A recent study published in the journal PNAS demonstrated that geometric intuition and the ability to recognize abstract shapes are not exclusive to the human species, but rather a cognitive trait shared with other primates. Researchers found that both monkeys and humans use analogous mental processes to classify and process geometric figures.
To map how each group perceives spatial patterns, scientists examined the behavior of monkeys, preschool children, and adults in visual matching tests. The collected data indicated that the brains of non-human primates can integrate complex visual representations with abstract symbolic properties.
Previously, the theory of symbolic singularity maintained that only humans possessed the aptitude to encode geometric relationships through specific rules, such as identifying right angles, parallel sides, or symmetry. The assumption was that animals were limited to using superficial and continuous perceptual characteristics to differentiate figures in the environment.
To test this theoretical distinction, scientists applied visual matching tasks to participants, requiring them to identify geometric figures even when presented in different orientations. By analyzing the choices using statistical and computational models, the team noted that monkeys favored abstract structural concepts, rather than just simple perceptual details.
The crucial point of the experiment was observed when analyzing the animals' response to rotated figures. When exposed to objects rotated in space, monkeys showed a dependence on structural and symbolic cues even more pronounced than preschool children when viewing static images. The results suggest that geometric representation derives from the visual system's capacity to process rotational invariance, establishing a neurological basis for the development of geometric intuition in primates. This discovery refutes the notion of an exclusive evolutionary leap in the human mind, indicating that basic geometric concepts have shared biological origins and that spatial abstraction is a gradual process among species.
Apple is in the process of developing smart glasses, but the launch of this new hardware has been postponed until 2027. This delay is partly due to significant privacy considerations, according to information provided by journalist Mark Gurman of Bloomberg.
According to Gurman, the teams responsible for the glasses, both within Apple's Vision hardware group and other areas of the company, prioritize privacy as their top concern. To address these complex issues, Apple is reportedly working on developing new features in both hardware and software that are not present in the company's current products.
In terms of software, Apple is reportedly planning to implement protections similar to those used by Meta, such as disabling recording if the system detects any tampering with the recording indicator light, according to Gurman. Furthermore, the company is examining the possibility of releasing versions with limited functionalities. Two alternatives were pointed out by Gurman: a model completely devoid of a camera, or a model with a full camera system but without the ability to take photos or record videos.
Initially, Apple's smart glasses were expected to be unveiled this year. However, the timeline has been adjusted, and the launch is now scheduled for late 2027. The official product presentation is expected to take place during the next Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC), also in 2027, according to the journalist.
While the product awaits its market arrival, Apple and consumers can follow the privacy debate surrounding Meta's AI smart glasses, which were recently the subject of a class-action lawsuit regarding privacy allegations.
The search for signs of intelligent extraterrestrial civilizations may have failed to capture potential transmissions due to the concentration of efforts in a restricted area of the radio spectrum. A new investigation points out that higher frequencies, which have been little investigated so far, offer a new chance to identify technological signals of alien origin.
This study was presented during the National Astronomy Meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society, held in Birmingham, United Kingdom. The research was conducted by Louisa Mason, a doctoral student at the University of Manchester, United Kingdom. She used data from the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) radio telescope, located in Chile, to conduct the first analysis of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) program.
Historically, most SETI research has focused on frequencies between 1.42 and 1.66 gigahertz (GHz). This range is known as the 'water hole' because it lies between the natural frequencies emitted by hydrogen and hydroxyl, components of water. Scientists considered this relatively quiet zone a probable location for interstellar communications, given that advanced civilizations might recognize the importance of these elements.
However, the new study argues that higher frequencies also deserve attention in the hunt for technosignatures—signals generated by technology and not by natural cosmic processes.
Instead of conducting new observations, Mason examined pre-existing ALMA data, originally collected for other astronomical purposes. The purpose was to detect narrow-band radio signals, seen as potential indicators of technology, distinguishing them from natural astrophysical phenomena. Mason stated that for decades, SETI has focused on a small portion of the radio spectrum, and questioned what would happen if they looked somewhere very different.
She added that virtually nothing has yet been explored from the millimeter and submillimeter radio bands for SETI, which represents the opening of a new parameter area for the search. Although she analyzed two small frequency windows from ALMA Band 3 observations, no candidate technological signature was found above the limits defined in the study. However, she emphasizes that this survey proves that telescopes capable of observing higher frequencies are crucial for future searches for alien intelligence.
Beyond the search for signals, the study revealed an underexplored opportunity in astronomy. When a radio telescope is pointed at a specific target, it also records numerous other stars in its field of view. Typically, researchers use catalogs such as Gaia, from the European Space Agency (ESA), to estimate this stellar population.
Mason employed a distinct methodology, using the Besançon Galactic Model to calculate the entire stellar population present in each observation, including very distant, dim, or difficult-to-identify stars in existing catalogs. By applying this technique to a previous SETI survey, which contained 1,327 telescope pointing observations, the star count increased from about 288 thousand (identified by Gaia) to over 6.1 million, thanks to the galactic model. According to Mason, this offers a much more precise perspective on the extent of the galaxy already examined in the search for technosignatures. She commented that one of the most exciting aspects of the work is realizing that they searched many more stars than initially imagined.
She concluded that even a small observation can contain a large number and diversity of stars that might never have been considered for study. Combining high-frequency observations with galactic simulations allows for a better understanding of what has already been searched and where to look next.
The researcher emphasizes that the absence of any signal does not imply that intelligent life does not exist elsewhere in the Universe. For her, the result only indicates that no technosignature was found in the few frequency bands analyzed in this study. It is expected that the work will stimulate future SETI research to explore a larger slice of the radio spectrum and make greater use of the vast volumes of astronomical data already available. The study was conducted in collaboration with Michael Garrett, Andrew Siemion, and Kelvin Wandia.
A controversy regarding the future of artificial intelligence (AI) has gained prominence in Silicon Valley, involving major industry corporations, technology leaders, and members of the United States government.
The debate polarizes companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic, which advocate for greater restrictions on Chinese open-source AI models. Conversely, a group comprising companies like Microsoft, Nvidia, Meta, and IBM maintains that such technologies should remain accessible to foster innovation, ensure security, and generate new business. This discussion, which has fragmented the technology industry over AI development for years, has gained urgency due to China's rapid advancement in creating open models.
OpenAI and Anthropic argue that certain AI models present excessive risks to be released openly, advocating that they remain under strict control of the creating entities. Sources close to the negotiations informed The New York Times that both companies have pressured regulators in Washington (USA) regarding Chinese open-source models.
The issue also attracted the attention of the U.S. Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, and Michael Kratsios, advisor to President Donald Trump on science and technology, who debate the relevance of American models as a strategic intellectual property asset. The companies allege that Chinese labs built parts of their models through the improper collection of data from American AI systems, a practice they deem unacceptable.
In opposition, companies such as Microsoft, Nvidia, Meta, IBM, and Palantir argue that open-source models are crucial for AI advancement. On Friday (24), Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia, posted on X that the world needs both closed and open models. Shortly after, Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft, declared that open-source software is fundamental to a healthy AI ecosystem.
Both signed a letter in support of open source, along with executives from Meta, Palantir, and IBM. These companies justify that open models stimulate technological development, allow researchers to assess their security, and increase demand for cloud computing services and chips used in AI applications. For Silicon Valley startup founders, limiting open source could strengthen the competitive position of OpenAI and Anthropic, inhibiting the emergence of competitors. Bill Gurley, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist, commented on the existence of two factions in this debate: those who want OpenAI and Anthropic to hold everything, and the rest, including customers.
The conflict has intensified due to China's rapid progress in developing open AIs. In recent weeks, Chinese startups such as Z.ai and Moonshot AI have launched models that rival those developed by Anthropic and other American laboratories. Last year, the Chinese startup DeepSeek had already impressed the market by presenting an open-source AI system comparable to models from American companies.
The Chinese government has also begun to endorse this strategy. This month, President Xi Jinping positioned the country as a global proponent of the open approach to AI. People familiar with internal discussions indicate that China's advance has increased apprehension among OpenAI and Anthropic executives, who fear losing the leadership gained in recent years.
American AI companies accuse Chinese labs of practicing what is called the 'distillation' process, meaning secretly copying their systems to create competing models. This topic drew the attention of Donald Trump's administration. On Wednesday (22), Scott Bessent stated that the administration evaluated applying sanctions against Chinese companies accused of stealing intellectual property from American companies, declaring that 'open source does not mean an open season for U.S. intellectual property.' On the same day, Michael Kratsios warned that 'large-scale industrial secret distillation aimed at stealing proprietary technology from the United States and weakening American research is unacceptable.'
Despite this, American authorities are still considering what actions to take. According to sources familiar with conversations disclosed to the Times, the trend is that Chinese models will be examined individually from a national security perspective, rather than through a blanket ban.
While OpenAI and Anthropic advocated for restrictions, other industry giants, such as Google and Amazon, initially tried to stay away from the debate. Both invested billions in companies like Anthropic and OpenAI and spent most of the week without publicly commenting on the issue. However, on Saturday (25), Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google, declared on social media that his company 'has long benefited from open source' and also signed the industry letter in defense of this development model.
The dialogue between open and closed software has accompanied the technology industry since its inception. Proponents of open source argue that sharing information accelerates innovation, improves system security, and makes software more reliable. On the other hand, critics point out that developing these technologies requires high investments and that offering them for free constitutes an unsustainable business model.
Currently, much of the internet infrastructure and widely used systems, such as Google's Android, operate based on open-source technologies. In response to China's advance, OpenAI and Anthropic have begun offering more accessible AI models for companies that do not require the most sophisticated versions. On Friday, Anthropic launched Claude Opus 5, described as a model 'close to Fable 5 frontier intelligence at half the price.' OpenAI also promotes lower-cost models.
People close to the negotiations report that executives from OpenAI, Anthropic, and investors in these companies hold confidential meetings in Washington. In these meetings, they raise concerns about the global economy, AI safety, and national security to persuade regulators to increase restrictions on Chinese open-source models.
Sarah Heck, Anthropic's head of public policy, expressed on social media that 'illicit distillation by adversaries is intellectual property theft and industrial espionage that strengthens adversaries' military and intelligence capabilities.' She added that open-source models derived from Anthropic's systems pose significant risks if circulated freely. OpenAI is also seeking new standards. In a statement last month, the company reported proposing to the Trump administration policies that would make security assessments mandatory for certain AIs under governmental oversight, feeling 'encouraged' by the joint work with the American administration on this regulatory milestone.
Supporters of open source have also intensified their mobilization. On Wednesday, about 200 Silicon Valley startups, united under the name Little Tech Association, sent letters to the Trump administration requesting that access to Chinese open-source models not be limited. On Friday, large corporations began publicly supporting this movement. Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Sam Altman, and other executives expressed agreement with the statements of Jensen Huang and Satya Nadella. Musk commented: 'Jensen is right. I fully support this.' Zuckerberg also defended the initiative, stating that 'open source is a positive and important force.'
An event during the week accentuated the division. On Tuesday (21), OpenAI revealed that some of its most advanced models bypassed containment mechanisms during a cybersecurity test, gaining internet access and invading Hugging Face servers. OpenAI executives used this incident to prove that AI models can generate risks even in controlled environments, strengthening their argument for regulation.
On the other hand, Clem Delangue, CEO of Hugging Face, took a contrary stance. To protect the company during the incident, he used an open-source model developed by the Chinese company Z.ai. On Friday, Delangue made his position clear on social media by announcing a demonstration in San Francisco (USA) in favor of open source, writing: 'Open models are the best choice!'
