In brief OpenAI has disbanded its AI robotics team and is no longer trying to apply machine learning to physical machines.
Wojciech Zaremba, co-founder of OpenAI, who led the robotics group confirmed that the company recently broke up the team to focus working on more promising areas of artificial general intelligence research.
“Here’s a reveal … as of recently we changed the focus at OpenAI, and I actually disbanded the robotics team,” he said during an episode of the Weights & Biases podcast.
Zaremba said a lack of training data was holding the robotics research back: there wasn’t enough information on hand to teach the systems to the level of intelligence desired.
“From the perspective of what we want to achieve, which is to build AGI, I think there was actually some components missing,” he added. A spokesperson from OpenAI this week confirmed it had, indeed, stopped working on robotics.
You can now download a top AI model for protein prediction
DeepMind released AlphaFold, the most advanced protein-structure-predicting machine-learning model yet, on GitHub, this week.
If you want to play around with it, you’ll need to be familiar with Docker, and have the space to store hundreds of gigabytes of genetic sequencing data as well as the model.
AlphaFold is trained to predict how a protein folds and takes shape given its constituent amino acids. Last year, DeepMind entered its system into the Critical Assessment of Protein Structure Prediction contest, and thrashed its rivals.
DeepMind’s goal is to get the model accurate enough to be useful in developing drugs that can target specific proteins to cure or mitigate diseases. A paper by DeepMind on AlphaFold’s design was published this month in Nature.
In a separate project, a large team of researchers at various universities and academic institutions also published their own open-source AI protein folding model. Known as RoseTTaFold, it doesn’t perform as well as AlphaFold though it’s not too shabby, according to a paper published in Science.
Is it wrong to bring dead people back to life in documentaries without telling the audience?
A New Yorker review of Roadrunner, a documentary about the late and great Anthony Bourdain, has sparked questions over whether it’s ethical or not to use machine-learning technology to low-key fake people’s voices.
In the magazine piece, the documentary’s filmmaker Morgan Neville admitted to using software that mimicked Bourdain’s voice, making the celebrity chef and writer say words he had only written. Specifically, the software was used to read out an email Bourdain had written to a friend. The code was trained on clips of Bourdain speaking on TV, radio, audiobooks, and podcasts.
“If you watch the film … you probably don’t know what the other lines are that were spoken by the AI, and you’re not going to know,” Neville said. “We can have a documentary-ethics panel about it later.”
Should the director tell viewers or listeners when an audio clip has been synthetically generated? Does it matter, seeing as Bourdain did express those sentiments albeit in an email and not into a microphone? Will this blow a hole in trust in future documentaries, journalism, and media output? This Tech Policy Press interview with Sam Gregory – a deep-fakes expert and program director of Witness Media Lab – has more on that.
Discord believes AI can help moderate hate speech online
IRC-for-the-next-generation Discord has snapped up an AI startup for its automated moderation tools.
Sentropy, based in Palo Alto, California, confirmed the deal in a blog post this week. “Three years after starting this company with Michele, Ethan, and Taylor, I’m thrilled to announce that we’re joining Discord to continue fighting against hate and abuse on the internet,” said CEO and co-founder John Redgrave.
The upstart has built proprietary machine-learning models said to be capable of detecting hate speech and toxic language to shut down online harassment. The amount Discord paid to acquire Sentropy’s technology and team was not disclosed.
Discord was known for being primarily popular with gamers, though it has exploded in use in other communities, from programming to cryptocurrencies. It reportedly walked away from a $10bn offer by Microsoft, earlier this year. ®
China’s efforts to end its reliance on Microsoft Windows got a boost with the launch of the openKylin project.
The initiative aims to accelerate development of the country’s home-grown Kylin Linux distro by opening the project up to a broader community of developers, colleges, and universities to contribute code.
Launched in 2001, Kylin was based on a FreeBSD kernel and was intended for use in government and military offices, where Chinese authorities have repeatedly attempted to eliminate foreign operating systems.
In 2010, the operating system made the switch to the Linux kernel, and in 2014 an Ubuntu-based version of the OS was introduced after Canonical reached an agreement with Chinese authorities to develop the software.
The openKylin project appears to be the latest phase of that project, and is focused on version planning, platform development, and establishing a community charter. To date, the project has garnered support from nearly two dozen Chinese firms and institutions, including China’s Advanced Operating System Innovation Center.
These industry partners will contribute to several special interest groups to improve various aspects of the operating system over time. Examples include optimizations for the latest generation of Intel and AMD processors, where available; support for emerging RISC-V CPUs; development of an x86-to-RISC-V translation layer; and improvements to the Ubuntu Kylin User Interface (UKUI) window manager for tablet and convertible devices.
China’s love-hate relationship with Microsoft
China’s efforts to rid itself of Redmond are by no means new. As far back as 2000, Chinese authorities ordered government offices to remove Windows in favor of Red Flag Linux.
However, in the case of Red Flag Linux, those efforts ultimately went nowhere after the project failed to catch on. The org was ultimately dissolved, and the team terminated in 2014. Despite its collapse, the project appears to have been rebooted, with a release slated to launch later this year.
This is a story that would repeat on a regular cadence, fueled by periodic spats between Uncle Sam and software vendors.
It’s safe to say the Chinese government has something of a love-hate relationship with Redmond. In 2013, Chinese authorities urged Microsoft to extend support for Windows XP, on which the country still relied heavily.
However, a year later, the Chinese government banned Windows 8 in much of the public sector, just months after Microsoft ended support for Windows XP.
Today, Microsoft controls roughly 85 percent of the desktop operating system market as of June 2022, according to Statcounter.
It doesn’t appear those efforts bought Microsoft’s American partners much in terms of goodwill, with Chinese authorities directing government agencies to throw out all foreign-made personal computers this spring. ®
The Shannon-based project aims to integrate the operations of uncrewed and conventional aircraft to modernise air traffic management in Europe.
A European consortium based in Shannon has received EU funding to develop a flight ecosystem for drones and help integrate uncrewed aircraft into our airspace.
Coordinated by Future Mobility Campus Ireland (FMCI), this consortium will conduct a three-year engineering project to develop, deploy and optimise this type of system in Europe.
Describing itself as Ireland’s “first testbed for future mobility”, FMCI is a development centre based in the Shannon Free Zone focused on innovation in both ground and air mobility tech.
Illustration of the Advanced Aerial Mobility Hub at FMCI. Image: FMCI
FMCI said the research project, known as EALU-AER, represents a “major vote of confidence” in Ireland’s local expertise, industry operators and the resourcing of air mobility development.
Other members of the consortium include Shannon Group, the Irish Aviation Authority, Collins Aerospace, Dublin-based Avtrain, and Deep Blue in Italy.
The consortium has received the three-year funding award to develop uncrewed aviation business opportunities in Ireland, as part of a collaborative research project that could help modernise air traffic management in Europe.
The consortium said the new funding will help build an end-to-end ecosystem that supports the safe operation of uncrewed flights. The goal is to help integrate the operations of both uncrewed and conventional aircraft.
“This will result in developing and building out the critical infrastructure to allow advanced air mobility proliferate across Europe,” FMCI CEO Russell Vickers said.
“It will secure access to airspace for large numbers of drones and eVTOL [electric vertical take-off and landing] aircraft, resulting in safe, cost-effective and sustainable transport of freight and people in the future.”
The project’s work will be based at FMCI’s Advanced Aerial Mobility Research Test and Development Facilities in Shannon, but will include a network of Advanced Air Mobility routes across Ireland.
FMCI has already worked with Avtrain and Shannon Group to trial freight delivery services using beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) drones.
“We are entering a new era of innovation where the success of the industry will depend on the integration of uncrewed aircraft into our airspace, rather than the segregation of airspace,” Avtrain CEO Julie Garland said.
Funding for the project came from the SESAR 3 Joint Undertaking, which is partnership of private and public sector entities in the EU that aim to accelerate the delivery of the Digital European Sky through research and innovation.
It comes as people are increasingly looking at the potential of drones and uncrewed flight technology. A Dublin City Council initiative recently looked to show how local government can utilise drones in areas such as civil defence, emergency response, public safety and environmental monitoring.
10 things you need to know direct to your inbox every weekday. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic’s digest of essential sci-tech news.
Having an ice pack strapped to your chest – that’s how some describe the experience of taking a walk in cold weather when you have breast implants. Silicone only slowly reaches body temperature once out of the cold, so that icy feeling can persist for hours. As well as being uncomfortable, for breast cancer survivors it can be an unwelcome reminder of a disease they would rather put behind them.
Every year, 2 million people worldwide are diagnosed with breast cancer and the treatment often involves removing at least one breast. But most choose not to have their breasts reconstructed; in the UK, it is only about 30%. Now a handful of startups want to change that, armed with 3D-printed implants that grow new breast tissue before breaking down without a trace. “The whole implant is fully degradable,” says Julien Payen, CEO of the startup Lattice Medical, “so after 18 months you don’t have any product in your body.”
It could spell the end not only of cold breasts, but the high complication rates and long surgeries associated with conventional breast reconstruction. The first human trial of such an implant, Lattice Medical’s Mattisse implant, is scheduled to begin on 11 July in Georgia. Others will soon follow. “We expect to start clinical trials in two years’ time,” says Sophie Brac de la Perrière, CEO of another startup, Healshape.
“It’s exciting,” says Stephanie Willerth, professor of biomedical engineering at the University of Victoria, Canada, who is not involved with the companies. “As engineers, we’ve been playing with 3D printing for half a decade”, but having a clinical use that doctors recognise as useful for patients is key to getting the technology out there, she says.
But in a field fraught with difficult medical compromises, unequal access issues and expectations about what women want, the question is how big an impact the new technology will actually have.
Today, there are two main types of breast reconstruction: silicone implants and flap surgery. While implants are easy to install, flap surgery is a highly specialised business that requires a tissue “flap” being taken from the stomach, thigh or back. Surgeons often recommend flaps because, while there’s a lot of initial surgery and a longer recovery period, it gives a good, long-lasting result.
Silicone is still the most common choice. It is easy and simple, which appeals to cancer patients who either medically can’t have or mentally can’t face having tissue removed from another part of their body. But “it’s far from perfect”, says Shelley Potter, an oncoplastic surgeon at the University of Bristol and the Bristol Breast Care Centre. “It’s quite high risk. There’s a 10% chance of losing an implant.”
Silicone implants also require replacement every 10 or so years and they have had their fair share of scandals: the 2010s PIP scandal, in which a major implant manufacturer was found to have made its implants of dodgy silicone, and the 2018 Allergan scandal, in which popular textured implants were linked to an increased risk of a rare lymphoma. And as an American study from last year shows, it is mainly the idea of having that foreign object stuck inside your body that puts many off reconstruction altogether.
“So what we want to do,” says Brac de la Perrière, “is to give the benefits of the different solutions without the constraints.” In other words: the single, simple surgery of an implant, but without any lingering foreign material to cause trouble.
This can be achieved in different ways. Healshape uses a hydrogel to 3D-print a soft implant that will slowly be colonised by the person’s own fat cells, the initial batch of which is injected, while the implant disappears over six to nine months. The company CollPlant is developing something similar using a special collagen bioink, extracted from tobacco leaves it has genetically engineered to produce human collagen. “I think it will change the opinion of many patients,” says CEO, Yehiel Tal.
Lattice Medical has a different approach. Its implant is a 3D-printed cage made of a degradable biopolymer, in which they encase a small flap from underneath the breast area. This flap then grows to fill the cage with fat tissue, while the cage itself is absorbed by the body, ultimately leaving a regrown breast in its place.
Regrowing breasts using a cage has been shown to work in humans before, in a 2016 trial. However, it only worked in one of five women and the cages were not degradable. Andrea O’Connor from the University of Melbourne, Australia, who led the trial’s engineering team, hopes the new trial will address the problems raised in the first – for example, that patient responses can vary greatly. But if successful, it “would have the potential to help many women to achieve a superior reconstruction”, she says. Lattice Medical says its cage is an improvement because a flat base and larger pores help the tissue grow.
One big unknown is how much feeling the regrown breasts will have. A mastectomy usually means losing some sensation and, according to plastic surgeon Stefania Tuinder from the Maastricht University Medical Centre+ in the Netherlands, reconstruction affects it too. “From our data, it seems that implants have a negative effect on sensation, so the feeling in the skin is less than when you have only a mastectomy,” she says. In comparison, reconstruction from a flap with connected nerves can bring back some feeling within a few years.
Tuinder suspects the implant numbness is both because of nerve damage when the implants are inserted, and because the nerves can’t grow back once they are blocked by a lump of silicone. Whether that will also apply to the new implants remains to be seen, but since eventually there will be nothing to block the nerves, hopes are that sensation will be better.
Tissue engineered implants, however, are not the only recent innovations in the field. Many groups are working on perfecting a reconstruction technique using injections of the person’s own fat, boosted with extra stem cells to help the tissue survive. Medical professionals are still debating the safety and how the breasts hold up long term. In contrast to the new implants, the procedure might have to be done several times.
While any of these new techniques could result in something better than what’s currently on offer, Potter warns that we have a tendency to jump at new and shiny tech – an optimism bias. “We always think it’s going to be brilliant,” she says, but “we don’t want a situation like with vaginal mesh, where in 10 years’ time … we find out we have done something that isn’t helpful.”
Other solutions to the problems of reconstruction do exist. One is living without breasts, known as “going flat”. Contrary to the companies that think they can turn the reconstruction statistics around, people within the flat movement argue that if people were better informed, even more would opt out. “I reckon if [going flat] was given as an equal option,” says Gilly Cant, founder of the charity Flat Friends, “at least another 30-50% of women wouldn’t have [reconstruction].”
At the moment, the guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) says that doctors should be aware that some might not want reconstruction. But Cant says it is often presented to people as part of the treatment process. “It’s like, ‘OK, we need to do a mastectomy. Then you have chemo. Then you’ll have your radiotherapy and then we’ll do reconstruction.’ So women live for that reconstruction at the end,” she says. It comes to signal the finish line.
It is particularly contentious when only one breast is removed, because some might want the other taken off to feel and look symmetrical, rather than have a new one made. But according to Cant, many doctors don’t want to remove a healthy breast. Part of the doctors’ concern is that women will regret their decision, says Potter, but “women know what they want to do with their own bodies. We should help and support them to do what they want to do.”
Potter herself would like to see more of the ultimate alternative: not having a mastectomy in the first place. “There’s no evidence that mastectomy gives you better cancer outcomes than a breast-conserving operation,” she says. In this case, the tumour is removed but the breast is kept. For example, one of her patients had a breast reduction that removed her cancer while giving her breasts a lift. “She calls them her silver lining breasts.”
So even without tissue-engineered implants, there are enough options to make the choice a hard one. To help people choose, some charities pair up people considering a specific procedure with someone who has already been through it. At the charity Keeping Abreast, show and tell sessions give people the chance to ask the questions they might be uncomfortable asking their doctor and see the results for themselves.
But according to a 2018 report by the all-party parliamentary group on breast cancer, knowing what you want is not the same as having access to it. “There’s a massive postcode lottery,” says Potter. It stems from flap surgery being so involved that it often requires specialist plastic surgeons who can do minute surgery under a microscope. Many clinics don’t have such experts in-house and while the Nice guidance says people should still have the option, in practice it limits access.
The companies say this won’t be a problem with the new implants, because they are specifically designed to be easy to put in. Flap surgery can take from three to 12 hours depending on the flap, but insertion of Lattice Medical’s implant, for example, takes only one hour and 15 minutes. “It’s really accessible to all plastic surgeons,” says Payen.
This accessibility will no doubt be crucial in taking the new implants from a cool technology to something with real impact. But from Potter’s perspective, it’s just one potential piece in a big puzzle, not a techno-fix. The implants “would be an option for a lot of women”, she says. “But I think the main advance is all around access, proper information, giving women choice and hopefully reducing the number of mastectomies that we need.”