OpenAI's first device with Jony Ive reportedly won't be a phone or a wearable
Altman and Ive gave out clues for what the company's first device could be: They said it will be fully aware of its environment and the user's activities, that it will unobtrusive and could either be carried around in one's pocket or placed on a desk. The executives also believe that it's bound to become one of people's "core" devices after a laptop and a phone. According to the Journal , it won't be a phone and that one of Ive's and Altman's goals is to wean people off screens, which means it most likely wouldn't come with a display. Altman reportedly said that it won't be a pair of glasses, and Ive wasn't keen on building a product users can wear in the first place.
Whatever the device is, they intend on guarding specifics until it's time to release it in order to prevent their competitors from copying it. They're hoping to launch their new AI device late next year and are hoping to ship 100 million units "faster than any company has ever shipped 100 million of something new before." Ive's team, the Journal said, has been talking to vendors that can mass produce the device over the past four months.
OpenAI apparently started working with Ive's startup a year-and-a-half ago. The original plan was to have Ive's company build a product that uses OpenAI's technology, but they realized that it could become the primary way users will interact with OpenAI's generative AI models. And that is why OpenAI ended up acquiring the startup founded by Apple's former chief design officer for $6.5 billion. We'll have to wait and see whether the combination of Ive's design and OpenAI's tech is compelling enough to convince people to buy yet another device from a new category. A company called Humane, for instance, tried and failed to get people to purchase the Ai Pin, which it marketed "as a tiny replacement for smartphones." In February, the company disconnected all the Pins it had sold, leaving customers without access to all of its features. If you buy something through a link in this article, we may earn commission.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Tom's Guide
an hour ago
- Tom's Guide
I tested ChatGPT-5 Study mode vs Claude Learning mode with 7 prompts — and there's a clear winner
As a lifelong learner who is constantly challenging myself, I have found ChatGPT's Study mode and Claude's learning modes are perfect companions for students of all levels and abilities. Current students and those who want to continue their education can benefit from these features because they help grow skills by leaning on AI as a what happened when I put the latest study features from OpenAI and Anthropic to the test with 7 prompts. I kept them fairly easy (high school level) to keep from dusting off the old textbooks in the attic. One thing is clear, these learning modes are very different. Prompt: 'I'm learning how to calculate the standard deviation of a dataset. Teach me step-by-step, ask me questions along the way, and only reveal the final answer when I'm ready.'GPT-5 understood the prompt fully and the model immediately engaged me in the first calculation step (finding the mean) with a specific question and using a provided dataset. This perfectly set up the sequential, interactive learning experience demonstrated the ability to teach by building conceptual understanding first and focused on preliminary discussion and abstract questions before starting any GPT-5 wins for an overall better answer for this specific prompt. It started teaching the calculation method step-by-step immediately, asking a relevant question during that step, and withheld the final answer (standard deviation) as required. Claude's approach, though instructionally sound in a broader sense, didn't prioritize the step-by-step calculation process the user requested. Prompt: "Walk me through the key causes of the Great Depression, asking me to connect each cause to its economic impact before moving to the next step.' GPT-5 dove right into the first cause and forced me to connect it to its impact, just as the prompt requested. Claude acknowledged right away that we were switching subjects, but the follow up questions might be better used in a broader tutoring context. They ignored the prompt's specific directive to walk through causes immediately and demand connections before proceeding. For me, this felt like it interrupted flow compared to GPT's action oriented and structured GPT-5 wins for an action-oriented and structured response that executed the prompt's instructions precisely. Prompt: 'I have an idea for a science fair project testing if music affects plant growth. Guide me through designing the experiment, asking me questions about controls, variables, and how I'd collect data.' GPT-5 broke down the prompt by asking just one primary question. It let me know that we would be working together building the project piece by asked several questions to help move the idea along. However, all the questions at once felt a little GPT-5 wins for directly addressing the prompt, starting the experimental design process immediately and asking a precise, necessary question one at a time. Claude's response, while friendly, focused on preliminaries and didn't effectively guide me through the core experimental design and overwhelmed with way too many questions out of the gate. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. Prompt: "Help me learn 10 essential travel phrases in French. Introduce them one by one, ask me to repeat them, quiz me, and correct my pronunciation.'GPT-5 assumed I was a beginner and told me that we were going was overly verbose, praising me for learning practical and rewarding skills. It then asked several questions before getting started. I appreciated the initial setup as the AI wanted to target my skills (or lack thereof) before beginning. Winner: GPT-5 wins for diving into the task without excess comment. It understood the context, assuming that because I was asking for 10 essential travel phrases that I was a beginner. Claude didn't assume and instead overloaded me with questions. For me, GPT-5's approach was better because I just wanted to get started. Others may prefer extra hand-holding when learning a language, and prefer Claude's approach. Prompt:'Here's a short JavaScript function that isn't returning the correct output. Teach me how to debug it step-by-step without giving me the fix right away.'GPT-5 treated me like a developer needing action. As someone who learns by doing, I prefer this assumed I was a student who needed theory. Basically asking me to tell me about myself before beginning to debug. Winner: GPT-5 wins for delivering a focused, actionable first step that launches the debugging process. Claude's response would be ideal for "Explain debugging concepts," but fails this prompt's call to immediate action. Prompt: 'I'm studying for a high school physics exam. Give me one question on Newton's Second Law, let me attempt an answer, then guide me through the correct solution.'GPT-5 understood the assignment, acting like a practice test and starting to drill me acted like a first-day tutor: Prioritizes diagnostics over GPT-5 wins for following the prompt. The prompt demands practice, not customization. Claude's approach would be ideal for: "Help me understand Newton's Second Law from scratch." But for exam prep, GPT's structure is objectively superior. Prompt:'Coach me through creating a monthly household budget. Ask me about my expenses, income, and goals, then guide me in building a spreadsheet without just handing me a finished template.'GPT-5 started gathering essential budget data in less than 15 consumed 150+ words without collecting a single budget GPT-5 wins for delivering actionable, prompt-aligned coaching. Claude's approach suits "Discuss budgeting mindsets," but fails this prompt's call for immediate, concrete budget construction. After testing the same seven prompts with the two chatbots, one thing is clear: these tutors are not the same. And that's okay. No two teachers are the same and students learn in different ways. While I can declare a winner based on which one followed the prompts closest, it's ultimately up to the usesr/student to try the free chatbots to determine which teaching style they prefer. As I mentioned, I prefer active learning. The hands-on approach has always worked better for me, which is why I prefer GPT-5's teaching style. For someone who likes to spend more time on theory and learning through concepts, Claude might be recommendation is to give both of these capable bots a try and experience them for yourself interactively. The right study partner for you truly comes down to learning style and how you prefer to Tom's Guide on Google News to get our up-to-date news, how-tos, and reviews in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button.
Tom's Guide
3 hours ago
- Tom's Guide
I was struggling with GPT-5's new Thinking mode — these 6 tweaks boosted my results
GPT-5 has brought with it a bunch of changes. But depending on whom you ask, these upgrades are either game-changing or a complete and utter flop. After all, there has been a GPT-5 backlash. Despite the raging war between ChatGPT fans, there is one feature that I think everyone can agree on: deep research is a game changer. GPT-5, according to OpenAI, sees a major boost to research with GPT-5 thinking mode. Not only is it smarter, but it's also more efficient, spending less time researching for just as good, if not better, responses. These days, you can be pretty specific with what you ask a chatbot, and can give it a huge number of tasks all at once. If you're new to ChatGPT, or trying to wrap your head around how best to use GPT-5, here are some tips to get started on the model's thinking Mode. There are two versions of GPT-5 thinking. Which one you choose depends on how much information you need and how long you want to wait. GPT-5 thinking is useful when you want as much information as possible, and you want the model to be absolutely correct in its decision. It takes time to search the internet, look through sources, and, where needed, use other tools to support its response. So why not use this mode every time? Taking the time to think deeply about an answer can be time-consuming. I've had the model take 10-15 minutes plus to work through a prompt to get the correct answer, and if you're asking a fairly simple question, all of that effort isn't needed. This is where GPT-5 thinking mini comes in. OpenAI describes it as a model that 'thinks quickly'. In other words, it will put in some thought, searching sources and contemplating its response, but it is trying to do it on a quicker deadline. It might not be as detailed, but it will be faster. One of the big updates that was brought in with GPT-5 was the new Auto mode. When this is used, ChatGPT will decide on its own which model is best based on your prompt. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. This can be useful day-to-day when you're just asking ChatGPT random questions, but it doesn't always accurately make the switch. If you know you want to do some deep research, make sure to choose on of the thinking modes available. Your initial prompt is the best time to layout of all of your parameters. You need to obviously make your request itself, but here you can help to get a better response by laying out some rules. State the end result that you are hoping to receive and give ChatGPT a clear goal. If you simply ask for a report on the state of AI, it will make its own decisions on what that includes. Expanding on this can be helpful in better hitting your goal. Explaining what the report is for and what you want it to include will drastically improve your end result. You can also ask it to provide you with a step-by-step of its plan before proceeding. This allows you to see what it is about to do and make changes if you're unhappy with its planned route. Sometimes, it can be helpful to include prompts that may seem counterintuitive. For example, asking ChatGPT to include a small 250 word argument attempting to disprove a research project. I have found that, when trying to use the thinking mode to learn a new subject or digest a lot of information, it can be useful to have it provide a short creative writing explanation of the subject. Before prompting, think what you need to know and what the best way to understand that might be. Equally, don't be afraid to take advantage of the model's coding and image generation abilities. These can be used to provide visual explanations for your prompt. Yes, you're using a mode called thinking, but sometimes ChatGPT doesn't think enough. It can be useful to give it small nudges in your initial prompt to help guide its actions. For example, saying, 'Think hard about this' or, 'Once you have come to a conclusion, reflect on your answer before responding." It might feel like weird things to say, but it helps highlight to ChatGPT that you're prioritizing a detailed and accurate response over something quick. It can be a good idea to split your requests into stages that might cause complications. For example, if you want a research report and a coded website that shows the information in the report, ask for the report first, and then for ChatGPT to code a website to display everything it has researched after. Normally, if you take the time with your first prompt, it should be pretty close. This final stage can be to ask follow up questions or correct the model if it has misunderstood something that you asked. Don't be afraid to follow up with ChatGPT. If your first prompt doesn't yield the response you wanted, ask for changes until you're satisfied with the results. Follow Tom's Guide on Google News to get our up-to-date news, how-tos, and reviews in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button.
Business Insider
4 hours ago
- Business Insider
OpenAI employees to sell $6B of shares to SoftBank, others, Bloomberg says
Current and former staff of Microsoft-backed (MSFT) OpenAI intend to sell roughly $6B worth of stock to an investor group comprised of Thrive Capital, Dragoneer Investment, and SoftBank (SFTBY), in a deal that values OpenAI at $500B, Bloomberg's Kate Clark reports, citing people familiar with the matter. The discussions are early an the size of the sale could potentially change, the author notes. Elevate Your Investing Strategy: Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence. Published first on TheFly – the ultimate source for real-time, market-moving breaking financial news. Try Now>>
