Comment AI Lab Leaks: The New Gain-of-Function Lab Leaks? (Score 1) 158
Tired: Gain-of-Function Lab Leaks. Wired: AI Lab Leaks. To test dangerous systems, you risk creating the very danger you're trying to prevent.
Comment I'm feeling old (Score 1) 42
My first job when getting into computers was on a S100 bus system with a Z80 running at 2 Mhz. It actually was fast for the time because the whole system was written in assembly language. Really had to understand computer from the chip level up back then.
Submission + - You gotta fight / For your right / To AI
theodp writes: Recalling his initial resistance to free and open software, billionaire computer scientist David Siegel argues vigorously in FORTUNE that the stakes are too high to let AI become increasingly closed. "In the 1980s, I had the chance to spend several years arguing about free and open software, what we now call open source, with the founder of the movement, Richard Stallman. My office at the MIT AI Lab was next door to his. Stallman’s position was that the source code to software should be free for everyone to use, learn from, and improve. Software encapsulates knowledge, he argued, and no one should lock something so fundamental away. To hide software inside a company was to hide knowledge itself. At first I took the conventional view of the time. Software would only advance, I insisted, if companies kept proprietary control over their code. We agreed on the bigger picture—that computers would become a central accelerator of human progress—but disagreed sharply on how to get there. What I missed was that software was not just a commercial asset; it was a body of knowledge, and bodies of knowledge grow stronger when they are shared. After about two years of on-and-off debate, Stallman convinced me I was wrong."
"Now the AI fight is the same — only bigger," advises Siegel. "AI is software, and AI is increasingly closed. The frontier models—the most advanced, cutting-edge AI systems— are closed completely and the trend is accelerating. Viable open alternatives are few and far between."
So, what to do? "The path forward is not complicated," Siegel explains, "though it isn’t free. Yes, frontier models keep getting bigger and more expensive — that arms race may well stay with the giants. But open source AI does not have to match their scale to be useful. Much of what the world needs probably does not require the absolute frontier. And where keeping a credible open option does demand serious compute, that is precisely the kind of public good worth paying for. What’s missing is not a path but will. The government, the private sector, and nonprofits should invest heavily in free and open source AI —the way they once invested in open software: public compute grants for open research, corporate and philanthropic support for universities and nonprofits doing the work, and a simple rule that AI built with public money is open by default. We have run this experiment before. We know how it turns out. Let’s not unlearn it."
"Now the AI fight is the same — only bigger," advises Siegel. "AI is software, and AI is increasingly closed. The frontier models—the most advanced, cutting-edge AI systems— are closed completely and the trend is accelerating. Viable open alternatives are few and far between."
So, what to do? "The path forward is not complicated," Siegel explains, "though it isn’t free. Yes, frontier models keep getting bigger and more expensive — that arms race may well stay with the giants. But open source AI does not have to match their scale to be useful. Much of what the world needs probably does not require the absolute frontier. And where keeping a credible open option does demand serious compute, that is precisely the kind of public good worth paying for. What’s missing is not a path but will. The government, the private sector, and nonprofits should invest heavily in free and open source AI —the way they once invested in open software: public compute grants for open research, corporate and philanthropic support for universities and nonprofits doing the work, and a simple rule that AI built with public money is open by default. We have run this experiment before. We know how it turns out. Let’s not unlearn it."
Comment Bring Back Walnut Creek CD-ROM (Score 1) 67
Nuff said
Comment Re:Tax the billionaires fairly too? (Score 3, Informative) 96
True. Location, location, location!" is the new "Developers, developers, developers!": Jeff Bezos's Move From WA To FL Has Saved Him Close To $1B in Taxes This Year
Submission + - Satya O'Nadella? Microsoft Defends its $47B Irish Pot of Gold and Low Tax Rates
theodp writes: The NY Times reports on a new required EU country-by-country compliance report released by Microsoft this week, which provided a rare look into how tech giants shift profits out of the countries where they have many employees and significant sales and into low-tax havens that help them cut their tax bills by billions of dollars. Like other big companies, Microsoft uses transactions between subsidiaries to shift profits around to reduce its tax bill. The report revealed a consistent pattern: high returns in low-tax jurisdictions and slim margins in higher-tax ones.
Among the sometimes absurd results, Microsoft said it had generated almost 40% of its pretax income in tax-friendly Ireland, where it employed about 3% of its global work force. In higher-tax Germany, the largest economy in Europe, Microsoft earned barely half of 1% of its global profits, it said. Excluding Ireland, the company said, it generated less than 2% of its worldwide pretax earnings in Europe. For its 2025 fiscal year, Microsoft reported profit margins of 24% in Ireland, where it paid taxes at a rate of just over 14%, and $47+ billion in pretax profit on revenues of $196 billion (the entire population of Ireland is about 7 million). Microsoft employs roughly 6,600 in Ireland. In Luxembourg, Microsoft claimed profit margins of 142% and a tax rate of just 3%. The company said it had $283 million in pretax income and only 34 employees in the tiny country. But in several of Microsoft’s biggest markets — where tax rates exceed 25% — it reported tiny profit margins. In Germany, France and Italy, the company claimed single-digit profit margins, sometimes barely 5%.
The report still gave only a partial picture, because it lumped in the U.S. with other countries. Microsoft said in a blog post accompanying the report that it followed all the laws in every jurisdiction where it operated, and that the reporting standards created some inconsistencies among countries. “Microsoft is committed to a tax structure that reflects where our people work, where we invest, and where functions, assets, and risks occur,” wrote Jeff Bullwinkel, Microsoft’s top lawyer in Europe. Bullwinkel said Microsoft’s capital expenditures in data centers, its corporate work forces and its work through local partners were also key investments in local economies. “Tax is one important measure of contribution, but it is not the only one,” he wrote. The IRS is challenging profit-shifting transactions used by Microsoft, and is seeking back taxes of nearly $29 billion. The company has said it disagrees with the IRS and said in a securities filing that it “will vigorously contest” the proposed tax bills.
Hey, say what you will about former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, but at least he didn't try to blow smoke up the public's butt about why Ireland held such a special place in Microsoft's heart. "Corporate tax is part of the overall advantage of doing business in Ireland," Ballmer told journalists in 2005 while in Dublin on a tour of the company’s Irish operations. "It would be disingenuous to say otherwise."
Among the sometimes absurd results, Microsoft said it had generated almost 40% of its pretax income in tax-friendly Ireland, where it employed about 3% of its global work force. In higher-tax Germany, the largest economy in Europe, Microsoft earned barely half of 1% of its global profits, it said. Excluding Ireland, the company said, it generated less than 2% of its worldwide pretax earnings in Europe. For its 2025 fiscal year, Microsoft reported profit margins of 24% in Ireland, where it paid taxes at a rate of just over 14%, and $47+ billion in pretax profit on revenues of $196 billion (the entire population of Ireland is about 7 million). Microsoft employs roughly 6,600 in Ireland. In Luxembourg, Microsoft claimed profit margins of 142% and a tax rate of just 3%. The company said it had $283 million in pretax income and only 34 employees in the tiny country. But in several of Microsoft’s biggest markets — where tax rates exceed 25% — it reported tiny profit margins. In Germany, France and Italy, the company claimed single-digit profit margins, sometimes barely 5%.
The report still gave only a partial picture, because it lumped in the U.S. with other countries. Microsoft said in a blog post accompanying the report that it followed all the laws in every jurisdiction where it operated, and that the reporting standards created some inconsistencies among countries. “Microsoft is committed to a tax structure that reflects where our people work, where we invest, and where functions, assets, and risks occur,” wrote Jeff Bullwinkel, Microsoft’s top lawyer in Europe. Bullwinkel said Microsoft’s capital expenditures in data centers, its corporate work forces and its work through local partners were also key investments in local economies. “Tax is one important measure of contribution, but it is not the only one,” he wrote. The IRS is challenging profit-shifting transactions used by Microsoft, and is seeking back taxes of nearly $29 billion. The company has said it disagrees with the IRS and said in a securities filing that it “will vigorously contest” the proposed tax bills.
Hey, say what you will about former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, but at least he didn't try to blow smoke up the public's butt about why Ireland held such a special place in Microsoft's heart. "Corporate tax is part of the overall advantage of doing business in Ireland," Ballmer told journalists in 2005 while in Dublin on a tour of the company’s Irish operations. "It would be disingenuous to say otherwise."
Submission + - AP CS Exam Participation Fell in 2026 as AP Statistics Continued to Grow
theodp writes: In a series of Twitter/X posts, the College Board provided a high-level look at this year's AP exam participation and test scores by the nation's high school students. Both AP CS courses saw declines this year in participation to below their 2023 levels, with the Java-based AP Computer Science A exam taken by ~81,500 students in 2026 (with a 66% pass rate) — down from a peak of 98,136 in 2024 — and the 'more approachable', language-agnostic AP Computer Science Principles exam taken by 163,000 students (with a 63% pass rate) — down from a peak of 175,261 in 2024. Meanwhile, the 2026 AP Statistics exam saw an increase in test takers to a record 281,000 students (with a 62% pass rate), up from 266,791 in 2025 and 242,929 in 2023.
One wonders if some of the AP CS participation decline may represent a reaction to AI-driven job displacement fears and visible tech-sector layoffs, factors which have been blamed for depressed college-level CS enrollment. The College Board is already reacting to how AI is changing the K-12 CS narrative, announcing an AI-focused AP CS Principles Course 'modernization' effort in June, just days after tech-backed nonprofit Code.org — a College Board-endorsed AP CSP curriculum provider that bills itself as "the leading provider of K-12 AI and CS education curriculum across the globe" — announced it was rebranding itself as CodeAI, a pivot hailed by The College Board. It's probably worth mentioning that AP exam participation can be lower than AP course enrollment, since students can and do opt out of testing (e.g., students unable to pay for exams or who don't want to pay for exams they think they will fail); The College Board does not publish data on AP course-to-exam gaps.
Interestingly, the College Board identified certain exam questions that AP CS A students struggled to use Java to answer, ironically some of which a non-CS student equipped with Excel could likely easily solve. One of the Free-Response Questions (FRQ) the College Board noted students wrestled with in particular was the following: "Given a username that may contain hyphens [...] return a version with each hyphen and the character immediately preceding it removed, so that 'Amy-Marie-Lin' becomes 'AmMariLin'." Students receiving AP CS A exam scores of 1, the College Board explained, were 'typically unable' to earn any points for their attempts to solve this problem with Java (sample FRQ solutions). Meanwhile, a student who skipped AP CS A could open Excel and use a simple formula — REGEXREPLACE(A1,".-","") — to solve the problem that vexed their Java coding peers after a year-long college level CS course. Perhaps this helps explain why the UK is moving back towards a model that promotes digital literacy for all students and away from the narrow 'rigorous' CS path that the tech giants convinced the UK to adopt more than a decade ago.
One wonders if some of the AP CS participation decline may represent a reaction to AI-driven job displacement fears and visible tech-sector layoffs, factors which have been blamed for depressed college-level CS enrollment. The College Board is already reacting to how AI is changing the K-12 CS narrative, announcing an AI-focused AP CS Principles Course 'modernization' effort in June, just days after tech-backed nonprofit Code.org — a College Board-endorsed AP CSP curriculum provider that bills itself as "the leading provider of K-12 AI and CS education curriculum across the globe" — announced it was rebranding itself as CodeAI, a pivot hailed by The College Board. It's probably worth mentioning that AP exam participation can be lower than AP course enrollment, since students can and do opt out of testing (e.g., students unable to pay for exams or who don't want to pay for exams they think they will fail); The College Board does not publish data on AP course-to-exam gaps.
Interestingly, the College Board identified certain exam questions that AP CS A students struggled to use Java to answer, ironically some of which a non-CS student equipped with Excel could likely easily solve. One of the Free-Response Questions (FRQ) the College Board noted students wrestled with in particular was the following: "Given a username that may contain hyphens [...] return a version with each hyphen and the character immediately preceding it removed, so that 'Amy-Marie-Lin' becomes 'AmMariLin'." Students receiving AP CS A exam scores of 1, the College Board explained, were 'typically unable' to earn any points for their attempts to solve this problem with Java (sample FRQ solutions). Meanwhile, a student who skipped AP CS A could open Excel and use a simple formula — REGEXREPLACE(A1,".-","") — to solve the problem that vexed their Java coding peers after a year-long college level CS course. Perhaps this helps explain why the UK is moving back towards a model that promotes digital literacy for all students and away from the narrow 'rigorous' CS path that the tech giants convinced the UK to adopt more than a decade ago.
Submission + - Ex-Governors, Big Tech Launch RAISE US to Help Workers 'Navigate the AI Economy'
theodp writes: "Just how many jobs will AI upend?" asks the WSJ. "A new coalition of companies and policymakers said it is time to ready the U.S. workforce for major disruption, no matter the ultimate scale. To that end, the bipartisan consortium, which includes state governments, philanthropic groups and employers ranging from Amazon.com and Microsoft to Bank of America and Eli Lilly, is coming together to develop a new 'people strategy' for the artificial-intelligence era. Called RAISE US, it launches Thursday and will be led by former Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, who served under former President Joe Biden, and former Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb, a Republican."
"Its mandate, they said, isn’t just to build retraining programs but also to reconsider decades-old policies such as unemployment insurance and act as a working lab for testing the most effective ways to transition workers to new fields. The group will explore corporate incentives for employers to hold on to workers whose jobs are disrupted by AI and prep them for new roles. The organization said it has so far raised more than $500 million—about half of its multiyear goal—from companies and nonprofit groups. It will initially work with state governments in Arkansas, Maryland, Utah and Connecticut. OpenAI and Anthropic are also involved, and academics including MIT economist David Autor sit on an advisory board."
With AI "there’s an enormous amount of money and focus right now on winning the technology: the chips, the models," said Raimondo, the group’s CEO. " There’s not enough attention on securing the future for the American worker." The NY Times reported the group plans to furnish technical assistance for companies that want to retain workers as A.I. changes their roles, rather than eliminating them. Microsoft, one of the companies backing the organization, said it had already found a promising model: cross-training its entry-level lawyers in different parts of the organization and equipping them with A.I. skills in order for them to be repositioned as technology evolves. "You can think of doing that with almost any job we have," said Brad Smith, vice chair and president at Microsoft [and formerly its Chief Counsel], who recently likened AI doubters to 19th century photography naysayers. "It creates an opportunity to transfer people from jobs that are being eliminated to jobs that are being created."
If you think you've seen this movie before, prior to "partnering with governors, employers, and training partners to help the American workforce make a successful transition to an AI economy" with RAISE US, Raimondo and Holcomb partnered with governors, employers and training partners to help U.S. K-12 students make a successful transition to a CS economy with the Governors for Computer Science coalition. And much like a Who's Who of CEOs endorsed RAISE US in 2026 to make the U.S. workforce AI-savvy, a Who's Who of CEOs endorsed K-12 CS education in 2022 to make U.S. students entering the workforce CS-savvy. It's another reminder that Learn To AI Is the New Learn To Code.
"Its mandate, they said, isn’t just to build retraining programs but also to reconsider decades-old policies such as unemployment insurance and act as a working lab for testing the most effective ways to transition workers to new fields. The group will explore corporate incentives for employers to hold on to workers whose jobs are disrupted by AI and prep them for new roles. The organization said it has so far raised more than $500 million—about half of its multiyear goal—from companies and nonprofit groups. It will initially work with state governments in Arkansas, Maryland, Utah and Connecticut. OpenAI and Anthropic are also involved, and academics including MIT economist David Autor sit on an advisory board."
With AI "there’s an enormous amount of money and focus right now on winning the technology: the chips, the models," said Raimondo, the group’s CEO. " There’s not enough attention on securing the future for the American worker." The NY Times reported the group plans to furnish technical assistance for companies that want to retain workers as A.I. changes their roles, rather than eliminating them. Microsoft, one of the companies backing the organization, said it had already found a promising model: cross-training its entry-level lawyers in different parts of the organization and equipping them with A.I. skills in order for them to be repositioned as technology evolves. "You can think of doing that with almost any job we have," said Brad Smith, vice chair and president at Microsoft [and formerly its Chief Counsel], who recently likened AI doubters to 19th century photography naysayers. "It creates an opportunity to transfer people from jobs that are being eliminated to jobs that are being created."
If you think you've seen this movie before, prior to "partnering with governors, employers, and training partners to help the American workforce make a successful transition to an AI economy" with RAISE US, Raimondo and Holcomb partnered with governors, employers and training partners to help U.S. K-12 students make a successful transition to a CS economy with the Governors for Computer Science coalition. And much like a Who's Who of CEOs endorsed RAISE US in 2026 to make the U.S. workforce AI-savvy, a Who's Who of CEOs endorsed K-12 CS education in 2022 to make U.S. students entering the workforce CS-savvy. It's another reminder that Learn To AI Is the New Learn To Code.
Submission + - LA Schools Chief Resigns Amid FBI Probe Into Failed K-12 AI Chatbot Company
theodp writes: "Four years after leaving Miami-Dade County Public Schools for one of the nation’s most prominent education jobs, Alberto Carvalho has resigned as superintendent of Los Angeles schools amid an FBI investigation," reports the Miami Herald. "The FBI has conducted raids on Carvalho’s Los Angeles home and office as part of a probe into a multimillion-dollar contract awarded to a failed AI-focused education company [AllHere Education]. Investigators also raided the Broward County home of a lobbyist connected to the deal. Carvalho led Miami-Dade public schools for 14 years before joining Los Angeles Unified School District in Feb. 2022. The lobbyist, Debra Kerr, had previously sold hundreds of thousands worth of textbooks to the Miami-Dade County school district and was retained as a salesperson for the startup chatbot company when it dealt with the Los Angeles district."
In What Will It Take to Get A.I. Out of Schools?, The New Yorker's Jessica Winter points out that "Carvalho, who has denied any wrongdoing, is also on the board of [tech-backed nonprofit] Code.org [recently rebranded to CodeAI], purveyors of Mix & Move with AI," Code.org's signature tutorial for its 2025 Hour of AI, which was built on the Carvalho-endorsed Music Lab, Code.org's signature tutorial for its 2024 Hour of Code that was developed with Amazon ("Code.org has mastered the art of bringing joy and curiosity into the classroom," Carvalho gushed in a press release, "while preparing students with essential computer science skills, and Music Lab is the perfect example.”). Winter is not as big a fan of the nonprofit's edtech software as Carvalho, writing that the "Certificate of Completion," her 3rd grader brought home from school for "demonstrating an understanding of the basic concepts of Artificial Intelligence" was for "playing a computer game produced by the nonprofit Code.org in partnership with Amazon Future Engineer, called Mix & Move with AI, in which the student 'designs' a cartoon dancer and 'remixes' a popular song—available, needless to say, on Amazon Music. The game is an inane drag-and-drop affair that has little to do with A.I.; the certificate, it turned out, was merely a memento of a pointless and deceptive branding exercise [Amazon is a $30+ million Code.org Lifetime Supporter]."
Carvalho has been scrubbed from the Code.org Board of Directors page — archive.org webpage captures suggest a change was made on Wednesday, three days after his Sunday resignation and on the same day that Carvalho's replacement was named by the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). Curiously, the Miami Herald earlier reported a firm registered to current Code.org Board Member and former Broward County (FL) Schools Superintendent Robert Runcie is listed as a creditor in bankruptcy files for AllHere Education, the provider of LAUSD's failed "Ed" AI chatbot that's at the center of the FBI investigation.
And on Tuesday — two days after Carvalho's resignation — LAUSD banned screen time before the second grade and enacted limited use for older students, among the strictest policies in the nation, reflecting growing backlash from parents and educators concerned about an over-reliance on computers and technology in K-12 learning.
In What Will It Take to Get A.I. Out of Schools?, The New Yorker's Jessica Winter points out that "Carvalho, who has denied any wrongdoing, is also on the board of [tech-backed nonprofit] Code.org [recently rebranded to CodeAI], purveyors of Mix & Move with AI," Code.org's signature tutorial for its 2025 Hour of AI, which was built on the Carvalho-endorsed Music Lab, Code.org's signature tutorial for its 2024 Hour of Code that was developed with Amazon ("Code.org has mastered the art of bringing joy and curiosity into the classroom," Carvalho gushed in a press release, "while preparing students with essential computer science skills, and Music Lab is the perfect example.”). Winter is not as big a fan of the nonprofit's edtech software as Carvalho, writing that the "Certificate of Completion," her 3rd grader brought home from school for "demonstrating an understanding of the basic concepts of Artificial Intelligence" was for "playing a computer game produced by the nonprofit Code.org in partnership with Amazon Future Engineer, called Mix & Move with AI, in which the student 'designs' a cartoon dancer and 'remixes' a popular song—available, needless to say, on Amazon Music. The game is an inane drag-and-drop affair that has little to do with A.I.; the certificate, it turned out, was merely a memento of a pointless and deceptive branding exercise [Amazon is a $30+ million Code.org Lifetime Supporter]."
Carvalho has been scrubbed from the Code.org Board of Directors page — archive.org webpage captures suggest a change was made on Wednesday, three days after his Sunday resignation and on the same day that Carvalho's replacement was named by the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). Curiously, the Miami Herald earlier reported a firm registered to current Code.org Board Member and former Broward County (FL) Schools Superintendent Robert Runcie is listed as a creditor in bankruptcy files for AllHere Education, the provider of LAUSD's failed "Ed" AI chatbot that's at the center of the FBI investigation.
And on Tuesday — two days after Carvalho's resignation — LAUSD banned screen time before the second grade and enacted limited use for older students, among the strictest policies in the nation, reflecting growing backlash from parents and educators concerned about an over-reliance on computers and technology in K-12 learning.
Comment "Just" 59K (Score 1) 98
I remember selling my hoard of Bitcoin at $4500 thinking how absurdly high it was and that it was just a fluke and how stupid it all seemed. Look who's stupid now. I still retired, but "if I'd just HODLed" I'd be a retired philanthropist instead of just retired and comfortable.
Comment Re:Greedflation Rate of 56%? (Score 1) 125
OK perhaps a bit sensationalistic, but not that much worse than all the current Startup Math and AI Math you see these days.
Still, Apple issuing a 16%+ price increase about 100 days after launch does have a bad smell to it. It also highlights the scarcity problems that AI is introducing for memory, GPUs, computers, electricity, water, land, and even funding, as well as raises questions about whether AI capitalism is better serving the desires of profit-seeking tech giants rather than meeting the needs of society in general.
Comment Greedflation Rate of 56%? (Score 1) 125
Neo was released 107 days ago, so the annualized inflation rate (linear) of a price increase from $599 to $699 in 107 days is about 56%.
Submission + - College Board Announces AI-Focused AP CS Principles Course Redesign for 2027-28
theodp writes: Two days after tech-backed nonprofit Code.org completed "switching hats" from coding to AI with its announced rebranding as CodeAI, the College Board followed suit, announcing plans to 'modernize' the high school AP Computer Science Principles curriculum with AI. From the College Board's "Dear Colleague" letter announcement:
"We’re writing to share some exciting news about the design of AP Computer Science Principles (CSP) for the 2027-28 school year," begins a June 4th College Board announcement to educators. "Given the rapidly evolving technology landscape and especially the rise of artificial intelligence (AI), the AP Program will redesign the course and exam to meet the moment. Through the redesign, students will have an opportunity to learn about AI concepts and apply them immediately, while still maintaining a focus on the fundamentals of coding."
"This redesign will: 1. Modernize AP CSP with AI while maintaining its core structure. The AP Program has partnered with key organizations to identify high-priority AI skills and concepts and embed AI throughout the course sequence. 2. Update the existing project and add a second project. Students will learn AI concepts, practice AI tools, and demonstrate their understanding in a culminating AI Design Project. This new project will be offered alongside a revised and updated Code Create Project. 3. Enhance the exam with questions on AI. The AP CSP Exam will also change to include exam questions that assess understanding of AI, as well as the new AI Design Project, which provides an opportunity for students to creatively demonstrate their understanding of AI logic."
"This redesign ensures that all students develop foundational AI skills aligned to how computing is evolving. The result is a course that is more career-relevant and better aligned to the future of computer science, equipping students with the skills they need to be ahead of the curve. These changes won’t affect the 2026-27 school year. The redesigned course framework will be available in fall 2026."
"We’re writing to share some exciting news about the design of AP Computer Science Principles (CSP) for the 2027-28 school year," begins a June 4th College Board announcement to educators. "Given the rapidly evolving technology landscape and especially the rise of artificial intelligence (AI), the AP Program will redesign the course and exam to meet the moment. Through the redesign, students will have an opportunity to learn about AI concepts and apply them immediately, while still maintaining a focus on the fundamentals of coding."
"This redesign will: 1. Modernize AP CSP with AI while maintaining its core structure. The AP Program has partnered with key organizations to identify high-priority AI skills and concepts and embed AI throughout the course sequence. 2. Update the existing project and add a second project. Students will learn AI concepts, practice AI tools, and demonstrate their understanding in a culminating AI Design Project. This new project will be offered alongside a revised and updated Code Create Project. 3. Enhance the exam with questions on AI. The AP CSP Exam will also change to include exam questions that assess understanding of AI, as well as the new AI Design Project, which provides an opportunity for students to creatively demonstrate their understanding of AI logic."
"This redesign ensures that all students develop foundational AI skills aligned to how computing is evolving. The result is a course that is more career-relevant and better aligned to the future of computer science, equipping students with the skills they need to be ahead of the curve. These changes won’t affect the 2026-27 school year. The redesigned course framework will be available in fall 2026."
Submission + - WA State, IRS Records Show Code.org Became CodeAI Months Before Announcement
theodp writes: On June 2nd, computer science education nonprofit Code.org ("the leading provider of K-12 AI and CS education curriculum across the globe") rebranded itself as CodeAI, solidifying the tech-backed nonprofit's shift to AI education. Not everyone was pleased, including one commenter who noted that the CodeAI rebranding was followed by a June 4th College Board announcement of an AP CS Principles course redesign to modernize AP CSP with AI for the 2027-28 school year.
The move came 13 years after Code.org launched with the belief "that every student should learn the basics of computer programming." In a video announcing the rebranding, Code.org Founder & Chairman of the Board Hadi Partovi explained, "We have a responsibility to prepare the next generation for the biggest change In society since the invention of public education. [...] Starting today, Code.org becomes CodeAI." Code.org also immediately disbanded its nine-year-old, 100+ member Code.org Advocacy Coalition, explaining in a June 3rd video conference that members could either apply to join a new CodeAI Advocacy Coalition that will be "bringing in new AI focused entities that will help us advance this mission", or go their own way if they are "not in line with the direction that CodeAI is heading."
Interestingly, WA State Dept. of Revenue records indicate that Code.org became CodeAI in the eyes of WA state on February 6th, nearly four months earlier than the June 2nd public announcement. And Code.org's 2024 990 filing, dated March 10th, informed the IRS it was doing business as CodeAI. The filings provide new context for the timing of earlier organizational changes at the nonprofit, including the Code.org Chief Academic Officer's jump to Microsoft on January 12th (where he later penned an 'obituary' for 'coders' on Feb. 26), the layoff of 18 Code.org employees 'to ensure long-term sustainability' that was reported on January 21st, and the shakeup in its top leadership ranks that it announced on February 20th.
The apparent decision by Code.org to keep details of its planned 'next chapter' as CodeAI and its mission realignment from educators, partners, and the public until the end of the school year would seem at odds with its self-proclaimed core value of transparency ("We are accountable to and transparent with our team, Board, donors, facilitators, partners, teachers, and community. [...] We proactively share information, research, data, processes, decisions, and results."). Interestingly, the after-the-fact CodeAI rebranding reveal comes as Code.org lead donors Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Meta have increasingly been facing and responding to regulatory and community-driven demands for greater transparency around their AI efforts, particularly regarding AI data center secrecy.
The move came 13 years after Code.org launched with the belief "that every student should learn the basics of computer programming." In a video announcing the rebranding, Code.org Founder & Chairman of the Board Hadi Partovi explained, "We have a responsibility to prepare the next generation for the biggest change In society since the invention of public education. [...] Starting today, Code.org becomes CodeAI." Code.org also immediately disbanded its nine-year-old, 100+ member Code.org Advocacy Coalition, explaining in a June 3rd video conference that members could either apply to join a new CodeAI Advocacy Coalition that will be "bringing in new AI focused entities that will help us advance this mission", or go their own way if they are "not in line with the direction that CodeAI is heading."
Interestingly, WA State Dept. of Revenue records indicate that Code.org became CodeAI in the eyes of WA state on February 6th, nearly four months earlier than the June 2nd public announcement. And Code.org's 2024 990 filing, dated March 10th, informed the IRS it was doing business as CodeAI. The filings provide new context for the timing of earlier organizational changes at the nonprofit, including the Code.org Chief Academic Officer's jump to Microsoft on January 12th (where he later penned an 'obituary' for 'coders' on Feb. 26), the layoff of 18 Code.org employees 'to ensure long-term sustainability' that was reported on January 21st, and the shakeup in its top leadership ranks that it announced on February 20th.
The apparent decision by Code.org to keep details of its planned 'next chapter' as CodeAI and its mission realignment from educators, partners, and the public until the end of the school year would seem at odds with its self-proclaimed core value of transparency ("We are accountable to and transparent with our team, Board, donors, facilitators, partners, teachers, and community. [...] We proactively share information, research, data, processes, decisions, and results."). Interestingly, the after-the-fact CodeAI rebranding reveal comes as Code.org lead donors Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Meta have increasingly been facing and responding to regulatory and community-driven demands for greater transparency around their AI efforts, particularly regarding AI data center secrecy.
Comment Re: You missed the part where they socialized ever (Score 1) 122
Socialized only to make sure they fail, not to provide for the general welfare.
