Apple is reportedly working on its most significant software overhaul to watchOS in recent memory. According to Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman, the company is redesigning the Apple Watch’s user interface to make widgets a “central part” of how you will interact with the wearable. In describing the new UI, Gurman says it brings back elements of the Glances system that was part of the original watchOS while borrowing the “style” of widgets Apple introduced alongside iOS 14 last year. 

He adds the new interface will be “reminiscent” of the Siri watch face that the company introduced with watchOS 4 in 2017 but will function as an overlay for whatever watch face you wish to use. “It’s also similar to widget stacks,” Gurman adds, referencing the iOS feature that allows you to scroll through widgets you've placed on top of one another.

Simultaneously, Apple is reportedly testing a tweak to the Apple Watch’s physical buttons. With the interface redesign, pressing down on the digital crown could launch the operating system’s new widgets view instead of taking you to the home screen like the dial currently does with watchOS 9.

With the likelihood that the redesign will be jarring for some, Gurman speculates Apple plans to make the new interface optional at first. Additionally, he suggests the overhaul is an admission that an iPhone-like app experience “doesn’t always make sense on a watch – a place where you want as much information as possible with the least amount of poking around.” With WWDC 2023 a little more than a month away, it won’t be long before Apple shares more information about what Watch users can expect from its wearable’s next big software update.

If you’ve been patiently waiting for a sale on the 5th-generation Echo Dot, now is the time to buy one. A handful of models are on sale. To start, you can get the basic model for $30 or 40 percent off. That’s only $5 more than the Echo Dot’s all-time low price. Moreover, all three colorways – charcoal, deep sea blue and glacier white – are part of the sale. Alternatively, the Echo Dot with Clock is also on sale. Currently, it’s $40 or 33 percent off its usual $60 price. As before, the sale includes all the available colorways. 

The Echo Dot is one of the least expensive smart speakers out there. That said, you get a lot of value for your money. It offers surprisingly good sound quality while being small enough to fit almost anywhere. The Echo Dot also comes with a 3.5mm audio output, allowing you to connect it to an amp or set of headphones. Of course, it also provides access to Alexa and all the smart home integration you could want. For those reasons, the Echo Dot is one of Engadget’s favorite smart speakers. The Echo Dot with Clock has all the features found on its less expensive sibling but can also show the time, weather and timers. That capability makes it an excellent fit for the kitchen or anywhere you want to keep tabs on the time.

Follow @EngadgetDeals on Twitter and subscribe to the Engadget Deals newsletter for the latest tech deals and buying advice.

All of those fantastical possibilities promised by burgeoning brain-computer interface technology come with the unavoidable cost of needing its potentially hackable wetware to ride shotgun in your skull. Given how often our personal data is already mishandled online, do we really want to trust the Tech Bros of Silicon Valley with our most personal of biometrics, our brainwaves? In her new book, The Battle for Your Brain: Defending the Right to Think Freely in the Age of Neurotechnology, Robinson O. Everett Professor of Law at Duke University, Nita A. Farahany, examines the legal, ethical, and moral threats that tomorrow's neurotechnologies could pose. 

St. Martin’s Publishing Group

From The Battle for Your Brain: Defending the Right to Think Freely in the Age of Neurotechnology by Nita A. Farahany. Copyright © 2023 by the author and reprinted by permission of St. Martin’s Publishing Group.

“Passthoughts” as a Gateway to Brain Surveillance

Assume that Meta, Google, Microsoft, and other big tech companies soon have their way, and neural interface devices replace keyboards and mice. In that likely future, a large segment of the population will routinely wear neural devices like NextSense’s bio-sensing EEG earbuds, which are designed to be worn twenty-four hours a day. With wide-scale adoption of wearable neurotechnology, adding our brain activity to nationwide identification systems is a near-term reality.

One of the most extraordinary discoveries of modern neuroscience is the uniqueness of each person’s functional brain connection (its physical wiring), especially in the brain areas devoted to thinking or remembering something. Because of this, algorithms can be used to analyze our brain activity and extract features that are both unique to each person and stable over time. How your brain responds to a song or an image, for example, is highly dependent upon your prior experiences. The unique brain patterns you generate could be used to authenticate your identity.

Nationwide identification systems vary by country but generally involve the assignment of unique identification numbers, which can be used for border checks, employment screenings, health-care delivery, or to interact with security systems. These ID numbers are stored in centralized government databases along with other significant personal data, including birth date and place, height, weight, eye color, address, and other information. Most identification systems have long included at least one piece of biometric data, the static photo used in passports and driver’s licenses. But governments are quickly moving toward more expansive biometric features that include the brain.

Biometric characteristics are special because they are highly distinctive and have little to no overlap between individuals. As the artificial intelligence algorithms powering biometric systems have become more powerful, they can identify unique features in the eyes and the face, or even in a person’s behavior. Brain-based biometric authentication has security advantages over other biometric data because it is concealed, dynamic, non-stationary, and incredibly complex.

The promise of greater security has led countries to invest heavily in biometric authentication. China has an extensive nationwide biometric database that includes DNA samples, and it also makes widespread use of facial recognition technology. Chinese authorities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region have conducted mass collections of biometric data from the Uyghur people and used it for targeted discrimination.

The United States has also massively expanded its collection of biometric data. A recent report by the US Government Accountability Office detailed at least eighteen different federal agencies that have some kind of facial recognition program in place. US Customs and Border Protection includes facial recognition as part of its pre-boarding screening process, and an executive order signed by President Trump in 2017 required the United States’ top twenty airports to implement biometric screening on incoming international passengers.

Increasingly, governments are investing in developing brain biometric measurements. The US Department of Defense recently funded SPARK Neuro, a New York–based company that has been working on a biometric system that combines EEG brain wave data, changes in sweat gland activity, facial recognition, eye-tracking, and even functional near-infrared spectrometry brain imaging (fNIRS), a particularly promising (if expensive) technology for brain authentication, since it is wearable, can be used to monitor individuals over time, can be used indoors or outdoors while a person is moving or at rest, and can be used on infants and children. China has been funneling substantial investments into EEG and fNIRS as well.

For biometric features to be successfully used for authentication, they must have universality, permanence, uniqueness, and be secure against fraud. Over time, static biometrics like facial IDs and fingerprints have become prone to spoofing. Functional biometrics, such as brain activity, are less prone to attack. That feature has motivated researchers like Jinani Sooriyaarachchi and her colleagues in Australia to develop scalable brain-based authentication systems. In one of their most recent studies, they recruited twenty volunteers and asked them to listen to both a popular English song and their own favorite song while their brain wave activity was recorded with a four-channel (an electrode capturing brain wave activity is called a channel) Muse headset. Afterward, the researchers analyzed their recorded brain wave activity using an artificial-intelligence classifier algorithm. Remarkably, they achieved 98.39 percent accuracy in identifying the correct participant when they listened to the familiar song, and a 99.46 percent accuracy when they listened to their favorite song. Using an eight-channel EEG headset on thirty research subjects, another group achieved a similar 98 percent accuracy in authenticating participants by their brain wave data after they’d looked at novel images. It might not even take eight or even four electrodes to achieve the same result. Even with just a single-channel EEG headset, researchers have achieved 99 percent accuracy in distinguishing between participants when they performed the same mental tasks. Most of these studies had a small number of participants; it is not yet clear if neural signatures will be as accurate at scale, when billions rather than dozens of people must be authenticated. EEG is inherently noisy—meaning the signals the electrodes pick up can come from eye-blinking or other movement, which can make it hard to tell the difference between brain activity or interference. But researchers have made substantial progress in developing pattern classifiers that filter noise, allowing them to discriminate between individuals based on their resting-state EEG brain wave activity and when performing tasks. As noted previously, EEG devices have been used to recover sensitive information from a person’s brain, such as their PIN codes, and their political and religious ideologies. Obviously, this poses clear risks to our digital and physical security.

Governments can already tap our phone conversations and snoop on us digitally. Will they similarly tap our brain activity data without our knowledge or consent? Will they deploy AI programs to search our brains for terrorist plots? Will they gather neural data to make inferences about individuals’ political beliefs to predict and prevent peaceful protests? China is reportedly already doing so.

Twitter might provide publishers with a new way to earn from their content outside of the typical recurring subscription option. According to company chief Elon Musk, Twitter will allow media publishers to charge users for access to individual articles they post on the website as as soon as next month. Users will end up paying a higher per-article price than what the cost of access to every article would amount to if they had a subscription instead. But Musk said it's for those who want to read the occasional story from a specific outlet, so each article probably wouldn't cost as much as a monthly subscription. 

At this point in time, though, details about the upcoming feature remain vague. Musk only said that it will start rolling out next month — it's unclear what kinds of accounts and media outlets will be able to offer per-article charging. In addition, Twitter's owner didn't say how much the website would be taking as commission. When the company officially replaced Super Follows with Subscriptions, Musk announced that it won't be taking any money from creators for the next 12 months. After the year is up, Twitter will be taking a 10 percent cut on subscriptions. 

Engadget has reached out to the website for clarification, but it doesn't have a press team anymore. We'll have to wait for more information to know if Twitter will implement the same rule for per-article payments. Ultimately, the company will be taking a cut — Twitter, under Musk, has been introducing more and more paid features to boost revenue. It's pretty common knowledge at this point that its verification badge now comes as a perk for its $8-a-month Blue subscription. Twitter also shut down its free API to launch a new one that users would have to pay for. It would cost enterprise customers almost $50,000 a month to access the new API, so some organizations and companies such as NYC's transport authority had chosen to end Twitter integration or to leave the website instead. 

After more than three years of litigation, Apple has quietly dropped its lawsuit against Gerard Williams III, the former chip executive the company accused of poaching employees. Williams spent nearly a decade working for Apple, leading development on some of its most important chips – including the A7, the first 64-bit processor for mobile devices.

In 2019, Williams left Apple to co-found Nuvia, a chip design firm later acquired by Qualcomm in 2021. When the tech giant first sued Williams, it accused him of “secretly” starting Nuvia and recruiting talent for his startup while he was still an Apple employee. Williams disputed Apple’s claims and accused the company of spying on his text messages.

As reported by Bloomberg, Apple filed a request to dismiss the suit against Williams earlier this week. The document does not state the company’s reason for dropping the case. However, it does say Apple did so “with prejudice,” meaning it cannot file the same claim against Williams again. It also suggests the two sides came to a settlement. Apple did not immediately respond to Engadget’s comment request.

In the weeks leading up to Wednesday’s dismissal request, court documents show Apple sought the recusal of Judge Sunil Kulkarni. Around March 17th, 2023, the company added two lawyers from the legal firm Morrison and Foerster to the team litigating its case against Williams. On March 28th, Judge Sunil Kulkarni filed a brief disclosing that he had worked at Morrison and Foerster for approximately 13 years and had kept in contact “over the years” with Bryan Wilson and Ken Kuwayti, the two “MoFo” attorneys Apple hired on as counsel earlier in the month.

“I have occasional social interactions with them (e.g., bimonthly lunches, seeing them at parties of mutual friends, and so on),” Judge Kulkarni wrote. “I believe I have recused myself from past cases involving Mr. Wilson and/or Mr. Kuwayti, but solely as a prophylactic measure.” After learning of the involvement of his former colleagues, Judge Kulkarni held an “informal” meeting with the two sides where he said he was “leaning toward recusal” if Apple retained the counsel of either Wilson or Kuwayti. In that same meeting, Kulkarni says he told Apple and Williams his recusal from the case would likely mean a delay in the case going to trial. Before the meeting, the case was scheduled to go to trial on October 2nd, 2023.

In a brief filed on April 6th, Williams and his legal team came out strongly against the idea of Judge Kulkarni removing himself from the case, arguing Apple’s position on the subject “should not matter” and that the move had the potential to be “prejudicial” against the former exec.

“Given that this case has been pending for over three years – with a fast-approaching discovery deadline and trial date – and given the Court’s familiarity with the parties, the case history, and the applicable law, the Court’s recusal decision has the potential to be prejudicial and disruptive,” the brief states. It then argues it was Apple that introduced a potential conflict of interest to the case.

“Even if a conflict existed that might warrant recusal, the procedure imposed by the Court – allowing the party that introduced the ‘conflict’ and would theoretically stand to benefit from it – to decide whether to waive it is inconsistent with basic rules of fairness and due process,” the brief concludes. “Such a procedure would set a dangerous precedent for judge shopping in the middle of a case: any part, at any time, could recruit former colleagues of a sitting judge and then force his or her recusal.”

Putting together what happened after that point is more difficult. However, after the 6th, the court in Santa Clara held multiple hearings where no one from either side appeared. Apple then filed to dismiss the case on April 26th. Qualcomm, Williams' current employer, did not immediately respond to Engadget's request for comment. 

With Google I/O less than two weeks away, the Pixel leaks are starting to come hard and fast. On Friday, leaker (and former Engadget editor) Evan Blass shared (via The Verge) two 4K renders of the Pixel Fold. The images almost certainly originally came from Google, so they offer our best look at the device yet.

Unfortunately, Blass didn’t post an image of the front of the foldable, so, for at least the time being, we can’t compare the renders against the alleged video of the Pixel Fold that leaker Kuba Wojciechowski uploaded on April 21st. What’s more, the one render of the Fold’s back cover doesn’t give a sense of how pronounced the camera bump is. However, they do show a device that looks sleeker than the one we’ve seen leak before.

Evan Blass

The Pixel Fold will reportedly cost $1,700 when it arrives later this year. According to a recent CNBC report, the device will feature a 7.6-inch foldable display and a 5.8-inch external screen. It will also supposedly sport the “most durable hinge” on any foldable device to date. Judging from the images Blass shared, there may be some merit to that claim. 

Separately, Blass shared an image of the Pixel 7a in a striking coral colorway. Google is expected to offer its next midrange device in three other colors — blue, black and white — and the device could cost $50 more than its predecessor. With Google I/O set for May 10th, expect to learn more about the Pixel Fold and Pixel 7a soon.  

More media outlets are using AI to write articles, if not as aggressively as others. VentureBeat editorial director Michale Nuñez tellsBloomberg his publication is using Microsoft's Bing Chat to help edit and write stories. Reporters are encouraged to slip AI-written "sentences and fragments" into articles so long as they're accurate and independently verifiable.

The OpenAI-powered tech is akin to having "another person on the team," Nuñez says. It theoretically summarizes content in seconds instead of hours. VentureBeat doesn't disclose the use of AI content provided it's limited and authentic, but also doesn't intend to create whole articles using the technology.

Word surfaced in January that CNET had been using AI to produce entire financial explainer articles since November. Although characterized as a trial, over half of the articles required at least minor corrections. Some effectively plagiarized their sources. It also wasn't clear that algorithms had produced the pieces.

Generative AI like Bing Chat, ChatGPT and Google Bard has become increasingly popular as a creative tool, for search results and even for entertainment. However, there are ethical concerns that include plagiarism, basic accuracy and cheating. There are also questions of trust — should creators disclose uses of AI, even if it's minor and undetectable? While the broader news industry isn't expected to completely replace human writers, there are worries AI might be used to reduce the need for real people.

OpenAI says ChatGPT is once again available in Italy after it addressed a series of conditions set out by regulators. The Garante data protection authority wanted OpenAI to resolve several issues by the end of this month in order to lift a temporary ban on the chatbot. 

“ChatGPT is available again to our users in Italy,” OpenAI told the Associated Press in a statement. “We are excited to welcome them back, and we remain dedicated to protecting their privacy.”

Italian regulators blocked ChatGPT in March over concerns that the AI's training methods and chatbot violated the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Officials ordered OpenAI to stop processing the personal information of users in the country while they looked into a potential data breach.

Earlier this month, the Garante told OpenAI to make sure there was a privacy disclosure on the website that details how data is collected and used to train ChatGPT's algorithms. The watchdog also directed the company to offer a form through which EU users could object to having their data used for training purposes and to add an age verification system.

OpenAI added privacy controls to ChatGPT this week. Among other things, the settings allow users to switch off their chat histories, which stops OpenAI from using that data for training purposes. According to TechCrunch, users in Italy are now seeing a pop-up that asks them to confirm they are aged at least 18 or, if they're between 13 and 17, that they have a parent's or guardian's consent to use ChatGPT.

Italy's data protection authority said in a statement that it "welcomes the measures OpenAI implemented," though it urged the company to follow through on other demands that the Garante has made. "This applies in particular to implementing an age verification system and planning and conducting an information campaign to inform Italians of what happened as well as of their right to opt-out from the processing of their personal data for training algorithms."

The watchdog added that it hopes OpenAI will keep up efforts to comply with the GDPR and suggested it will be keeping an eye on ChatGPT. "The Italian [supervisory authority] will carry on its fact-finding activities regarding OpenAI also under the umbrella of the ad-hoc task force that was set up by the European Data Protection Board," the statement concluded.

Paypal-owned money transfer service Venmo dipped its toes into cryptocurrencies in 2021 after opening up an in-app trading platform. That was just for individuals to buy or sell crypto. Now, the company is going further into the once-heralded digital currency space by allowing users to send crypto directly to other Venmo customers.

This looks to be Venmo’s attempt to simplify the often-confusing task of sending crypto to other people. To that end, the company says this feat is easily accomplished in a “few simple steps.” Just head to the Crypto tab, tap the transfer arrow and follow the prompts. Venmo’s new platform also lets you send currency to Paypal handles and any external crypto wallet. You can also tap Receive to display a QR code that’s embedded with your unique crypto address.

This does seem much easier than rival platforms, but this is crypto, so there is a major caveat. These transfers are not protected in any way, shape or form. They cannot be canceled or reversed, so triple-check the Venmo handle or wallet address before slapping that send button. Once it’s gone, it’s gone.

More details on the actual transfer process are found here and Venmo says the update will begin rolling out to users in the next week, but this is a tiered update, so it could be until the end of May before everyone has access to the feature. This tool will not be available in Hawaii and New York and it only pertains to cryptocurrencies available for purchase on Venmo, like Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin and Bitcoin Cash.

Despite the public’s love affair with crypto starting to cool down, Venmo says that its trading platform has seen steady growth. It boasts that nearly 75 percent of crypto customers have held onto their funds since 2021 and that 50 percent have expanded their balance since the beginning of 2023.

Bipartisan US lawmakers from both chambers of Congress introduced legislation this week that would formally prohibit AI from launching nuclear weapons. Although Department of Defense policy already states that a human must be “in the loop” for such critical decisions, the new bill — the Block Nuclear Launch by Autonomous Artificial Intelligence Act — would codify that policy, preventing the use of federal funds for an automated nuclear launch without “meaningful human control.”

Aiming to protect “future generations from potentially devastating consequences,” the bill was introduced by Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) and Representatives Ted Lieu (D-MA), Don Beyer (D-VA) and Ken Buck (R-CO). Senate co-sponsors include Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). “As we live in an increasingly digital age, we need to ensure that humans hold the power alone to command, control, and launch nuclear weapons – not robots,” said Markey. “That is why I am proud to introduce the Block Nuclear Launch by Autonomous Artificial Intelligence Act. We need to keep humans in the loop on making life or death decisions to use deadly force, especially for our most dangerous weapons.”

Artificial intelligence chatbots (like the ever-popular ChatGPT, the more advanced GPT-4 and Google Bard), image generators and voice cloners have taken the world by storm in recent months. (Republicans are already using AI-generated images in political attack ads.) Various experts have voiced concerns that, if left unregulated, humanity could face grave consequences. “Lawmakers are often too slow to adapt to the rapidly changing technological environment,” Cason Schmit, Assistant Professor of Public Health at Texas A&M University, toldThe Conversation earlier this month. Although the federal government hasn’t passed any AI-based legislation since the proliferation of AI chatbots, a group of tech leaders and AI experts signed a letter in March requesting an “immediate” six-month pause on developing AI systems beyond GPT-4. Additionally, the Biden administration recently opened comments seeking public feedback about possible AI regulations.

“While we all try to grapple with the pace at which AI is accelerating, the future of AI and its role in society remains unclear,” said Rep. Lieu. “It is our job as Members of Congress to have responsible foresight when it comes to protecting future generations from potentially devastating consequences. That’s why I’m pleased to introduce the bipartisan, bicameral Block Nuclear Launch by Autonomous AI Act, which will ensure that no matter what happens in the future, a human being has control over the employment of a nuclear weapon – not a robot. AI can never be a substitute for human judgment when it comes to launching nuclear weapons.”

Given the current political climate in Washington, passing even the most common-sense of bills isn’t guaranteed. Nevertheless, perhaps a proposal as fundamental as “don’t let computers decide to obliterate humanity” will serve as a litmus test for how prepared the US government is to deal with this quickly evolving technology.