which isn’t widely rolled out yet and will only be available to English speakers in the US once it launches this fall.

Google won’t send your data to a third party

Image: Google
Google says Gemini processes requests through its own “secure” cloud.

Google also called out Gemini’s ability to process tasks, such as using your resume in Drive to write a short bio, without offloading it to a third party. “Gemini can handle these kinds of complex personal queries within Google’s own secure cloud without sending any of your personal data to a third-party AI provider who may not know or trust,” Samat said.

That seemed like a clear shot at Apple, which partnered with OpenAI to put ChatGPT into Siri. When Siri isn’t capable of answering a question, it will get your permission to ask ChatGPT instead. (Of course, Google’s system still requires you to trust Google, so it doesn’t entirely escape the same criticism.)

Google wanted to make sure you knew its demos were live

Image: Google

It took three tries for Gemini to come up with a response.

While Apple is known for carefully crafting its live events, Google events tend to be a bit more relaxed. You could see that on display when Google’s Dave Citron took the stage to demonstrate some of Gemini’s AI features, boldly announcing: “All of the demos we’re doing today are live, by the way.” Google took that risk head-on — and things didn’t go exactly as planned.

After taking a picture of a Sabrina Carpenter concert poster, Citron asked Gemini if it could check his calendar to see if he’s free when she comes to San Francisco this year. Gemini didn’t respond on the first two tries, but it eventually issued a response when Citron switched phones.

The Pixel 9 Pro and 9 Pro XL come “without compromises”

Photo by Chris Welch / The Verge
The Google Pixel 9 Pro beside a Pixel 9 Pro XL.

The only difference between the Pixel 9 Pro XL and the new, smaller Pixel Pro option is size. “You can choose between Pixel 9 Pro and Pixel 9 Pro XL without compromises,” Brian Rakowski, Google’s vice president of product management, said. “They have the same incredible display, sleek design, premium craftsmanship, processing power, and the same Pro Pixel camera.”

Meanwhile, there are some slight differences between the iPhone 15 Pro and the larger iPhone 15 Pro Max. The iPhone 15 Pro Max offers up to a 5x optical Zoom, while the regular 15 Pro is limited to 3x. The larger variant also comes with up to 29 hours of video playback instead of 23 hours.

Google Pixel 9 Pro vs. iPhone 15 Pro Max

Image: Google
Google referred to Apple as “another smartphone company.”

When showing off the Pixel 9 Pro’s camera, Google compared it directly to the iPhone 15 Pro Max. Google’s Kenny Sulaimon said the company “rebuilt” the Pixel 9’s panorama mode, which now supports Night Sight to improve the look of low-light images.

To demonstrate these changes, Sulaimon invited the audience to look at a panorama of the Tetons at night. He then immediately compared it to a more shadowy-looking photo from “another smartphone company” — namely, Apple.

Read More 

Photo by Carolyn Fong for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Upside Foods, a cultivated meat firm, sued Florida over its ban on lab-grown meat, arguing that the state’s legislation prohibiting the sale of cultivated meat is unconstitutional.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed the ban into law in May, describing the legislation as a way of “fighting back against the global elite’s plan to force the world to eat meat grown in a petri dish or bugs to achieve their authoritarian goals.”
In a lawsuit filed in federal court on Monday, Upside Foods and the Institute of Justice, a nonprofit public interest law firm, allege that Florida’s lab-grown meat ban is about protecting the state’s cattle industry — and that the law is unconstitutional. The complaint claims SB 1084 violates the Supremacy and Commerce clauses of the Constitution, as well as two federal laws regulating the inspection and distribution of meat and poultry products.
“Our Constitution gives Congress the power to create and enforce a national common market so people can make decisions for themselves about what products they want to buy in the interstate market,” Paul Sherman, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, said during a Tuesday press conference. “The states simply do not have the power to wall themselves off from products that have been approved by the USDA and the FDA.”

Alternatives to conventional meat products, including plant-based and cultivated meat, have become a wedge issue in the culture war between liberals and conservatives. As a result, companies that offer alternatives to animal-based products have found themselves targeted by state-level laws that curtail or outright prohibit them from selling their products.
Upside and the Institute for Justice argue that Florida’s ban on cultivated meat is intended to protect the state’s cattle industry from out-of-state competition. The ban therefore violates the “dormant aspect” of the Commerce Clause, which prohibits state protectionism, Upside alleges. The complaint notes that during the signing event, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis was flanked by cattle ranchers and “spoke in front of a podium that featured a sign stating, ‘SAVE OUR BEEF.’”
Florida’s Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson — who is named as a defendant — called the lawsuit “ridiculous.”
“Lab-grown ‘meat’ is not proven to be safe enough for consumers and it is being pushed by a liberal agenda to shut down farms. Food security is a matter of national security, and our farmers are the first line of defense,” Simpson said in a statement. “States are the laboratory of democracy, and Florida has the right to not be a corporate guinea pig. Leave the Frankenmeat experiment to California.”
But Upside’s complaint alleges that Florida’s ban on lab-grown meat is about protectionism, not food safety, and points to DeSantis’ press conference announcing the ban as proof.

The Food and Drug Administration said Upside’s products were safe to eat in 2022, and the US Department of Agriculture approved the sale of products from Upside and a competitor, Good Meat, the following year.
Upside argues that Florida’s ban harms the firm’s operations elsewhere in the country, too. Florida’s ban on cultivated meat — the first in the nation — inspired copycat legislation across the country. Alabama banned lab-grown meat in May, though that legislation won’t go into effect until October. Legislators in Arizona, Kentucky, Iowa, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia have introduced similar bans. In the complaint, Upside and the Institute of Justice claim that the “growing patchwork of conflicting state laws governing cultivated meat” makes it more difficult for Upside to partner with national meat distributors, “who generally will not carry products they cannot lawfully sell in every state.”
Upside had begun a partnership with a Miami-based chef before Florida’s ban on lab-grown meat went into effect on July 1st, according to the complaint, which was filed in the Northern District of Florida. That chef, who is not named in the complaint, had begun making plans with Upside to host a tasting event at the South Beach Wine and Food Festival in Miami on February 20th, 2025. Upside also planned on distributing its products at Art Basel Miami in early December of this year and had “identified other chefs in Miami and Tallahassee” that were interested in distributing its product, according to the complaint. Florida’s ban now precludes these events from happening, since Upside’s participation could lead to criminal penalties for itself and its potential business partners, the complaint claims.
Upside is asking the court to declare Florida’s cultivated meat ban unconstitutional and to issue preliminary and permanent injunctions against the law. During the press conference, Sherman, the IJ attorney, said Upside would like the injunction to go into effect before Art Basel.
“If consumers don’t like the idea of cultivated meat, there’s a simple solution,” Sherman said. “They don’t have to eat it. But they can’t make that decision for other consumers.”

Photo by Carolyn Fong for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Upside Foods, a cultivated meat firm, sued Florida over its ban on lab-grown meat, arguing that the state’s legislation prohibiting the sale of cultivated meat is unconstitutional.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed the ban into law in May, describing the legislation as a way of “fighting back against the global elite’s plan to force the world to eat meat grown in a petri dish or bugs to achieve their authoritarian goals.”

In a lawsuit filed in federal court on Monday, Upside Foods and the Institute of Justice, a nonprofit public interest law firm, allege that Florida’s lab-grown meat ban is about protecting the state’s cattle industry — and that the law is unconstitutional. The complaint claims SB 1084 violates the Supremacy and Commerce clauses of the Constitution, as well as two federal laws regulating the inspection and distribution of meat and poultry products.

“Our Constitution gives Congress the power to create and enforce a national common market so people can make decisions for themselves about what products they want to buy in the interstate market,” Paul Sherman, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, said during a Tuesday press conference. “The states simply do not have the power to wall themselves off from products that have been approved by the USDA and the FDA.”

Alternatives to conventional meat products, including plant-based and cultivated meat, have become a wedge issue in the culture war between liberals and conservatives. As a result, companies that offer alternatives to animal-based products have found themselves targeted by state-level laws that curtail or outright prohibit them from selling their products.

Upside and the Institute for Justice argue that Florida’s ban on cultivated meat is intended to protect the state’s cattle industry from out-of-state competition. The ban therefore violates the “dormant aspect” of the Commerce Clause, which prohibits state protectionism, Upside alleges. The complaint notes that during the signing event, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis was flanked by cattle ranchers and “spoke in front of a podium that featured a sign stating, ‘SAVE OUR BEEF.’”

Florida’s Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson — who is named as a defendant — called the lawsuit “ridiculous.”

“Lab-grown ‘meat’ is not proven to be safe enough for consumers and it is being pushed by a liberal agenda to shut down farms. Food security is a matter of national security, and our farmers are the first line of defense,” Simpson said in a statement. “States are the laboratory of democracy, and Florida has the right to not be a corporate guinea pig. Leave the Frankenmeat experiment to California.”

But Upside’s complaint alleges that Florida’s ban on lab-grown meat is about protectionism, not food safety, and points to DeSantis’ press conference announcing the ban as proof.

The Food and Drug Administration said Upside’s products were safe to eat in 2022, and the US Department of Agriculture approved the sale of products from Upside and a competitor, Good Meat, the following year.

Upside argues that Florida’s ban harms the firm’s operations elsewhere in the country, too. Florida’s ban on cultivated meat — the first in the nation — inspired copycat legislation across the country. Alabama banned lab-grown meat in May, though that legislation won’t go into effect until October. Legislators in Arizona, Kentucky, Iowa, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia have introduced similar bans. In the complaint, Upside and the Institute of Justice claim that the “growing patchwork of conflicting state laws governing cultivated meat” makes it more difficult for Upside to partner with national meat distributors, “who generally will not carry products they cannot lawfully sell in every state.”

Upside had begun a partnership with a Miami-based chef before Florida’s ban on lab-grown meat went into effect on July 1st, according to the complaint, which was filed in the Northern District of Florida. That chef, who is not named in the complaint, had begun making plans with Upside to host a tasting event at the South Beach Wine and Food Festival in Miami on February 20th, 2025. Upside also planned on distributing its products at Art Basel Miami in early December of this year and had “identified other chefs in Miami and Tallahassee” that were interested in distributing its product, according to the complaint. Florida’s ban now precludes these events from happening, since Upside’s participation could lead to criminal penalties for itself and its potential business partners, the complaint claims.

Upside is asking the court to declare Florida’s cultivated meat ban unconstitutional and to issue preliminary and permanent injunctions against the law. During the press conference, Sherman, the IJ attorney, said Upside would like the injunction to go into effect before Art Basel.

“If consumers don’t like the idea of cultivated meat, there’s a simple solution,” Sherman said. “They don’t have to eat it. But they can’t make that decision for other consumers.”

Read More 

Illustration by Cath Virginia / The Verge | Photos from Getty Images

A lawsuit that several artists filed against Stability AI, Midjourney, and other AI-related companies can proceed with some claims dismissed, a judge ruled yesterday.
Many artists allege that popular generative AI services violated copyright law by training on a dataset that included their works and, in some cases, that users of these services can directly reproduce copies of the work. Last year, Judge William Orrick allowed a direct copyright infringement complaint against Stability, operator of the popular Stable Diffusion AI image generator. But he dismissed a variety of other claims and asked the artists’ attorneys to amend them with more detail.
In this more recent ruling, the revised arguments convinced the judge to approve an additional claim of induced copyright infringement against Stability. He allowed a copyright claim against DeviantArt, which used a model based on Stable Diffusion, as well as against Runway AI, the initial startup behind Stable Diffusion. And he allowed copyright and trademark infringement claims against Midjourney.
The latter claims include allegations that Midjourney misled users with a “Midjourney Style List,” which included 4,700 artists whose names could be used to generate works in their style. The artists argue this list — created without their knowledge or approval — implies a false endorsement, and the judge found the accusation substantive enough to merit further argument.
Judge Orrick remained unconvinced by some of the arguments he had previously sent back for more detail. He threw out claims that the generators violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by removing or altering copyright management information. He also dismissed a claim that DeviantArt had breached its terms of service by allowing users’ work to be scraped for AI training datasets. And, obviously, the claims he did allow will still need to be argued in court.
Kelly McKernan, one of the artists behind the suit, described the ruling as “very exciting” and “a HUGE win” on X. McKernan noted that passing this preliminary stage lets them request information from companies in discovery — potentially revealing details about software tools that often remain black boxes. “Now we get to find out alllll the things those companies don’t want us to know,” McKernan wrote. (If the companies are ordered to produce information, it wouldn’t necessarily be released to the public.)

But the case’s outcome is difficult to predict. Numerous suits have been filed against AI companies, alleging that tools like Stable Diffusion and ChatGPT easily reproduce copyrighted works and are illegally trained on huge volumes of them. The companies have countered that these reproductions are rare and difficult to produce, and they argue that training should be considered legal fair use. Some early suits have been thrown out, including a GitHub Copilot case whose dismissal is mentioned in yesterday’s ruling. Others, like a New York Times Company suit against OpenAI, remain ongoing.
At the same time, OpenAI, Google, and other tech giants have struck multimillion-dollar deals with publishers (including Verge parent Vox Media) and photo providers for ongoing data access. Small companies like Stability and Midjourney have less money to buy access to data, and individual artists have less leverage to demand payments — so for both sides of this dispute, the legal stakes are particularly high.

Illustration by Cath Virginia / The Verge | Photos from Getty Images

A lawsuit that several artists filed against Stability AI, Midjourney, and other AI-related companies can proceed with some claims dismissed, a judge ruled yesterday.

Many artists allege that popular generative AI services violated copyright law by training on a dataset that included their works and, in some cases, that users of these services can directly reproduce copies of the work. Last year, Judge William Orrick allowed a direct copyright infringement complaint against Stability, operator of the popular Stable Diffusion AI image generator. But he dismissed a variety of other claims and asked the artists’ attorneys to amend them with more detail.

In this more recent ruling, the revised arguments convinced the judge to approve an additional claim of induced copyright infringement against Stability. He allowed a copyright claim against DeviantArt, which used a model based on Stable Diffusion, as well as against Runway AI, the initial startup behind Stable Diffusion. And he allowed copyright and trademark infringement claims against Midjourney.

The latter claims include allegations that Midjourney misled users with a “Midjourney Style List,” which included 4,700 artists whose names could be used to generate works in their style. The artists argue this list — created without their knowledge or approval — implies a false endorsement, and the judge found the accusation substantive enough to merit further argument.

Judge Orrick remained unconvinced by some of the arguments he had previously sent back for more detail. He threw out claims that the generators violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by removing or altering copyright management information. He also dismissed a claim that DeviantArt had breached its terms of service by allowing users’ work to be scraped for AI training datasets. And, obviously, the claims he did allow will still need to be argued in court.

Kelly McKernan, one of the artists behind the suit, described the ruling as “very exciting” and “a HUGE win” on X. McKernan noted that passing this preliminary stage lets them request information from companies in discovery — potentially revealing details about software tools that often remain black boxes. “Now we get to find out alllll the things those companies don’t want us to know,” McKernan wrote. (If the companies are ordered to produce information, it wouldn’t necessarily be released to the public.)

But the case’s outcome is difficult to predict. Numerous suits have been filed against AI companies, alleging that tools like Stable Diffusion and ChatGPT easily reproduce copyrighted works and are illegally trained on huge volumes of them. The companies have countered that these reproductions are rare and difficult to produce, and they argue that training should be considered legal fair use. Some early suits have been thrown out, including a GitHub Copilot case whose dismissal is mentioned in yesterday’s ruling. Others, like a New York Times Company suit against OpenAI, remain ongoing.

At the same time, OpenAI, Google, and other tech giants have struck multimillion-dollar deals with publishers (including Verge parent Vox Media) and photo providers for ongoing data access. Small companies like Stability and Midjourney have less money to buy access to data, and individual artists have less leverage to demand payments — so for both sides of this dispute, the legal stakes are particularly high.

Read More 

Jeff Bezos appearing in a 27-year-old report by the BBC on internet shopping. | Screenshot: YouTube

Earlier this year, Amazon reported $143.3 billion in revenue for the first quarter of 2024. But 27 years ago, the BBC wondered when predictions that the internet revolutionizing shopping would come true, speaking to local bakers, booksellers, and even Jeff Bezos to find out.
The Money Programme report, which originally aired in November of 1997, was recently added to the BBC Archive YouTube Channel. In it, reporter Nils Blythe takes a simulated journey on the information superhighway — complete with wonderfully dated ‘90s-era blue screen effects and graphics — and speaks to retailers who had varying levels of success with online commerce at the time.

Those included a small bakery in the UK that was enjoying several thousands of dollars in sales every year selling its baked goods internationally, and the British supermarket chain Sainsbury’s that was having middling success selling groceries using the internet, phones, and even faxes.
Blythe also spoke with Jeff Bezos who had launched Amazon.com as an online book retailer just two years prior. Bezos bragged that Amazon’s catalog of over 2.5 million books was ten times more than the largest brick-and-mortar book stores were able to stock, and predicted that “over some large number of years… internet book selling is going to become a very large business.” He was mostly correct, four years before Amazon turned a profit for the first time.

Jeff Bezos appearing in a 27-year-old report by the BBC on internet shopping. | Screenshot: YouTube

Earlier this year, Amazon reported $143.3 billion in revenue for the first quarter of 2024. But 27 years ago, the BBC wondered when predictions that the internet revolutionizing shopping would come true, speaking to local bakers, booksellers, and even Jeff Bezos to find out.

The Money Programme report, which originally aired in November of 1997, was recently added to the BBC Archive YouTube Channel. In it, reporter Nils Blythe takes a simulated journey on the information superhighway — complete with wonderfully dated ‘90s-era blue screen effects and graphics — and speaks to retailers who had varying levels of success with online commerce at the time.

Those included a small bakery in the UK that was enjoying several thousands of dollars in sales every year selling its baked goods internationally, and the British supermarket chain Sainsbury’s that was having middling success selling groceries using the internet, phones, and even faxes.

Blythe also spoke with Jeff Bezos who had launched Amazon.com as an online book retailer just two years prior. Bezos bragged that Amazon’s catalog of over 2.5 million books was ten times more than the largest brick-and-mortar book stores were able to stock, and predicted that “over some large number of years… internet book selling is going to become a very large business.” He was mostly correct, four years before Amazon turned a profit for the first time.

Read More 

The base Pixel 9 is one of four new models, starting at $799. | Image: Google

At its most recent Made by Google event, the monopolistic search giant announced four new phones: the Pixel 9, Pixel 9 Pro, Pixel 9 Pro XL, and Pixel 9 Pro Fold. This is more phones than Google has ever sold at once — especially when you throw in the midrange Pixel 8A from May — making the decision on which to get somewhat confusing.

So, we thought it might be helpful to explain the key differences and similarities between the four new models and succinctly lay out all the finer specs for you to peruse. Hopefully, this will help you choose between the new Pixels, which are set to launch in waves on August 22nd and September 4th.
The biggest differences between Pixel 9 phones: price and size
What immediately separates most of the Pixel 9 phones from one another is size and price. The base Pixel 9 has a 6.3-inch OLED display with a refresh rate of 60 to 120Hz and a starting price of $799 for 128GB of storage, which is $100 more than the Pixel 8’s starting price.
The next step up is a dual-prong approach to the “Pro” spec, which now consists of the 6.3-inch Pixel 9 Pro starting at $999 and the larger 6.8-inch Pixel 9 Pro XL starting at $1,099 (both Pros have OLED displays with 1 to 120Hz refresh rate and 128GB of base storage).
At the top of the range is the Pixel 9 Pro Fold, the sequel to last year’s Pixel Fold, which now arrives alongside the rest of the Pixel 9 lineup, thus making it less of an outlier. The 9 Pro Fold sports a 6.3-inch OLED outer screen (60 to 120Hz) and an eight-inch, tablet-like inner screen (1 to 120Hz); it starts at $1,799 with 256GB of storage.
A new processor for all and somewhat new cameras (for some)
Where all Pixel 9 phones are united is in their OS longevity and choice of processor, as all models offer seven years of Android updates and utilize Google’s new Tensor G4 system-on-chip. This is a change from last year when the Pixel Fold came in mid-2023, before the G3-powered Pixel 8 generation, and was based on the G2 chipset from 2022.

But one of the biggest determining factors for people in choosing a phone is the camera(s). There’s a bit of a hierarchy here, with the high-end Pixel 9 Pro Fold getting a triple-camera array with lower specs than the others — including the Pixel 9, which relies on a dual-camera array. In fact, the 9 Pro Fold’s camera specs sound a lot more like last year’s Fold than they do the rest of the Pixel 9 range, which feature 50-megapixel standard wide cameras and 48-megapixel ultrawides (with 48-megapixel telephotos on the 9 Pro and 9 Pro XL). Yet, let’s not forget that the 50-megapixel sensor utilized by three-fourths of the Pixel 9 range sounds pretty similar to last year’s Pixel 8.
Here are the detailed specs, side by side, to dive into at your leisure.

So, what do you think? Is one of these new Pixel 9 phones appealing enough for you? Does Google’s shotgun approach of four new options all at once have you thrilled for the luxury of choice or baffled by analysis paralysis?
I’d be lying if I said the thought of a “Pro” phone at a more modest size wasn’t appealing. But then there’s always that temptation of the bigger battery in a surfboard-sized phone. Let us know what you think in the comments.

The base Pixel 9 is one of four new models, starting at $799. | Image: Google

At its most recent Made by Google event, the monopolistic search giant announced four new phones: the Pixel 9, Pixel 9 Pro, Pixel 9 Pro XL, and Pixel 9 Pro Fold. This is more phones than Google has ever sold at once — especially when you throw in the midrange Pixel 8A from May — making the decision on which to get somewhat confusing.

So, we thought it might be helpful to explain the key differences and similarities between the four new models and succinctly lay out all the finer specs for you to peruse. Hopefully, this will help you choose between the new Pixels, which are set to launch in waves on August 22nd and September 4th.

The biggest differences between Pixel 9 phones: price and size

What immediately separates most of the Pixel 9 phones from one another is size and price. The base Pixel 9 has a 6.3-inch OLED display with a refresh rate of 60 to 120Hz and a starting price of $799 for 128GB of storage, which is $100 more than the Pixel 8’s starting price.

The next step up is a dual-prong approach to the “Pro” spec, which now consists of the 6.3-inch Pixel 9 Pro starting at $999 and the larger 6.8-inch Pixel 9 Pro XL starting at $1,099 (both Pros have OLED displays with 1 to 120Hz refresh rate and 128GB of base storage).

At the top of the range is the Pixel 9 Pro Fold, the sequel to last year’s Pixel Fold, which now arrives alongside the rest of the Pixel 9 lineup, thus making it less of an outlier. The 9 Pro Fold sports a 6.3-inch OLED outer screen (60 to 120Hz) and an eight-inch, tablet-like inner screen (1 to 120Hz); it starts at $1,799 with 256GB of storage.

A new processor for all and somewhat new cameras (for some)

Where all Pixel 9 phones are united is in their OS longevity and choice of processor, as all models offer seven years of Android updates and utilize Google’s new Tensor G4 system-on-chip. This is a change from last year when the Pixel Fold came in mid-2023, before the G3-powered Pixel 8 generation, and was based on the G2 chipset from 2022.

But one of the biggest determining factors for people in choosing a phone is the camera(s). There’s a bit of a hierarchy here, with the high-end Pixel 9 Pro Fold getting a triple-camera array with lower specs than the others — including the Pixel 9, which relies on a dual-camera array. In fact, the 9 Pro Fold’s camera specs sound a lot more like last year’s Fold than they do the rest of the Pixel 9 range, which feature 50-megapixel standard wide cameras and 48-megapixel ultrawides (with 48-megapixel telephotos on the 9 Pro and 9 Pro XL). Yet, let’s not forget that the 50-megapixel sensor utilized by three-fourths of the Pixel 9 range sounds pretty similar to last year’s Pixel 8.

Here are the detailed specs, side by side, to dive into at your leisure.

So, what do you think? Is one of these new Pixel 9 phones appealing enough for you? Does Google’s shotgun approach of four new options all at once have you thrilled for the luxury of choice or baffled by analysis paralysis?

I’d be lying if I said the thought of a “Pro” phone at a more modest size wasn’t appealing. But then there’s always that temptation of the bigger battery in a surfboard-sized phone. Let us know what you think in the comments.

Read More 

Image: Paramount

Ahead of its upcoming merger with Skydance Media, Paramount is winding down its TV production studio as part of a larger restructuring effort that will put 15 percent of its current workforce out of jobs.
In a memo sent to employees today and obtained by The Hollywood Reporter, Paramount TV head Nicole Clemens and Paramount co-CEO George Cheeks announced that Paramount Global is shuttering the studio. Clemens, who joined Paramount in 2018 following former exec Amy Powell’s sudden exit, is also set to leave the company, and all of Paramount’s currently airing TV series and projects still in development will transition to CBS Studios.
In the memo, Clemens and Cheeks insisted that while Paramount TV is coming to an end, “our ethos will live on in shows that will continue to be enjoyed by global audiences for years to come.” Last week, Paramount said that in order to bring down its spending costs, it was preparing to slash its headcount by 15 percent across its marketing, comms, tech, and finance divisions. That plan was always meant to be rolled out in three phases, and today, Cheeks and fellow co-CEOs Chris McCarthy and Brian Robbins shared in a memo of their own that 90 percent of those job cuts should be finished by this September.
“The industry continues to evolve, and Paramount is at an inflection point where changes must be made to strengthen our business,” the CEOs said. “And while these actions are often difficult, we are confident in our direction forward.”

Image: Paramount

Ahead of its upcoming merger with Skydance Media, Paramount is winding down its TV production studio as part of a larger restructuring effort that will put 15 percent of its current workforce out of jobs.

In a memo sent to employees today and obtained by The Hollywood Reporter, Paramount TV head Nicole Clemens and Paramount co-CEO George Cheeks announced that Paramount Global is shuttering the studio. Clemens, who joined Paramount in 2018 following former exec Amy Powell’s sudden exit, is also set to leave the company, and all of Paramount’s currently airing TV series and projects still in development will transition to CBS Studios.

In the memo, Clemens and Cheeks insisted that while Paramount TV is coming to an end, “our ethos will live on in shows that will continue to be enjoyed by global audiences for years to come.” Last week, Paramount said that in order to bring down its spending costs, it was preparing to slash its headcount by 15 percent across its marketing, comms, tech, and finance divisions. That plan was always meant to be rolled out in three phases, and today, Cheeks and fellow co-CEOs Chris McCarthy and Brian Robbins shared in a memo of their own that 90 percent of those job cuts should be finished by this September.

“The industry continues to evolve, and Paramount is at an inflection point where changes must be made to strengthen our business,” the CEOs said. “And while these actions are often difficult, we are confident in our direction forward.”

Read More 

Illustration by Laura Normand / The Verge

A Texas judge who was assigned two cases involving Elon Musk’s X platform has recused himself from one of them, shortly after a report that he owns stock in Tesla.
US District Court Judge Reed O’Connor was assigned to X’s recent antitrust lawsuit against advertisers over their boycott of the service, as well as a separate case against Media Matters, which the company sued for a report showing that X displayed ads from major brands next to pro-Nazi content. On Tuesday, O’Connor filed a notice to the court clerk recusing himself from the antitrust lawsuit. He still appears to be assigned to the Media Matters case as of Tuesday afternoon.
The recusal came just a few days after NPR reported on O’Connor’s Tesla stock holdings, which, according to a financial disclosure, fall between $15,001 and $50,000. Musk, of course, is Tesla’s CEO.
The report raised questions about O’Connor’s impartiality and X’s motivations in bringing the suits in this particular court. NPR reported that the federal court in northern Texas, unlike many other courts where judges are randomly assigned, doles out cases to judges based on which division they’re filed in. That gives plaintiffs an unusual level of certainty in who will likely hear their case. X and the suits’ defendants are not based in Texas, though Musk said recently he plans to move it to Texas. X did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Critics have accused X of forum shopping, or looking for a sympathetic judge or district to file its cases. Their argument is underscored by the fact that antitrust experts think X will have a tough time proving advertisers’ boycott violated the law. Former DOJ antitrust chief Bill Baer told the BBC that in general, “a politically motivated boycott is not an antitrust violation. It is protected speech under our First Amendment.”
Musk’s lawsuits have already been able to punish opponents with legal fees. The Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), an advertiser coalition created by the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), a defendant in X’s suit, reportedly disbanded in the wake of the complaint. Business Insider reported that the group felt it needed to use its limited funds to fight the suit.
X’s legal strategy has backfired in a different recent lawsuit, though. A California judge dismissed X’s suit against the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate, saying the suit was about “punishing the Defendants for their speech.”

Illustration by Laura Normand / The Verge

A Texas judge who was assigned two cases involving Elon Musk’s X platform has recused himself from one of them, shortly after a report that he owns stock in Tesla.

US District Court Judge Reed O’Connor was assigned to X’s recent antitrust lawsuit against advertisers over their boycott of the service, as well as a separate case against Media Matters, which the company sued for a report showing that X displayed ads from major brands next to pro-Nazi content. On Tuesday, O’Connor filed a notice to the court clerk recusing himself from the antitrust lawsuit. He still appears to be assigned to the Media Matters case as of Tuesday afternoon.

The recusal came just a few days after NPR reported on O’Connor’s Tesla stock holdings, which, according to a financial disclosure, fall between $15,001 and $50,000. Musk, of course, is Tesla’s CEO.

The report raised questions about O’Connor’s impartiality and X’s motivations in bringing the suits in this particular court. NPR reported that the federal court in northern Texas, unlike many other courts where judges are randomly assigned, doles out cases to judges based on which division they’re filed in. That gives plaintiffs an unusual level of certainty in who will likely hear their case. X and the suits’ defendants are not based in Texas, though Musk said recently he plans to move it to Texas. X did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Critics have accused X of forum shopping, or looking for a sympathetic judge or district to file its cases. Their argument is underscored by the fact that antitrust experts think X will have a tough time proving advertisers’ boycott violated the law. Former DOJ antitrust chief Bill Baer told the BBC that in general, “a politically motivated boycott is not an antitrust violation. It is protected speech under our First Amendment.”

Musk’s lawsuits have already been able to punish opponents with legal fees. The Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), an advertiser coalition created by the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), a defendant in X’s suit, reportedly disbanded in the wake of the complaint. Business Insider reported that the group felt it needed to use its limited funds to fight the suit.

X’s legal strategy has backfired in a different recent lawsuit, though. A California judge dismissed X’s suit against the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate, saying the suit was about “punishing the Defendants for their speech.”

Read More