Nvidia-backed Israeli AI startup AI21 is raising a $300 million funding round
AI21 was founded in 2017 by entrepreneurs and AI researchers Amnon Shashua (founder and CEO of Mobileye), Professor Yoav Shoham (Professor Emeritus at Stanford University and former Principal Scientist at Google), and Ori Goshen (serial entrepreneur and founder of CrowdX).
While many AI startups rely on existing LLMs built by companies like Anthropic or OpenAI, AI21 is building its LLMs from the ground up.
Its goal is to make generative AI more dependable for companies by reducing hallucinations, which are when LLMs present false information as fact.
In March, AI21 launched an AI orchestration system called Maestro it says is capable of reducing hallucinations by 50% and boosting reasoning model accuracy to over 95%.
Existing investors in AI21 include Google, Nvidia, Intel Capital, Walden Catalyst, Pitango, SCB10X, b2venture, Samsung Next, Comcast Ventures, and Ahren Innovation Capital. Customers include FNAC, Capgemini, and website builder Wix.
About $7 billion in investment went to AI-related startups last month, representing 30% of venture funding worldwide, according to Crunchbase data.
Israeli tech companies have raised more than $12 billion in 2024, up 31% from 2023, according to Startup Nation Central. Israeli cybersecurity company Wix was just acquired by Google for $32 billion, the search giant's largest ever acquisition.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
7 minutes ago
- Forbes
Quality Clicks: Google Rebuts Its Critics Sans Data
Amid evidence of an online catastrophe for publishers both large and small, Google is officially challenging the narrative that its AI Overviews tool is leading people to click into search engine results pages less frequently. The rebuttal comes through a now-prominent blog post by Google VP and Head of Search Liz Reid, who is contending that regardless of the numbers, the addition of the AI blurb at the top of a search is leading to more 'quality clicks.' 'Overall, total organic click volume from Google Search to websites has been relatively stable year-over-year,' Reid wrote Aug. 6. 'Additionally, average click quality has increased and we're actually sending slightly more quality clicks to websites than a year ago (by quality clicks, we mean those where users don't quickly click back — typically a signal that a user is interested in the website).' Quality Time with Google So the idea is that users will drill down deeper into things, spurred on by the introduction made by the AI tool. But this misses the point: it's the loss of aggregate traffic that hurts publishers and those trying to garner attention online, and since Google has had a practical monopoly on search for, well, decades, the impact of fewer clicks is big. But rather than leave it there, Reid added: 'This data is in contrast to third-party reports that inaccurately suggest dramatic declines in aggregate traffic — often based on flawed methodologies, isolated examples, or traffic changes that occurred prior to the roll out of AI features in Search.' The reader can assume that 'this data' refers to the first line, the organic click volume remaining 'relatively stable year-to-year' and not to the rest of it. However, outside parties are specifically taking aim at the former claim, noting that Google does not provide data to counter studies like those by Pew that definitely show lower levels of click-through traffic. With Their Own Eyes In addition to Pew's research, critics of the Google response point to their own evidence. 'Do the hundreds of thousands of Google Search Console [GSC] screenshots showing impressions remaining flat (or increasing) this year, while clicks dramatically decline – since AI Overviews were rolled out more broadly – count as 'flawed methodologies' or 'isolated examples'?' writes Amsive Vice President of SEO Strategy & Research Lily Ray. 'Thousands of us are seeing it… but it must just be some big coincidence?' 'Gaslighting of the highest order,' adds Florentina Schinteie, SEO Strategist for In-House Teams and Former Head of SEO at DesignRush. The Re-Skilling of the Web Here's another bit from the above blog post: 'While overall traffic to sites is relatively stable, the web is vast, and user trends are shifting traffic to different sites, resulting in decreased traffic to some sites and increased traffic to others. People are increasingly seeking out and clicking on sites with forums, videos, podcasts, and posts where they can hear authentic voices and first-hand perspectives. People are also more likely to click into web content that helps them learn more — such as an in-depth review, an original post, a unique perspective or a thoughtful first-person analysis. Sites that meet these evolving user needs are benefiting from this shift and are generally seeing an increase in traffic.' This seems in some ways eerily similar to the arguments of big bosses bullish on AI in the job market. Old jobs, they admit, will go away, but new jobs, they contend, will also be created. So it's a wash. Well… Workers will have to re-skill, then – what does that look like? The burden, you'd assume, would be on the workers themselves, which is convenient for whoever's moving the goalposts. The same concept is in play here. Reid suggests it's on the publishers to quickly add content … forums? Podcasts? But all of that aside, that first claim of the 'stability' of traffic is under fire. It's not just Pew, either. 'Research by AI search and SEO platform Authoritas, submitted as part of a legal complaint to the UK's Competition and Markets Authority, found that when an AI Overview is present, publishers are seeing a drop of 47.5% in per-query clickthrough rate on desktop, and 37.7% on mobile,' wrote Charlotte Tobitt Aug. 7 at PressGazette. 'Similarweb data found that among the top 100 news and media websites globally, the average rate of zero-click searches has gone from 50.5% to 52.7% in the past year. Among a wider dataset, zero-click news searches were said to have increased from 56% when AI Overviews were first launched in the US in May 2024 to almost 69% in May this year.' Publishers also report huge losses in traffic. Covering this last week, I cited this article in Columbia Journalism Review, which lays out some of these claims. For those who are skeptical about Reid's post, as a stand-in for a larger Google response: it's the numbers. The claim just doesn't seem credible, and no one from Google is coming up with any real proof. Panda and Penguin Another way to view Google's side of the issue, represented by Reid's arguments, is that the addition of AI Overviews is just like former Google algorithm changes, like Panda in 2011, and Penguin in 2012. These shifts were done with the stated goal of meeting user needs and driving positive change. Advertisers had to scramble. Digital marketers had to adapt by crafting content and sites to attract the priorities of the 'new boss' of Google favor. Conceptually, the same is true here – but the shift is much bigger, and the paradigm changes a lot more. The result appears to be a showdown between Google (which, in classical Marxian parlance, owns the means of production) and publishers, who, absent some course correction, may be left out in the cold, with simple admonitions to get started podcasting.
24 minutes ago
YouTube to begin testing a new AI-powered age verification system in the U.S.
YouTube on Wednesday will begin testing a new age-verification system in the U.S. that relies on artificial intelligence to differentiate between adults and minors, based on the kinds of videos that they have been watching. The tests initially will only affect a sliver of YouTube's audience in the U.S., but it will likely become more pervasive if the system works as well at guessing viewers' ages as it does in other parts of the world. The system will only work when viewers are logged into their accounts, and it will make its age assessments regardless of the birth date a user might have entered upon signing up. If the system flags a logged-in viewer as being under 18, YouTube will impose the normal controls and restrictions that the site already uses as a way to prevent minors from watching videos and engaging in other behavior deemed inappropriate for that age. The safeguards include reminders to take a break from the screen, privacy warnings and restrictions on video recommendations. YouTube, which has been owned by Google for nearly 20 years, also doesn't show ads tailored to individual tastes if a viewer is under 18. If the system has inaccurately called out a viewer as a minor, the mistake can be corrected by showing YouTube a government-issued identification card, a credit card or a selfie. 'YouTube was one of the first platforms to offer experiences designed specifically for young people, and we're proud to again be at the forefront of introducing technology that allows us to deliver safety protections while preserving teen privacy,' James Beser, the video service's director of product management, wrote in a blog post about the age-verification system. People still will be able to watch YouTube videos without logging into an account, but viewing that way triggers an automatic block on some content without proof of age. The political pressure has been building on websites to do a better job of verifying ages to shield children from inappropriate content since late June when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Texas law aimed at preventing minors from watching pornography online. While some services, such as YouTube, have been stepping up their efforts to verify users' ages, others have contended that the responsibility should primarily fall upon the two main smartphone app stores run by Apple and Google — a position that those two technology powerhouses have resisted. Some digital rights groups, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy & Technology, have raised concerns that age verification could infringe on personal privacy and violate First Amendment protections on free speech.
CNBC
37 minutes ago
- CNBC
Australia court rules partly against Apple, Google in Epic Games lawsuit
An Australian court found the smartphone app stores of Apple and Google-owned Android were uncompetitive, local media reported on Tuesday, in a partial victory for Fortnite game developer Epic Games against the tech giants. Amid a years-long legal dispute brought by Epic against the dominant smartphone makers in several jurisdictions around the world, Australia's federal court found the phone makers' app stores had no protections against anti-competitive behavior, the reports said. Epic Games had claimed Apple and Google's fees for downloads of its games were too high, and that the phone makers made it impossible for users to download its alternative app store. The Australian judgment, which ran to 2,000 pages, was not released by the court on Tuesday, but media said a judge's summary included the finding that the smartphone companies had not intentionally breached the law. In a post on X, Epic said the Australian court "just found that Apple and Google abuse their control over app distribution and in-app payments to limit competition." Epic is a U.S.-based games studio with backing from China's Tencent. "The Epic Games Store and Fortnite will come to iOS in Australia!" the Epic post said. "This is a WIN for developers and consumers in Australia!" Apple said in a statement it welcomed the court's rejection of some of Epic's claims, but strongly disagreed with its ruling on others. "Apple faces fierce competition in every market where we operate," the California-based tech giant said. A Google statement said the company welcomed the court's rejection of some Epic Games claims but "we disagree with the court's characterization of our billing policies and practices, as well as its findings regarding some of our historical partnerships, which were all shaped in a fiercely competitive mobile landscape." "We will review the full decision when we receive it and assess our next steps."
