Get ONMINE

Stay Ahead, Stay ONMINE

A New York legislator wants to pick up the pieces of the dead California AI bill

The first Democrat in New York history with a computer science background wants to revive some of the ideas behind the failed California AI safety bill, SB 1047, with a new version in his state that would regulate the most advanced AI models. It’s called the RAISE Act, an acronym for “Responsible AI Safety and Education.” Assembly member Alex Bores hopes his bill, currently an unpublished draft—subject to change—that MIT Technology Review has seen, will address many of the concerns that blocked SB 1047 from passing into law. SB 1047 was, at first, thought to be a fairly modest bill that would pass without much fanfare. In fact, it flew through the California statehouse with huge margins and received significant public support. However, before it even landed on Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk for signature in September, it sparked an intense national fight. Google, Meta, and OpenAI came out against the bill, alongside top congressional Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Zoe Lofgren. Even Hollywood celebrities got involved, with Jane Fonda and Mark Hamill expressing support for the bill.  Ultimately, Newsom vetoed SB 1047, effectively killing regulation of so-called frontier AI models not just in California but, with the lack of laws on the national level, anywhere in the US, where the most powerful systems are developed. Now Bores hopes to revive the battle. The main provisions in the RAISE Act include requiring AI companies to develop safety plans for the development and deployment of their models.  The bill also provides protections for whistleblowers at AI companies. It forbids retaliation against an employee who shares information about an AI model in the belief that it may cause “critical harm”; such whistleblowers can report the information to the New York attorney general. One way the bill defines critical harm is the use of an AI model to create a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon that results in the death or serious injury of 100 or more people.  Alternatively, a critical harm could be a use of the AI model that results in 100 or more deaths or at least $1 billion in damages in an act with limited human oversight that if committed by a human would constitute a crime requiring intent, recklessness, or gross negligence. The safety plans would ensure that a company has cybersecurity protections in place to prevent unauthorized access to a model. The plan would also require testing of models to assess risks before and after training, as well as detailed descriptions of procedures to assess the risks associated with post-training modifications. For example, some current AI systems have safeguards that can be easily and cheaply removed by a malicious actor. A safety plan would have to address how the company plans to mitigate these actions. The safety plans would then be audited by a third party, like a nonprofit with technical expertise that currently tests AI models. And if violations are found, the bill empowers the attorney general of New York to issue fines and, if necessary, go to the courts to determine whether to halt unsafe development.  A different flavour of bill The safety plans and external audits were elements of SB 1047, but Bores aims to differentiate his bill from the California one. “We focused a lot on what the feedback was for 1047,” he says. “Parts of the criticism were in good faith and could make improvements. And so we’ve made a lot of changes.”  The RAISE Act diverges from SB 1047 in a few ways. For one, SB 1047 would have created the Board of Frontier Models, tasked with approving updates to the definitions and regulations around these AI models, but the proposed act would not create a new government body. The New York bill also doesn’t create a public cloud computing cluster, which SB 1047 would have done. The cluster was intended to support projects to develop AI for the public good.  The RAISE Act doesn’t have SB 1047’s requirement that companies be able to halt all operations of their model, a capability sometimes referred to as a “kill switch.” Some critics alleged that the shutdown provision of SB 1047 would harm open-source models, since developers can’t shut down a model someone else may now possess (even though SB 1047 had an exemption for open-source models). The RAISE Act avoids the fight entirely. SB 1047 referred to an “advanced persistent threat” associated with bad actors trying to steal information during model training. The RAISE Act does away with that definition, sticking to addressing critical harms from covered models. Focusing on the wrong issues? Bores’ bill is very specific with its definitions in an effort to clearly delineate what this bill is and isn’t about. The RAISE Act doesn’t address some of the current risks from AI models, like bias, discrimination, and job displacement. Like SB 1047, it is very focused on catastrophic risks from frontier AI models.  Some in the AI community believe this focus is misguided. “We’re broadly supportive of any efforts to hold large models accountable,” says Kate Brennan, associate director of the AI Now Institute, which conducts AI policy research. “But defining critical harms only in terms of the most catastrophic harms from the most advanced models overlooks the material risks that AI poses, whether it’s workers subject to surveillance mechanisms, prone to workplace injuries because of algorithmically managed speed rates, climate impacts of large-scale AI systems, data centers exerting massive pressure on local power grids, or data center construction sidestepping key environmental protections,” she says. Bores has worked on other bills addressing current harms posed by AI systems, like discrimination and lack of transparency. That said, Bores is clear that this new bill is aimed at mitigating catastrophic risks from more advanced models. “We’re not talking about any model that exists right now,” he says. “We are talking about truly frontier models, those on the edge of what we can build and what we understand, and there is risk in that.”  The bill would cover only models that pass a certain threshold for how many computations their training required, typically measured in FLOPs (floating-point operations). In the bill, a covered model is one that requires more than 1026 FLOPs in its training and costs over $100 million. For reference, GPT-4 is estimated to have required 1025 FLOPs.  This approach may draw scrutiny from industry forces. “While we can’t comment specifically on legislation that isn’t public yet, we believe effective regulation should focus on specific applications rather than broad model categories,” says a spokesperson at Hugging Face, a company that opposed SB 1047. Early days The bill is in its nascent stages, so it’s subject to many edits in the future, and no opposition has yet formed. There may already be lessons to be learned from the battle over SB 1047, however. “There’s significant disagreement in the space, but I think debate around future legislation would benefit from more clarity around the severity, the likelihood, and the imminence of harms,” says Scott Kohler, a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who tracked the development of SB 1047.  When asked about the idea of mandated safety plans for AI companies, assembly member Edward Ra, a Republican who hasn’t yet seen a draft of the new bill yet, said: “I don’t have any general problem with the idea of doing that. We expect businesses to be good corporate citizens, but sometimes you do have to put some of that into writing.”  Ra and Bores co chair the New York Future Caucus, which aims to bring together lawmakers 45 and under to tackle pressing issues that affect future generations. Scott Wiener, a California state senator who sponsored SB 1047, is happy to see that his initial bill, even though it failed, is inspiring further legislation and discourse. “The bill triggered a conversation about whether we should just trust the AI labs to make good decisions, which some will, but we know from past experience, some won’t make good decisions, and that’s why a level of basic regulation for incredibly powerful technology is important,” he says. He has his own plans to reignite the fight: “We’re not done in California. There will be continued work in California, including for next year. I’m optimistic that California is gonna be able to get some good things done.” And some believe the RAISE Act will highlight a notable contradiction: Many of the industry’s players insist that they want regulation, but when any regulation is proposed, they fight against it. “SB 1047 became a referendum on whether AI should be regulated at all,” says Brennan. “There are a lot of things we saw with 1047 that we can expect to see replay in New York if this bill is introduced. We should be prepared to see a massive lobbying reaction that industry is going to bring to even the lightest-touch regulation.” Wiener and Bores both wish to see regulation at a national level, but in the absence of such legislation, they’ve taken the battle upon themselves. At first it may seem odd for states to take up such important reforms, but California houses the headquarters of the top AI companies, and New York, which has the third-largest state economy in the US, is home to offices for OpenAI and other AI companies. The two states may be well positioned to lead the conversation around regulation.  “There is uncertainty at the direction of federal policy with the transition upcoming and around the role of Congress,” says Kohler. “It is likely that states will continue to step up in this area.” Wiener’s advice for New York legislators entering the arena of AI regulation? “Buckle up and get ready.”

The first Democrat in New York history with a computer science background wants to revive some of the ideas behind the failed California AI safety bill, SB 1047, with a new version in his state that would regulate the most advanced AI models. It’s called the RAISE Act, an acronym for “Responsible AI Safety and Education.”

Assembly member Alex Bores hopes his bill, currently an unpublished draft—subject to change—that MIT Technology Review has seen, will address many of the concerns that blocked SB 1047 from passing into law.

SB 1047 was, at first, thought to be a fairly modest bill that would pass without much fanfare. In fact, it flew through the California statehouse with huge margins and received significant public support.

However, before it even landed on Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk for signature in September, it sparked an intense national fight. Google, Meta, and OpenAI came out against the bill, alongside top congressional Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Zoe Lofgren. Even Hollywood celebrities got involved, with Jane Fonda and Mark Hamill expressing support for the bill. 

Ultimately, Newsom vetoed SB 1047, effectively killing regulation of so-called frontier AI models not just in California but, with the lack of laws on the national level, anywhere in the US, where the most powerful systems are developed.

Now Bores hopes to revive the battle. The main provisions in the RAISE Act include requiring AI companies to develop safety plans for the development and deployment of their models. 

The bill also provides protections for whistleblowers at AI companies. It forbids retaliation against an employee who shares information about an AI model in the belief that it may cause “critical harm”; such whistleblowers can report the information to the New York attorney general. One way the bill defines critical harm is the use of an AI model to create a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon that results in the death or serious injury of 100 or more people. 

Alternatively, a critical harm could be a use of the AI model that results in 100 or more deaths or at least $1 billion in damages in an act with limited human oversight that if committed by a human would constitute a crime requiring intent, recklessness, or gross negligence.

The safety plans would ensure that a company has cybersecurity protections in place to prevent unauthorized access to a model. The plan would also require testing of models to assess risks before and after training, as well as detailed descriptions of procedures to assess the risks associated with post-training modifications. For example, some current AI systems have safeguards that can be easily and cheaply removed by a malicious actor. A safety plan would have to address how the company plans to mitigate these actions.

The safety plans would then be audited by a third party, like a nonprofit with technical expertise that currently tests AI models. And if violations are found, the bill empowers the attorney general of New York to issue fines and, if necessary, go to the courts to determine whether to halt unsafe development. 

A different flavour of bill

The safety plans and external audits were elements of SB 1047, but Bores aims to differentiate his bill from the California one. “We focused a lot on what the feedback was for 1047,” he says. “Parts of the criticism were in good faith and could make improvements. And so we’ve made a lot of changes.” 

The RAISE Act diverges from SB 1047 in a few ways. For one, SB 1047 would have created the Board of Frontier Models, tasked with approving updates to the definitions and regulations around these AI models, but the proposed act would not create a new government body. The New York bill also doesn’t create a public cloud computing cluster, which SB 1047 would have done. The cluster was intended to support projects to develop AI for the public good. 

The RAISE Act doesn’t have SB 1047’s requirement that companies be able to halt all operations of their model, a capability sometimes referred to as a “kill switch.” Some critics alleged that the shutdown provision of SB 1047 would harm open-source models, since developers can’t shut down a model someone else may now possess (even though SB 1047 had an exemption for open-source models).

The RAISE Act avoids the fight entirely. SB 1047 referred to an “advanced persistent threat” associated with bad actors trying to steal information during model training. The RAISE Act does away with that definition, sticking to addressing critical harms from covered models.

Focusing on the wrong issues?

Bores’ bill is very specific with its definitions in an effort to clearly delineate what this bill is and isn’t about. The RAISE Act doesn’t address some of the current risks from AI models, like bias, discrimination, and job displacement. Like SB 1047, it is very focused on catastrophic risks from frontier AI models. 

Some in the AI community believe this focus is misguided. “We’re broadly supportive of any efforts to hold large models accountable,” says Kate Brennan, associate director of the AI Now Institute, which conducts AI policy research.

“But defining critical harms only in terms of the most catastrophic harms from the most advanced models overlooks the material risks that AI poses, whether it’s workers subject to surveillance mechanisms, prone to workplace injuries because of algorithmically managed speed rates, climate impacts of large-scale AI systems, data centers exerting massive pressure on local power grids, or data center construction sidestepping key environmental protections,” she says.

Bores has worked on other bills addressing current harms posed by AI systems, like discrimination and lack of transparency. That said, Bores is clear that this new bill is aimed at mitigating catastrophic risks from more advanced models. “We’re not talking about any model that exists right now,” he says. “We are talking about truly frontier models, those on the edge of what we can build and what we understand, and there is risk in that.” 

The bill would cover only models that pass a certain threshold for how many computations their training required, typically measured in FLOPs (floating-point operations). In the bill, a covered model is one that requires more than 1026 FLOPs in its training and costs over $100 million. For reference, GPT-4 is estimated to have required 1025 FLOPs. 

This approach may draw scrutiny from industry forces. “While we can’t comment specifically on legislation that isn’t public yet, we believe effective regulation should focus on specific applications rather than broad model categories,” says a spokesperson at Hugging Face, a company that opposed SB 1047.

Early days

The bill is in its nascent stages, so it’s subject to many edits in the future, and no opposition has yet formed. There may already be lessons to be learned from the battle over SB 1047, however. “There’s significant disagreement in the space, but I think debate around future legislation would benefit from more clarity around the severity, the likelihood, and the imminence of harms,” says Scott Kohler, a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who tracked the development of SB 1047. 

When asked about the idea of mandated safety plans for AI companies, assembly member Edward Ra, a Republican who hasn’t yet seen a draft of the new bill yet, said: “I don’t have any general problem with the idea of doing that. We expect businesses to be good corporate citizens, but sometimes you do have to put some of that into writing.” 

Ra and Bores co chair the New York Future Caucus, which aims to bring together lawmakers 45 and under to tackle pressing issues that affect future generations.

Scott Wiener, a California state senator who sponsored SB 1047, is happy to see that his initial bill, even though it failed, is inspiring further legislation and discourse. “The bill triggered a conversation about whether we should just trust the AI labs to make good decisions, which some will, but we know from past experience, some won’t make good decisions, and that’s why a level of basic regulation for incredibly powerful technology is important,” he says.

He has his own plans to reignite the fight: “We’re not done in California. There will be continued work in California, including for next year. I’m optimistic that California is gonna be able to get some good things done.”

And some believe the RAISE Act will highlight a notable contradiction: Many of the industry’s players insist that they want regulation, but when any regulation is proposed, they fight against it. “SB 1047 became a referendum on whether AI should be regulated at all,” says Brennan. “There are a lot of things we saw with 1047 that we can expect to see replay in New York if this bill is introduced. We should be prepared to see a massive lobbying reaction that industry is going to bring to even the lightest-touch regulation.”

Wiener and Bores both wish to see regulation at a national level, but in the absence of such legislation, they’ve taken the battle upon themselves. At first it may seem odd for states to take up such important reforms, but California houses the headquarters of the top AI companies, and New York, which has the third-largest state economy in the US, is home to offices for OpenAI and other AI companies. The two states may be well positioned to lead the conversation around regulation. 

“There is uncertainty at the direction of federal policy with the transition upcoming and around the role of Congress,” says Kohler. “It is likely that states will continue to step up in this area.”

Wiener’s advice for New York legislators entering the arena of AI regulation? “Buckle up and get ready.”

Shape
Shape
Stay Ahead

Explore More Insights

More Articles

Stay ahead with more perspectives on cutting-edge power, infrastructure, energy,  bitcoin and AI solutions. Explore these articles to uncover strategies and insights shaping the future of industries.

Shape

Ubuntu namespace vulnerability should be addressed quickly: Expert

Thus, “there is little impact of not ‘patching’ the vulnerability,” he said. “Organizations using centralized configuration tools like Ansible may deploy these changes with regularly scheduled maintenance or reboot windows.”  Features supposed to improve security Ironically, last October Ubuntu introduced AppArmor-based features to improve security by reducing the attack surface

Read More »

Dallas Fed survey shows capex plans holding up despite uncertainty

And yet: Despite those generally upbeat readings, respondents’ comments to Fed analysts were very focused on the uncertainty that the Trump administration’s energy and trade policies have created over the past 10 weeks. That instability, they said, as well as the downward trend in oil prices has many taking a more cautious view of the future even if those attitudes aren’t yet showing up in capex intentions. “Planning for new development is extremely difficult right now due to the uncertainty around steel-based products,” one executive wrote. “Oil prices feel incredibly unstable, and it’s hard to gauge whether prices will be in the $50s per barrel or $70s per barrel. Combined, our ability to plan operations for any meaningful amount of time in the future has been severely diminished.” WTI thresholds for opex, investment Fed researchers this quarter also asked E&P companies some one-time questions about where they need West Texas Intermediate prices to be to cover the operating costs of existing wells as well as to profitably drill a new well. While the central bank asked the same question early last year, the timing of this survey was especially topical given recent comments by US Secretary of Energy to the Financial Times that the industry could still grow production profitably even if WTI fell to $50/bbl.  Not so fast, respondents to the Dallas Fed poll said: On the opex question, their responses averaged $41/bbl (up from $39 a year ago) and ranged from $26 in the Eagle Ford to $45 in parts of the Permian outside the Delaware and Midland basins. But when it comes to justifying investments in new wells, respondents said they need at least $61 (in the Midland) to $70 in the ‘other’ parts of the Permian. The average price they need to profitably drill a new

Read More »

Equinor, Shell, TotalEnergies take FID on Northern Lights CCS expansion

Equinor, Shell, and TotalEnergies have made a final investment decision (FID) to progress phase two of the Northern Lights carbon capture development.  The investment by the Northern Lights JV owners (Equinor, Shell, TotalEnergies) is about $714 million. The expansion project received €131 million from the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) in June 2024. The news comes following a signed commercial agreement with Stockholm Exergi to transport and store 900,000 tonnes/year (tpy) of biogenic CO2 for 15 years. The Northern Lights project comprises transportation, receipt, and permanent storage of CO2 in a reservoir in the northern North Sea. Northern Lights phases The first phase includes capacity to transport, inject, and store up to 1.5 million tpy of CO2. Once the CO2 is captured onshore, it will be transported by ship to the receiving terminal in Øygarden, pumped via pipeline to a subsea structure at the seabed and injected into a geological formation some 2,500 m below the seabed in the North Sea for permanent storage. Phase one operations are planned for this summer, with CO2 from Heidelberg Materials’ cement factory in Brevik expected to arrive at the receiving terminal near Kollsnes on Norway’s west coast. Additionally, Northern Lights will store CO2 from the Hafslund Celsio waste-to-energy plant in Oslo, as part of the Longship project (OGJ Online, Oct. 9, 2024).

Read More »

Infinity Natural Resources plans capex ramp, greater gas emphasis

Leaders of Infinity Natural Resources Inc., Morgantown, W.Va., plan to ramp up capital spending this year across their Appalachian holdings and tilt their development work more toward natural gas. Infinity, which went public earlier this year, spent $166 million last year on drilling and completion work in the Appalachian basin—where it produces oil from the Ohio Utica basin and gas from holdings in the Utica and Marcellus regions—as well as $5.5 million on its midstream assets and $108 million on land. This year, president and chief executive officer Zack Arnold told analysts on a conference call that his team will have “limited need” to add to its land holdings. But Infinity’s leaders are forecasting that their drilling and completions spending will grow this year to $240-280 million as the operator looks to capitalize on improving gas market fundamentals. Spending on midstream assets is expected to grow to $9-12 million. Infinity’s portfolio comprises about 60,000 acres in Pennsylvania that at end-2024 sported 179 undeveloped locations as well as roughly 63,000 net acres in the Utica’s volatile oil window, where it had 154 undeveloped locations. The operator’s 2024 production averaged 24,100 boe/d (27% oil, 53% gas, 20% natural gas liquids), which was an increase of 28% from the year before thanks in large part to the addition of 12 net wells in the Utica. Arnold and his team are planning to grow production to 32,000-35,000 boe/d this year. The company expects to run one rig for the year with a second rig added to initially develop a four-well pad in the Marcellus. “Our 2025 plan highlights a transition towards a greater balance between natural gas and oil-weighted wells,” Arnold said on the call after noting the oil wells turned in line last year as well as the deferral of completion work on

Read More »

Equinor begins production at Johan Castberg

Equinor Energy AS began production at Johan Castberg oil field in the Barents Sea on Mar. 31, 2025. The field is expected to produce for 30 years. Twelve of the 30 total wells are ready for production, sufficient to bring the field up to expected plateau production in second-quarter 2025, the operator said in a release Mar. 31. Drilling operations are expected to continue towards late 2026. Johan Castberg lies 100 km north of Snøhvit field in Blocks 7219/9 and 7220/4,5,7 in 360-390 m of water. The field consists of Skrugard, Havis, and Drivis discoveries made between 2011 and 2014. It is the second oil field in the Barents Sea and Norway’s northernmost field. Field development is based on a production vessel tied back to an extensive subsea field with a total of 30 wells distributed between 10 well templates and two satellite structures (OGJ Online, Dec. 10, 2024). The Equinor-operated Johan Castberg FPSO has a gross capacity of 220,000 b/d of oil. Its design storage capacity is 1.1 million bbl of oil. The field holds gross recoverable volumes of 450-650 million bbl of oil.   The Johan Castberg area holds upside as several new discoveries made in recent years are already being matured into projects, including Johan Castberg Cluster 1, said partner Vår Energi ASA. Cluster 2 is progressing through near field exploration, and an extensive infill drilling program is being planned, the company said. A total of 250-550 million bbl of oil of additional gross unrisked recoverable resources have been identified in the area. Equinor is operator (46.3%) with partners Vår Energi ASA (30%) and Petoro AS (23.7%).

Read More »

Market Focus: Insights from Oil & Gas Journal’s latest capital spending survey

@import url(‘/fonts/fira_sans.css’); a { color: #134e85; } .ebm-page__main h1, .ebm-page__main h2, .ebm-page__main h3, .ebm-page__main h4, .ebm-page__main h5, .ebm-page__main h6 { font-family: “Fira Sans”, Arial, sans-serif; } body { letter-spacing: 0.025em; font-family: “Fira Sans”, Arial, sans-serif; } button, .ebm-button-wrapper { font-family: “Fira Sans”, Arial, sans-serif; } .label-style { text-transform: uppercase; color: var(–color-grey); font-weight: 600; font-size: 0.75rem; } .caption-style { font-size: 0.75rem; opacity: .6; } #onetrust-pc-sdk [id*=btn-handler], #onetrust-pc-sdk [class*=btn-handler] { background-color: #212529 !important; border-color: #212529 !important; } #onetrust-policy a, #onetrust-pc-sdk a, #ot-pc-content a { color: #212529 !important; } #onetrust-consent-sdk #onetrust-pc-sdk .ot-active-menu { border-color: #212529 !important; } #onetrust-consent-sdk #onetrust-accept-btn-handler, #onetrust-banner-sdk #onetrust-reject-all-handler, #onetrust-consent-sdk #onetrust-pc-btn-handler.cookie-setting-link { background-color: #212529 !important; border-color: #212529 !important; } #onetrust-consent-sdk .onetrust-pc-btn-handler { color: #212529 !important; border-color: #212529 !important; background-color: undefined !important; } <!–> In this latest Market Focus episode of the Oil & Gas Journal ReEnterprised podcast, Conglin Xu, Managing Editor, Economics, dives into insights from the latest Oil & Gas Journal capital spending report.  According to the OGJ annual capital spending survey, the combined capex of six major oil companies—ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, Equinor, and TotalEnergies—is projected to be US$108-112 billion in 2025. This marks a decrease from $113.7 billion in 2024 and $114.7 billion in 2023 and remains significantly lower than the pre-pandemic level of $123 billion in 2019. Notably, majors are scaling back on earlier aggressive investments in renewables.  From shifting strategies among oil majors to merger and acquisition activity in the shale sector to new developments in the refining sector and the Canadian oil industry, there’s a lot to unpack.  ]–>          FXQuardro/Shutterstock.com <!–> ]–> <!–> OGJ Premium Members can read the full Capital Spending Update from the Mar/Apr 2025 issue.  ]–>

Read More »

TGNR adds East Texas gas assets in $525-million deal with Chevron

The deal adds over 250 gross locations to TGNR’s existing Haynesville inventory (assuming four wells per section), extending inventory life beyond 20 years at the current development pace, not counting the Bossier and Cotton Valley plays which are commercial at current prices, the company said in a release Mar. 31. According to its website, Chevron holds about 72,000 net acres (283 sq km) in the Haynesville shale in East Texas as of Dec. 31, 2024.  TGNR said the deal’s acreage is “relatively undrilled and held by shallower production, allowing parent-child effects between wells to be mitigated.” The company expects to realize synergies of over $170 million during the assets’ development.  Chevron, in a separate release Mar. 31, said the deal is expected to generate over $1.2 billion in value to the company at current Henry Hub prices through the multi-year capital carry, retained working interest, and overriding royalty interest. For Chevron, the deal with TGNR supports its plans to divest $10-15 billion of assets by 2028. TGNR is focused on the Ark-La-Tex region of East Texas and Northern Louisiana. It is owned by TG East Texas Resources LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Tokyo Gas America, and CCI US Asset Holdings LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Castleton Commodities International LLC.  The purchase price is comprised of $75 million paid in cash and $450 million as a capital carry to fund Haynesville development. 

Read More »

European cloud group invests to create what it dubs “Trump-proof cloud services”

But analysts have questioned whether the Microsoft move truly addresses those European business concerns. Phil Brunkard, executive counselor at Info-Tech Research Group UK, said, commenting on last month’s announcement of the EU Data Boundary for the Microsoft Cloud,  “Microsoft says that customer data will remain stored and processed in the EU and EFTA, but doesn’t guarantee true data sovereignty.” And European companies are now rethinking what data sovereignty means to them. They are moving beyond having it refer to where the data sits to focusing on which vendors control it, and who controls them. Responding to the new Euro cloud plan, another analyst, IDC VP Dave McCarthy, saw the effort as “signaling a growing European push for data control and independence.” “US providers could face tougher competition from EU companies that leverage this tech to offer sovereignty-friendly alternatives. Although €1 million isn’t a game-changer on its own, it’s a clear sign Europe wants to build its own cloud ecosystem—potentially at the expense of US market share,” McCarthy said. “For US providers, this could mean investing in more EU-based data centers or reconfiguring systems to ensure European customers’ data stays within the region. This isn’t just a compliance checkbox. It’s a shift that could hike operational costs and complexity, especially for companies used to running centralized setups.” Adding to the potential bad news for US hyperscalers, McCarthy said that there was little reason to believe that this trend would be limited to Europe. “If Europe pulls this off, other regions might take note and push for similar sovereignty rules. US providers could find themselves adapting to a patchwork of regulations worldwide, forcing a rethink of their global strategies,” McCarthy said. “This isn’t just a European headache, it’s a preview of what could become a broader challenge.”

Read More »

Talent gap complicates cost-conscious cloud planning

The top strategy so far is what one enterprise calls the “Cloud Team.” You assemble all your people with cloud skills, and your own best software architect, and have the team examine current and proposed cloud applications, looking for a high-level approach that meets business goals. In this process, the team tries to avoid implementation specifics, focusing instead on the notion that a hybrid application has an agile cloud side and a governance-and-sovereignty data center side, and what has to be done is push functionality into the right place. The Cloud Team supporters say that an experienced application architect can deal with the cloud in abstract, without detailed knowledge of cloud tools and costs. For example, the architect can assess the value of using an event-driven versus transactional model without fixating on how either could be done. The idea is to first come up with approaches. Then, developers could work with cloud providers to map each approach to an implementation, and assess the costs, benefits, and risks. Ok, I lied about this being the top strategy—sort of, at least. It’s the only strategy that’s making much sense. The enterprises all start their cloud-reassessment journey on a different tack, but they agree it doesn’t work. The knee-jerk approach to cloud costs is to attack the implementation, not the design. What cloud features did you pick? Could you find ones that cost less? Could you perhaps shed all the special features and just host containers or VMs with no web services at all? Enterprises who try this, meaning almost all of them, report that they save less than 15% on cloud costs, a rate of savings that means roughly a five-year payback on the costs of making the application changes…if they can make them at all. Enterprises used to build all of

Read More »

Lightmatter launches photonic chips to eliminate GPU idle time in AI data centers

“Silicon photonics can transform HPC, data centers, and networking by providing greater scalability, better energy efficiency, and seamless integration with existing semiconductor manufacturing and packaging technologies,” Jagadeesan added. “Lightmatter’s recent announcement of the Passage L200 co-packaged optics and M1000 reference platform demonstrates an important step toward addressing the interconnect bandwidth and latency between accelerators in AI data centers.” The market timing appears strategic, as enterprises worldwide face increasing computational demands from AI workloads while simultaneously confronting the physical limitations of traditional semiconductor scaling. Silicon photonics offers a potential path forward as conventional approaches reach their limits. Practical applications For enterprise IT leaders, Lightmatter’s technology could impact several key areas of infrastructure planning. AI development teams could see significantly reduced training times for complex models, enabling faster iteration and deployment of AI solutions. Real-time AI applications could benefit from lower latency between processing units, improving responsiveness for time-sensitive operations. Data centers could potentially achieve higher computational density with fewer networking bottlenecks, allowing more efficient use of physical space and resources. Infrastructure costs might be optimized by more efficient utilization of expensive GPU resources, as processors spend less time waiting for data and more time computing. These benefits would be particularly valuable for financial services, healthcare, research institutions, and technology companies working with large-scale AI deployments. Organizations that rely on real-time analysis of large datasets or require rapid training and deployment of complex AI models stand to gain the most from the technology. “Silicon photonics will be a key technology for interconnects across accelerators, racks, and data center fabrics,” Jagadeesan pointed out. “Chiplets and advanced packaging will coexist and dominate intra-package communication. The key aspect is integration, that is companies who have the potential to combine photonics, chiplets, and packaging in a more efficient way will gain competitive advantage.”

Read More »

Silicon Motion rolls SSD kit to bolster AI workload performance

The kit utilizes the PCIe Dual Ported enterprise-grade SM8366 controller with support for PCIe Gen 5 x4 NVMe 2.0 and OCP 2.5 data center specifications. The 128TB SSD RDK also supports NVMe 2.0 Flexible Data Placement (FDP), a feature that allows advanced data management and improved SSD write efficiency and endurance. “Silicon Motion’s MonTitan SSD RDK offers a comprehensive solution for our customers, enabling them to rapidly develop and deploy enterprise-class SSDs tailored for AI data center and edge server applications.” said Alex Chou, senior vice president of the enterprise storage & display interface solution business at Silicon Motion. Silicon Motion doesn’t make drives, rather it makes reference design kits in different form factors that its customers use to build their own product. Its kits come in E1.S, E3.S, and U.2 form factors. The E1.S and U.2 forms mirror the M.2, which looks like a stick of gum and installs on the motherboard. There are PCI Express enclosures that hold four to six of those drives and plug into one card slot and appear to the system as a single drive.

Read More »

Executive Roundtable: Cooling Imperatives for Managing High-Density AI Workloads

Michael Lahoud, Stream Data Centers: For the past two years, Stream Data Centers has been developing a modular, configurable air and liquid cooling system that can handle the highest densities in both mediums. Based on our collaboration with customers, we see a future that still requires both cooling mediums, but with the flexibility to deploy either type as the IT stack destined for that space demands. With this necessity as a backdrop, we saw a need to develop a scalable mix-and-match front-end thermal solution that gives us the ability to late bind the equipment we need to meet our customers’ changing cooling needs. It’s well understood that liquid far outperforms air in its ability to transport heat, but further to this, with the right IT configuration, cooling fluid temperatures can also be raised, and this affords operators the ability to use economization for a greater number of hours a year. These key properties can help reduce the energy needed for the mechanical part of a data center’s operations substantially.  It should also be noted that as servers are redesigned for liquid cooling and the onboard server fans get removed or reduced in quantity, more of the critical power delivered to the server is being used for compute. This means that liquid cooling also drives an improvement in overall compute productivity despite not being noted in facility PUE metrics.  Counter to air cooling, liquid cooling certainly has some added management challenges related to fluid cleanliness, concurrent maintainability and resiliency/redundancy, but once those are accounted for, the clusters become stable, efficient and more sustainable with improved overall productivity.

Read More »

Airtel connects India with 100Tbps submarine cable

“Businesses are becoming increasingly global and digital-first, with industries such as financial services, data centers, and social media platforms relying heavily on real-time, uninterrupted data flow,” Sinha added. The 2Africa Pearls submarine cable system spans 45,000 kilometers, involving a consortium of global telecommunications leaders including Bayobab, China Mobile International, Meta, Orange, Telecom Egypt, Vodafone Group, and WIOCC. Alcatel Submarine Networks is responsible for the cable’s manufacturing and installation, the statement added. This cable system is part of a broader global effort to enhance international digital connectivity. Unlike traditional telecommunications infrastructure, the 2Africa Pearls project represents a collaborative approach to solving complex global communication challenges. “The 100 Tbps capacity of the 2Africa Pearls cable significantly surpasses most existing submarine cable systems, positioning India as a key hub for high-speed connectivity between Africa, Europe, and Asia,” said Prabhu Ram, VP for Industry Research Group at CyberMedia Research. According to Sinha, Airtel’s infrastructure now spans “over 400,000 route kilometers across 34+ cables, connecting 50 countries across five continents. This expansive infrastructure ensures businesses and individuals stay seamlessly connected, wherever they are.” Gogia further emphasizes the broader implications, noting, “What also stands out is the partnership behind this — Airtel working with Meta and center3 signals a broader shift. India is no longer just a consumer of global connectivity. We’re finally shaping the routes, not just using them.”

Read More »

Microsoft will invest $80B in AI data centers in fiscal 2025

And Microsoft isn’t the only one that is ramping up its investments into AI-enabled data centers. Rival cloud service providers are all investing in either upgrading or opening new data centers to capture a larger chunk of business from developers and users of large language models (LLMs).  In a report published in October 2024, Bloomberg Intelligence estimated that demand for generative AI would push Microsoft, AWS, Google, Oracle, Meta, and Apple would between them devote $200 billion to capex in 2025, up from $110 billion in 2023. Microsoft is one of the biggest spenders, followed closely by Google and AWS, Bloomberg Intelligence said. Its estimate of Microsoft’s capital spending on AI, at $62.4 billion for calendar 2025, is lower than Smith’s claim that the company will invest $80 billion in the fiscal year to June 30, 2025. Both figures, though, are way higher than Microsoft’s 2020 capital expenditure of “just” $17.6 billion. The majority of the increased spending is tied to cloud services and the expansion of AI infrastructure needed to provide compute capacity for OpenAI workloads. Separately, last October Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said his company planned total capex spend of $75 billion in 2024 and even more in 2025, with much of it going to AWS, its cloud computing division.

Read More »

John Deere unveils more autonomous farm machines to address skill labor shortage

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More Self-driving tractors might be the path to self-driving cars. John Deere has revealed a new line of autonomous machines and tech across agriculture, construction and commercial landscaping. The Moline, Illinois-based John Deere has been in business for 187 years, yet it’s been a regular as a non-tech company showing off technology at the big tech trade show in Las Vegas and is back at CES 2025 with more autonomous tractors and other vehicles. This is not something we usually cover, but John Deere has a lot of data that is interesting in the big picture of tech. The message from the company is that there aren’t enough skilled farm laborers to do the work that its customers need. It’s been a challenge for most of the last two decades, said Jahmy Hindman, CTO at John Deere, in a briefing. Much of the tech will come this fall and after that. He noted that the average farmer in the U.S. is over 58 and works 12 to 18 hours a day to grow food for us. And he said the American Farm Bureau Federation estimates there are roughly 2.4 million farm jobs that need to be filled annually; and the agricultural work force continues to shrink. (This is my hint to the anti-immigration crowd). John Deere’s autonomous 9RX Tractor. Farmers can oversee it using an app. While each of these industries experiences their own set of challenges, a commonality across all is skilled labor availability. In construction, about 80% percent of contractors struggle to find skilled labor. And in commercial landscaping, 86% of landscaping business owners can’t find labor to fill open positions, he said. “They have to figure out how to do

Read More »

2025 playbook for enterprise AI success, from agents to evals

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More 2025 is poised to be a pivotal year for enterprise AI. The past year has seen rapid innovation, and this year will see the same. This has made it more critical than ever to revisit your AI strategy to stay competitive and create value for your customers. From scaling AI agents to optimizing costs, here are the five critical areas enterprises should prioritize for their AI strategy this year. 1. Agents: the next generation of automation AI agents are no longer theoretical. In 2025, they’re indispensable tools for enterprises looking to streamline operations and enhance customer interactions. Unlike traditional software, agents powered by large language models (LLMs) can make nuanced decisions, navigate complex multi-step tasks, and integrate seamlessly with tools and APIs. At the start of 2024, agents were not ready for prime time, making frustrating mistakes like hallucinating URLs. They started getting better as frontier large language models themselves improved. “Let me put it this way,” said Sam Witteveen, cofounder of Red Dragon, a company that develops agents for companies, and that recently reviewed the 48 agents it built last year. “Interestingly, the ones that we built at the start of the year, a lot of those worked way better at the end of the year just because the models got better.” Witteveen shared this in the video podcast we filmed to discuss these five big trends in detail. Models are getting better and hallucinating less, and they’re also being trained to do agentic tasks. Another feature that the model providers are researching is a way to use the LLM as a judge, and as models get cheaper (something we’ll cover below), companies can use three or more models to

Read More »

OpenAI’s red teaming innovations define new essentials for security leaders in the AI era

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More OpenAI has taken a more aggressive approach to red teaming than its AI competitors, demonstrating its security teams’ advanced capabilities in two areas: multi-step reinforcement and external red teaming. OpenAI recently released two papers that set a new competitive standard for improving the quality, reliability and safety of AI models in these two techniques and more. The first paper, “OpenAI’s Approach to External Red Teaming for AI Models and Systems,” reports that specialized teams outside the company have proven effective in uncovering vulnerabilities that might otherwise have made it into a released model because in-house testing techniques may have missed them. In the second paper, “Diverse and Effective Red Teaming with Auto-Generated Rewards and Multi-Step Reinforcement Learning,” OpenAI introduces an automated framework that relies on iterative reinforcement learning to generate a broad spectrum of novel, wide-ranging attacks. Going all-in on red teaming pays practical, competitive dividends It’s encouraging to see competitive intensity in red teaming growing among AI companies. When Anthropic released its AI red team guidelines in June of last year, it joined AI providers including Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, OpenAI, and even the U.S.’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which all had released red teaming frameworks. Investing heavily in red teaming yields tangible benefits for security leaders in any organization. OpenAI’s paper on external red teaming provides a detailed analysis of how the company strives to create specialized external teams that include cybersecurity and subject matter experts. The goal is to see if knowledgeable external teams can defeat models’ security perimeters and find gaps in their security, biases and controls that prompt-based testing couldn’t find. What makes OpenAI’s recent papers noteworthy is how well they define using human-in-the-middle

Read More »
More Articles