Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror

Submission + - Amazon HR Chief Boasts of Creating 100K LOC With AI, Says 'Everyone Can Code'

Submitted by theodp
theodp writes: "I'm an Amazon SVP who hadn't coded in 25 years," reads the headline. "Then I wrote 100,000 lines of code with AI." In an Amazon News post, Amazon HR leader Beth Galetti on Tuesday offered her own personal experience with Amazon AI development tools as evidence that 'everyone can build' now.

So, what compelling problems prompted Galetti to come out of coding retirement to develop solutions for using AI after a quarter century? "My first project was a family calendaring app so we could all stay coordinated," Galetti explains. "That confidence carried me forward. On a flight back to Seattle, I opened Kiro, our AI-powered development tool, and started building. By the time I landed, I had built the submission app for what would become our internal team competition 'Everyone Can Build.' The challenge was to build an app or tool that solves a real problem in your work or everyday life using AI. No technical background required."

Galetti continued, "A few years ago, if a non-technical employee wanted to build something at Amazon, they needed a tech team and a spot on a roadmap. That's changed. As non-technical employees build more internally, our tech teams are freed up to move even faster, think bigger, and deliver even more for our customers. [...] This is one of the most exciting times in my career. When you give people the tools to build, they will surprise you with what they create. I can’t wait to see what we all build next."

Last January, Galetti also took to Amazon News to announce the elimination of 16,000 corporate jobs that coincided with the company's push to invest heavily in AI. "I'm grateful for how our teams continue to deliver," Galetti said in her layoff announcement post, "for customers, for each other, and for the incredible things we're building together."

Submission + - How Big Tech Captured American Schools

Submitted by theodp
theodp writes: In How Big Tech Captured American Schools (alt source), an adapted excerpt of the forthcoming book Coding Kids: Big Tech’s Battle to Remake Public Schools, the New York Times' Natasha Singer begins: "Many parents would likely object if, say, Exxon Mobil wrote their children’s environmental science curriculum. Or if Purdue Pharma trained their children’s biology teachers. Yet, over the last decade, schools have often embraced the technology industry in similar ways with few questions asked. Industry-sponsored teacher training is just one technique that Big Tech companies use to shape schools and promote their worldviews to students. In interviewing more than 100 education and tech industry figures for my book, and reviewing hundreds of school, government and corporate documents, it became clear that a handful of giants have used their money, their might and their mammoth platforms to influence nearly every step of the education supply chain."

"Consumer tech giants provide the essential scaffolding that schools run on. That means laptops and tablets; operating systems and device-tracking software; the apps students use to write essays and analyze data; the messaging platforms that connect students and teachers; and more. Some of these companies, including Google, Microsoft and Apple, have also used their status as classroom tech providers as a springboard to influence how and what schoolchildren learn."

"This story matters whether you want schools to center tech skills or are agnostic, because the recent learn-to-code craze and the growing push for A.I. in schools are not just about learning. Those trends are part of a larger exercise of Silicon Valley power. The public education system, hungry for resources to improve opportunities for students, has become an avenue for multitrillion-dollar companies to enact their agendas."

"This development taps into fundamental questions about education that Americans have been arguing over for more than a century. What is the purpose of public schooling? Is it to raise critical, independent thinkers? Train students in the latest career skills? Help young people discover their passions? Serve the needs of the prevailing industry or emerging ones? Create knowledgeable and active participants in a democracy? Or all of the above?"

In an accompanying LinkedIn post, Singer adds: "Every few years, Silicon Valley has urged American public schools to quickly adopt the latest technology or teach the latest tech subject: Big Data analytics; laptops for every child; algorithm-driven math and reading apps; computer programming; virtual reality. And each time the urgent arguments sounded remarkably similar: if schools just adopted the latest tech tool, or taught the latest tech subject, it would democratize learning for every child and equip students with valuable career skills. The campaign to expand student access to computer science and other efforts had good intentions. But today we know some of those classroom tech drives did not exactly pan out as advertised. Now some of the same companies that urged schools to provide laptops and coding lessons are employing similar arguments to urge schools to quickly adopt A.I. tools. I've spent years covering Chromebooks and student chatbot use. And I'm troubled by our collective amnesia around school tech."

Submission + - OpenAI and Google Move Into K-12 Classrooms with New Kid-Friendly AI Offerings

Submitted by theodp
theodp writes: "OpenAI announced on Tuesday 'ChatGPT for Teens'", the NY Times reports, "a new mode in which the chatbot automatically limits some conversations to better protect young users, as scrutiny grows over the harmful effects of artificial intelligence." OpenAI added that it's also teaming with tech-backed nonprofit CodeAI to 'prepare the first AI generation', announcing a 'signature partnership' that it says will "give students and educators access to tools and resources that will help them learn how to use and benefit from AI [...] helping teens understand how AI works, direct it, question it, and create with it—with teachers playing a meaningful role in shaping how AI enters the classroom." Separately, CodeAI said it and OpenAI will be "helping students build foundational AI literacy" via the Hour of AI, through which it said "OpenAI and CodeAI will introduce millions of students to the basics of using AI thoughtfully and responsibly."

OpenAI's ChatGPT for Teens announcement came just days after the NY Times reported that Google turned on Gemini AI for K-12 students using its Google Classroom, a learning management system for posting assignments and turning in schoolwork that's used by 150+ million students and teachers worldwide. A new Gemini tab within Classroom will allow students of all ages to seek AI help on math problems and writing assignments. They can also generate course aids like study guides, quizzes and flashcards, as well as produce images. Last September, Google CEO Sundar Pichai briefed the White House on the tech giant's efforts to get Gemini for Education in 'every high school in America', which he noted "includes $3 million to Code.org [since rebranded as CodeAI] to transform its [K-12] curriculum and integrate new AI features." And in December, Google.org kicked off the inaugural 'Hour of AI' by announcing "over $5 million in new Google.org funding to bolster computer science teaching in the age of AI." The 5-day event during CS Education Week saw 13+ million schoolkids take AI tutorials, including Google's AI Quests offering.

The moves by Google and OpenAI in advance of children's return to classrooms for the 2026-27 school year further escalate the race among U.S. tech giants to train students on their AI tools. They also come just ahead of next month's release of NYT journalist Natasha Singer's Coding Kids: Big Tech's Battle to Remake Public Schools, "the inside story of how Big Tech catalyzed, co-opted, and ultimately came to capture computer science and AI education in America."

Submission + - It's On: OpenAI ChatGPT for Teens and Google Gemini Vie for K-12 Schoolchildren

Submitted by theodp
theodp writes: "We’re introducing ChatGPT for Teens, announced OpenAI on Tuesday, "an experience designed to help teens learn, think critically, deepen understanding, and use AI with confidence. It provides stronger built-in safety protections for teens, including features to promote healthy use and additional controls for parents." The partnership, OpenAI explains, "also builds on our ChatGPT for Teachers work to empower teachers and districts to guide AI use and our ongoing work with the American Federation of Teachers to build AI skills.

OpenAI added that it's also "partnering with [tech-backed nonprofit] CodeAI to prepare the first AI generation", announcing a 'signature partnership' to give students and educators access to tools and resources that will help them learn how to use and benefit from AI [...] helping teens understand how AI works, direct it, question it, and create with it—with teachers playing a meaningful role in shaping how AI enters the classroom." Separately, CodeAI provided a few details on how they'll work with OpenAI, including "helping students build foundational AI literacy" via the Hour of AI, through which it said "OpenAI and CodeAI will introduce millions of students to the basics of using AI thoughtfully and responsibly." With funding and encouragement from Microsoft, which is partnering with OpenAI on the $22.5 million AFT AI skill building and has a stake in OpenAI valued as high as $228 billion, CodeAI — formerly known as Code.org before rebranding in June — replaced its signature 'Hour of Code' event last December with the new 'Hour of AI' in a pivot from coding to AI literacy.

Interestingly, OpenAI's K-12 AI announcement comes less than a week after Google turned on Gemini AI for K-12 students using its Google Classroom, a learning management system for posting assignments and turning in schoolwork that's used by 150+ million students and teachers worldwide. At last September's White House AI Education Taskforce meeting, Google CEO Sundar Pichai briefed First Lady Melania Trump on the tech giant's efforts to get Gemini for Education in 'every high school in America', which he noted "includes $3 million to Code.org [now CodeAI] to transform its [K-12] curriculum and integrate new AI features." And in December, VP and Global Head of Google.org Maggie Johnson — who joined Code.org's Board together with Microsoft President Brad Smith back in 2013 as founding members — kicked off the 'Hour of AI' by announcing "over $5 million in new Google.org funding to bolster computer science teaching in the age of AI."

So, who do you think will win the AI custody battle over the nation's K-12 schoolchildren and their teachers? Is Google vs. OpenAI/Microsoft shaping up to be 2026's Kramer vs. Kramer?

Submission + - Google Turns On Gemini AI for K-12 Students Using Its Classroom App

Submitted by theodp
theodp writes: The NY Times reports: "Google turned on its Gemini chatbot this week for some elementary through high school students using its popular Classroom app for schools, escalating a race among U.S. tech giants to train students on their artificial intelligence tools. Google Classroom, a learning management system for posting assignments and turning in schoolwork, is used by more than 150 million students and teachers worldwide. Until this week, Google automatically enabled Gemini in Classroom only for students 18 or older. Now, a new Gemini tab within Classroom will allow students of all ages to seek A.I. help on math problems and writing assignments. They can also generate course aids like study guides, quizzes and flashcards, as well as produce images."

"Google’s drive to increase student access to its A.I. tools ramps up a longstanding battle among tech giants like Apple, Google and Microsoft to capture classrooms and secure students as long-term customers. Newcomers to the school tech market, like the A.I. start-ups Anthropic and OpenAI, have recently started programs for K-12 teachers. But so far OpenAI and Anthropic have not made their ChatGPT and Claude chatbots available for student use in U.S. public schools. The industry is pushing for classroom chatbots as parents’ groups in New York City, Los Angeles and elsewhere are pressing schools to temporarily halt rollouts of student A.I. products. These groups say A.I. chatbots can pose risks to children’s safety, privacy and critical thinking. Some warn that using chatbots to generate study aids like flashcards and text summaries may hinder students’ learning."

At last September's White House AI Education Taskforce meeting, Google CEO Sundar Pichai briefed First Lady Melania Trump on the tech giant's efforts to get Gemini for Education in 'every high school in America', which he noted "includes $3 million to [tech-backed nonprofit] code.org to transform its [K-12] curriculum and integrate new AI features." The NY Times article coincidentally appeared as Code.org, which the Chronicle of Philanthropy recently noted has since rebranded itself as CodeAI in a pivot that aligns itself well with its bet-the-bank-on-AI tech donors, was wrapping up "our first-ever AI Education Hackathon" (thanking co-founding sponsors Google, Microsoft, and Amazon on LinkedIn for making it possible), "bringing engineers and builders with a background in AI and education to Boston for ... two days of building in the open toward a shared goal: preparing every student for a world reshaped by AI."

Comment Re:If the platform and apps are there... very litt (Score 1) 66

Do you use a single standard keyboard for the platforms that frees you from worrying about some of the different choices of keys and key mappings by the vendors? Or are you just really adept at context switching between the different muscle memory and OS/UI/app conventions for each of the platforms? I find using a Windows Citrix session from a MacBook using the same keyboard can be pretty taxing with all the different meanings depending on context!

Submission + - Costs of Switching Schoolchildren Between Windows, Chrome, Mac?

Submitted by theodp
theodp writes: If you've ever made the jump from PC to Mac (or vice versa) at work or home, you're painfully aware that there are very real costs of switching platforms in terms of lost knowledge and productivity. In addition to flushing years of accumulated knowledge down the toilet — goodbye Outlook-Teams-OneDrive-SharePoint-Excel-Word-PowerPoint-VBA, hello GMail-Workspace-GDrive-Sheets-Docs-Slides — there's also the matter of a thousand UI and other "paper cuts" to contend with ("Why are you looking for a 'prt sc' key," condescendingly replies a Mac aficionado in response to a question from a former Windows user, "when Shift+Command+3 is so intuitive?").

So, how much additional time is allocated for these kinds of switches? Ironically, it's often zero or even less than zero. Champions of the switch often insist workers will be able to hit the ground running and get the same or even more work done from the get-go in the new unfamiliar environment because it's 'more productive', a conclusion often shaped by conventional wisdom or their 'gut' feeling. Decision makers may also mistake their own 'light-user experience' for universal experience and believe all platforms are fungible. And while it's one thing for a business to delay their delivery dates and increase costs of by introducing a switch in computing environments that's of unquantified and possibly dubious value, how about when a switch in computing environments is made that affects schoolchildren's ability to learn for a period of time?

While a MacBook Neo is indeed cute, what might be the possible consequences of a decision to move 25k students off Windows and onto MacBook Neo on students' learning? Or even the impact on a single kid who moves from a MacBook school to a Windows or Chrome school (or whose home computing environment isn't aligned with their school'). Or students whose teachers decide learning in their classrooms should now additionally require an understanding of the Minecraft computing platform/UI (used in "more than 40,000 school systems"). Learning Management Systems (LMS) and now various AI Edtech tools used by schoolkids are also subject to change. Finally, even if students and schools eventually benefit from a new platform, one wonders how much learning is lost during the switch and what the financial and educational ROI and payback period look like.

Submission + - Microsoft CEO Touts His Own DIY AI Project to Wall Street and His 20M Followers

Submitted by theodp
theodp writes: During Microsoft's 2026Q4 earnings call, CEO Microsoft Satya Nadella took time to tout a dashboard he personally created using AI from a Morgan Stanley analyst's PDF research report which suggested a rosy payback for the so-called MAG7's ('Magnificent 7' companies) massive capital expenditures on AI (to which Nadella later added a 'not financial advice' disclaimer)

"It would be fun for you, Adam. I think one of your colleagues put out an ROIC [Return on Invested Capital] document. I took that document to Copilot, which is a PDF, and I said, 'Build me a new Power BI dashboard, essentially.' But here is the thing. It built a rich semantic model that went into my Fabric with OneLake that brought all the data in from the external sources. In fact, it was current with all the SEC filings of all the MAG7. And then on top of that, the repo itself is in GitHub, but the artifact is sitting in my Copilot as a site. That, to me, is a classic example of an enterprise-wide workflow. I, as a knowledge worker, could go create a dashboard. The data engineer can go to Fabric and find the artifact. The professional developer can go to the repo and find it in GitHub. And by the way, it’s all registered with Agent 365. That’s a little bit of what Amy is describing as the coming together of a new way to work, even while at the same time, bringing IT, security and manageability of it."

After Nadella's show-and-tell drew an underwhelming response during the call ("That’s very helpful. Thank you." said the Morgan Stanley analyst whose team's work Nadella scraped with AI), Nadella turned to social media with posts on LinkedIn (12M followers) and Twitter/X (8M followers) to make the case for why his DIY project was such a brilliant demonstration of how AI enables governance, controls, security, development, testing, deployment, maintenance, data analysis/modeling, visualization, usability, and value.

"Some more detail on the ROIC Intelligence App I built yesterday and mentioned on today's earnings call," Nadella wrote on LinkedIn. "I took the PDF that Brian Nowak at Morgan Stanley put together for Hyperscale ROIC this week and used Copilot code (coming in our new superapp) with a single prompt + skill (/drill-me) to create the plan, then used autopilot in auto to create the full app (with history, lookups, scenarios, what-ifs, etc). And /rubber-duck to test. And the best part is that all the artifacts are in my enterprise environment. My app is in Copilot, my code is in GitHub Enterprise; all my data pipelines/lake/semantic models are in Fabric. And everything is under Agent 365 IT/Sec/FinOps control! So this is not about Tokenmaxxing or vibe coding. Every step of the way the rails are engineered to create value, making everything a long-term reusable asset, with governance/security, and cost controls. This is the full system to drive business value. Disclosures: This is all pulled from public sources, and for illustrative purposes only...not financial advice! :) Here is the app and architecture..."

Not unexpectedly, the accompanying screenshot of a splash page for the BI app and a buzzword-laden complicated architecture diagram drew universal praise from LinkedIn fans, but also a few barbs from less-than-impressed commenters on Nadella's Twitter/X post, some of whom suggested Nadella's project might even represent a jump-the-shark moment for AI mania. "That he doesnt see whats wrong with saying 'My app is in Copilot, my code is in GitHub Enterprise; all my data pipelines/lake/semantic models are in Fabric' is exactly why MS is failing at AI'," replied @PassingPixels on X/Twitter. "Dude is having to run 5 different systems to emulate babies first vibe code." @zigmund_ignatov added, "Why do we call glorified slide show an app?" @Mathupiriyan quipped, "Looks like Copilot just turned a PDF into a profit crystal ball." Unimpressed, @Markusndnb remarked, "So you created a web page using tons of proprietary MS tools." And @FishyAccounting called on Nadella to show-his-work, saying "Post the prompt or it didn’t happen." (btw, Microsoft President Brad Smith similarly declined to provide the prompt for his own self-described amazing AI DIY reporting project that he touted at Microsoft's Shareholder Meeting last December).

So, does Nadella's self-promoted AI reworking of someone else's PDF research report strike you as an amazing example of everything that's good about AI, or does it conjure up memories of The Emperor's New Clothes?

Submission + - How Many AI Tech Companies Does it Take to Write a Threatening Letter? Fifty! 1

Submitted by theodp
theodp writes: "You’ve got a nice little healthy AI economy here. It’d be a shame if anything happened to it." That's the gist of Open Weights and American AI Leadership, a don't-mess-with-AI-if-you-know-what's-good-for-you letter crafted and distributed on Friday by fifty leading AI tech organizations and circulated on social media by their CEOs.

"Open-weight models are essential to a healthy AI ecosystem," argued Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella on X/Twitter and LinkedIn. "Together with others across our industry, we are outlining a path for open-weight models to strengthen American competitiveness and expand economic opportunity, while protecting national security." Echoing Nadella's messaging, NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang tweeted: "For my first post, I’m sharing a letter signed on why open models matter. AI will transform every industry, power every company, and be built by every country. Open models strengthen safety and cybersecurity, accelerate innovation and diffusion, and enable sovereignty. The world needs both frontier closed models and frontier open models." Retweeting Nadella's message, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg added: "Open source is a positive and important force for both empowering people and preventing centralization. Proud to support this."

The 50 signatories to the letter — hey, so much for AI enabling everyone to be a writer! — were: AI21, AMD, American Innovators Network, AMP, Andreessen Horowitz, Arcee AI, Arena, Baseten, Black Forest Labs, Block, Box, Cisco, Cloudflare, Cohere, CrowdStrike, Dell Technologies, DoorDash, Emergence Capital, Fireworks AI, Genspark, GitHub, Google, Hugging Face, IBM, Inferact, Interconnects AI, The Linux Foundation, Mariana Minerals, Meta, Microsoft, Mistral, Morph, Mozilla, Nebius, Nous Research, NVIDIA, Ollama, OpenAI, OpenClaw, Palantir, Palo Alto Networks, Periodic Labs, Perplexity, Prime Intellect, Reflection, Replit, ServiceNow, Telnyx, Trajectory, Y Combinator (conspicuous by their absence are Anthropic and Amazon/AWS).

Interestingly, when asked to compare the 7/24 letter signed by the 50 AI companies to a 7/3 FORTUNE op-ed penned by David Siegel, ChatGPT had this to say: "They are remarkably similar in their core narrative, to the point that they appear to be drawing from the same intellectual and policy framework. The July 24 open-weight letter can almost be read as a shorter, more policy-oriented version of the argument David Siegel made three weeks earlier. [...] Siegel is actually more demanding than the July 24 coalition. A major section of his essay argues that many so-called 'open' AI models are not really open because they release only model weights while withholding training data and training code. He wants visibility into how systems were built, not merely the ability to run them. By contrast, the Microsoft-led letter specifically defends open-weight models, which are a narrower concept. Open-weight models allow access to model parameters but typically do not release training datasets or complete training pipelines. In that sense, Siegel's position is arguably more radical and more aligned with traditional free-software principles than the coalition's."

Submission + - WSJ: Corporate America Has Suddenly Decided to Stop Blowing Money on AI

Submitted by theodp
theodp writes: "Companies across the country are coming around to a radical idea with the potential to upend the industry powering the global economy," reports the WSJ. "They don’t have to blow their budgets on AI. Fed up with ballooning costs, companies big and small are starting to use lower-priced models, including some built in China. In many cases, they are adding the new, cheaper models alongside OpenAI and Anthropic’s products, shopping a la carte for their artificial intelligence."

"Being economical—or tokenomical—is a dramatic reversal in mindset. Just a few months ago, it was a badge of honor to be using AI so much that you spent a lot on tokens. Companies rewarded employees for tokenmaxxing, flashing leaderboards that showed who had spent the most. Now they are thrift-maxxing."

"Strategies to lower AI costs include limiting access to top models for new hires and using the most advanced AI systems to plan how tasks will be completed before turning to cheaper models for the execution, Cursor’s [Mike] Saeks says. Cursor recently ran an experiment to evaluate the cost of building a web browser from scratch. Doing the entire task on OpenAI’s GPT-5.5 cost a little more than $10,000. Using Cursor’s Composer coding model in combination with Anthropic’s Opus 4.8, cost $1,339."

Correction: The costs cited by the WSJ were evidently to recreate SQLite functionality, not to build a web browser from scratch, an earlier experiment that Cursor explained involved running coding agents autonomously for weeks and burning trillions of tokens to build software that Cursor's CEO boasted "*kind of* works", prompting The Register to credit Cursor for "proving AI can write shoddy code at scale".

Submission + - You gotta fight / For your right / To AI

Submitted by theodp
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."

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close