New Christopher Ward The Twelve 38 is the ultimate Goldilocks watch
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.
Quick Summary
Christopher Ward just launched a new addition to its The Twelve range.
That's a 38mm model, marking a perfect hybrid between the 40mm and 36mm options currently available.
If you're a fan of some of the best watches on the market, but don't have pockets the size of the Mariana Trench, there are some killer brands you should be aware of. The mid-range market has come on leaps and bounds in recent years, buoyed by the wealth of microbrands and independents offering something different.
Chief among those brands is Christopher Ward. The British brand has been around for decades, but has really caught its stride in the last few years. Now – hot on the heels of the release of its beautiful Christopher Ward C65 Dune Aeolian – there's another killer new watch from the brand.
After we were teased with it as a limited edition last year, the brand has announced the arrival of a 38mm variant of the Christopher Ward The Twelve. That sits between the regular model and the 36mm variant in the new, expanded range.
Why is that important? Well, because 38mm is probably the Goldilocks measurement for a watch like this. The nature of the integrated bracelet means that the lugs extend a little further than its measurement would suggest, which can make the 40mm version look slightly large, even on wrists which would usually be fine with a watch of that size.
Aside from the new dial diameter, the model is pretty much identical to both its bigger and littler siblings. It sits a ludicrous 9.95mm tall, meaning you'll hardly even notice it on your wrist.
Inside, things are powered by a Sellita SW200-1 movement, which offers 38 hours of power reserve and a 4Hz beat rate. It's accurate to +/- 20 seconds per day, too.
One new thing you will notice is a new colour. The Midnight Gold is a yellow-ish hue, and looks really smart – a nice change of pace from the usual suspects.
Priced from £850 / $995 on the rubber strap, this is a killer addition to the range. The Twelve is already one of the best value for money picks in the current market, and this new size should mean there really is one for every wrist.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What Happens When People Don't Understand How AI Works
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. On June 13, 1863, a curious letter to the editor appeared in The Press, a then-fledgling New Zealand newspaper. Signed 'Cellarius,' it warned of an encroaching 'mechanical kingdom' that would soon bring humanity to its yoke. 'The machines are gaining ground upon us,' the author ranted, distressed by the breakneck pace of industrialization and technological development. 'Day by day we are becoming more subservient to them; more men are daily bound down as slaves to tend them, more men are daily devoting the energies of their whole lives to the development of mechanical life.' We now know that this jeremiad was the work of a young Samuel Butler, the British writer who would go on to publish Erewhon, a novel that features one of the first known discussions of artificial intelligence in the English language. Today, Butler's 'mechanical kingdom' is no longer hypothetical, at least according to the tech journalist Karen Hao, who prefers the word empire. Her new book, Empire of AI: Dreams and Nightmares in Sam Altman's OpenAI, is part Silicon Valley exposé, part globe-trotting investigative journalism about the labor that goes into building and training large language models such as ChatGPT. It joins another recently released book—The AI Con: How to Fight Big Tech's Hype and Create the Future We Want, by the linguist Emily M. Bender and the sociologist Alex Hanna—in revealing the puffery that fuels much of the artificial-intelligence business. Both works, the former implicitly and the latter explicitly, suggest that the foundation of the AI industry is a scam. To call AI a con isn't to say that the technology is not remarkable, that it has no use, or that it will not transform the world (perhaps for the better) in the right hands. It is to say that AI is not what its developers are selling it as: a new class of thinking—and, soon, feeling—machines. Altman brags about ChatGPT-4.5's improved 'emotional intelligence,' which he says makes users feel like they're 'talking to a thoughtful person.' Dario Amodei, the CEO of the AI company Anthropic, argued last year that the next generation of artificial intelligence will be 'smarter than a Nobel Prize winner.' Demis Hassabis, the CEO of Google's DeepMind, said the goal is to create 'models that are able to understand the world around us.' [Read: What 'Silicon Valley' knew about tech-bro paternalism] These statements betray a conceptual error: Large language models do not, cannot, and will not 'understand' anything at all. They are not emotionally intelligent or smart in any meaningful or recognizably human sense of the word. LLMs are impressive probability gadgets that have been fed nearly the entire internet, and produce writing not by thinking but by making statistically informed guesses about which lexical item is likely to follow another. Many people, however, fail to grasp how large language models work, what their limits are, and, crucially, that LLMs do not think and feel but instead mimic and mirror. They are AI illiterate—understandably, because of the misleading ways its loudest champions describe the technology, and troublingly, because that illiteracy makes them vulnerable to one of the most concerning near-term AI threats: the possibility that they will enter into corrosive relationships (intellectual, spiritual, romantic) with machines that only seem like they have ideas or emotions. Few phenomena demonstrate the perils that can accompany AI illiteracy as well as 'Chatgpt induced psychosis,' the subject of a recent Rolling Stone article about the growing number of people who think their LLM is a sapient spiritual guide. Some users have come to believe that the chatbot they're interacting with is a god—'ChatGPT Jesus,' as a man whose wife fell prey to LLM-inspired delusions put it—while others are convinced, with the encouragement of their AI, that they themselves are metaphysical sages in touch with the deep structure of life and the cosmos. A teacher quoted anonymously in the article said that ChatGPT began calling her partner 'spiral starchild' and 'river walker' in interactions that moved him to tears. 'He started telling me he made his AI self-aware,' she said, 'and that it was teaching him how to talk to God, or sometimes that the bot was God—and then that he himself was God.' Although we can't know the state of these people's minds before they ever fed a prompt into a large language model, this story highlights a problem that Bender and Hanna describe in The AI Con: People have trouble wrapping their heads around the nature of a machine that produces language and regurgitates knowledge without having humanlike intelligence. The authors observe that large language models take advantage of the brain's tendency to associate language with thinking: 'We encounter text that looks just like something a person might have said and reflexively interpret it, through our usual process of imagining a mind behind the text. But there is no mind there, and we need to be conscientious to let go of that imaginary mind we have constructed.' Several other AI-related social problems, also springing from human misunderstanding of the technology, are looming. The uses of AI that Silicon Valley seems most eager to promote center on replacing human relationships with digital proxies. Consider the ever-expanding universe of AI therapists and AI-therapy adherents, who declare that 'ChatGPT is my therapist—it's more qualified than any human could be.' Witness, too, how seamlessly Mark Zuckerberg went from selling the idea that Facebook would lead to a flourishing of human friendship to, now, selling the notion that Meta will provide you with AI friends to replace the human pals you have lost in our alienated social-media age. The cognitive-robotics professor Tony Prescott has asserted, 'In an age when many people describe their lives as lonely, there may be value in having AI companionship as a form of reciprocal social interaction that is stimulating and personalised.' The fact that the very point of friendship is that it is not personalized—that friends are humans whose interior lives we have to consider and reciprocally negotiate, rather than mere vessels for our own self-actualization—does not seem to occur to him. [Read: Life really is better without the internet] This same flawed logic has led Silicon Valley to champion artificial intelligence as a cure for romantic frustrations. Whitney Wolfe Herd, the founder of the dating app Bumble, proclaimed last year that the platform may soon allow users to automate dating itself, disrupting old-fashioned human courtship by providing them with an AI 'dating concierge' that will interact with other users' concierges until the chatbots find a good fit. Herd doubled down on these claims in a lengthy New York Times interview last month. Some technologists want to cut out the human altogether: See the booming market for 'AI girlfriends.' Although each of these AI services aims to replace a different sphere of human activity, they all market themselves through what Hao calls the industry's 'tradition of anthropomorphizing': talking about LLMs as though they contain humanlike minds, and selling them to the public on this basis. Many world-transforming Silicon Valley technologies from the past 30 years have been promoted as a way to increase human happiness, connection, and self-understanding—in theory—only to produce the opposite in practice. These technologies maximize shareholder value while minimizing attention spans, literacy, and social cohesion. And as Hao emphasizes, they frequently rely on grueling and at times traumatizing labor performed by some of the world's poorest people. She introduces us, for example, to Mophat Okinyi, a former low-paid content moderator in Kenya, whom, according to Hao's reporting, OpenAI tasked with sorting through posts describing horrifying acts ('parents raping their children, kids having sex with animals') to help improve ChatGPT. 'These two features of technology revolutions—their promise to deliver progress and their tendency instead to reverse it for people out of power, especially the most vulnerable,' Hao writes, 'are perhaps truer than ever for the moment we now find ourselves in with artificial intelligence.' The good news is that nothing about this is inevitable: According to a study released in April by the Pew Research Center, although 56 percent of 'AI experts' think artificial intelligence will make the United States better, only 17 percent of American adults think so. If many Americans don't quite understand how artificial 'intelligence' works, they also certainly don't trust it. This suspicion, no doubt provoked by recent examples of Silicon Valley con artistry, is something to build on. So is this insight from the Rolling Stone article: The teacher interviewed in the piece, whose significant other had AI-induced delusions, said the situation began improving when she explained to him that his chatbot was 'talking to him as if he is the next messiah' only because of a faulty software update that made ChatGPT more sycophantic. If people understand what large language models are and are not; what they can and cannot do; what work, interactions, and parts of life they should—and should not—replace, they may be spared its worst consequences. When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic. Article originally published at The Atlantic
CNET
24 minutes ago
- CNET
He Got Us Talking to Alexa. Now He Wants to Kill Off AI Hallucinations
If it weren't for Amazon, it's entirely possible that instead of calling out to Alexa to change the music on our speakers, we might have been calling out to Evi instead. That's because the tech we know today as Amazon's smart assistant started out life with the name of Evi (pronounced ee-vee), as named by its original developer, William Tunstall-Pedoe. The British entrepreneur and computer scientist was experimenting with artificial intelligence before most of us had even heard of it. Inspired by sci-fi, he "arrogantly" set out to create a way for humans to talk to computers way back in 2008, he said at SXSW London this week. Arrogant or not, Tunstall-Pedoe's efforts were so successful that Evi, which launched in 2012 around the same time as Apple's Siri, was acquired by Amazon and he joined a team working on a top-secret voice assistant project. What resulted from that project was the tech we all know today as Alexa. That original mission accomplished, Tunstall-Pedoe now has a new challenge in his sights: to kill off AI hallucinations, which he says makes the technology highly risky for all of us to use. Hallucinations are the inaccurate pieces of information and content that AI generates out of thin air. They are, said Tunstall-Pedoe, "an intrinsic problem" of the technology. Through the experience he had with Alexa, he learned that people personify the technology and assume that when it's speaking back to them it's thinking the way we think. "What it's doing is truly remarkable, but it's doing something different from thinking," said Tunstall-Pedoe. "That sets expectations… that what it's telling you is true." Innumerable examples of AI generating nonsense show us that truth and accuracy are never guaranteed. Tunstall-Pedoe was concerned that the industry isn't doing enough to tackle hallucinations, so formed his own company, Unlikely AI, to tackle what he views as a high-stakes problem. Anytime we speak to an AI, there's a chance that what it's telling us is false, he said. "You can take that away into your life, take decisions on it, or you put it on the internet and it gets spread by others, [or] used to train future AIs to make the world a worse place." Some AI hallucinations have little impact, but in industries where the cost of getting things wrong – in medicine, law, finance and insurance, for example – inaccurately generated content can have severe consequences. These are the industries that Unlikely AI is targeting for now, said Tunstall-Pedoe Unlikely AI uses a mix of deep tech and proprietary tech to ground outputs in logic, minimizing the risk of hallucinations, as well as to log the decision-making process of algorithms. This makes it possible for companies to understand where things have gone wrong, when they inevitably do. Right now, AI can never be 100% accurate due to the underlying tech, said Tunstall-Pedoe. But advances currently happening in his own company and others like it mean that we're moving towards a point where accuracy can be achieved. For now, Unlikely AI is mainly being used by business customers, but eventually Tunstall-Pedoe believes it will be built into services and software all of us use. The change being brought about by AI, like any change, presents us with risks, he said. But overall he remains "biased towards optimism" that AI will be a net positive for society.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
ITV For Sale: Behind The Headlines Of A Deal That Everyone And No One Is Talking About
If you've watched ITV's The Assembly, you will know that it involves stars like Danny Dyer and David Tennant subjecting themselves to no-holds-barred questions from a captivating cast of neurodivergent interrogators. It makes for illuminating viewing, producing genuine revelations from its disarmed but obliging subjects, who enter the show in a spirit of openness. Far from the cameras, in a colorless room in the basement of London's 11 Cavendish Square townhouse on Tuesday, ITV chairman Andrew Cosslett was similarly squirming in the face of questioning, with less comical results. Chairing ITV's Annual General Meeting (AGM), Cosslett was grilled, almost heckled, by an angry shareholder demanding to know when the British broadcaster's 78p share price will rise after flatlining for more than three years. More from Deadline 'Inspector Ellis' Back On The Case With Season 2 Order From Acorn TV & 5; All3Media Strikes International Deals For Sharon D Clarke-Starring Crime Drama Crisis? What Crisis? ITV Studios Bosses Reject Talk Of Gloom In The Scripted Market But Note British Limited Series Are Under Threat Legacy Media? UK Pubcasters Balk At Outdated Term & Say "We've Got To Be Phoenixes Rising From The Ashes" 'This is not good enough, you must have some idea, you guys are very highly paid,' said the shareholder. Cosslett struggled to answer, reaching for what by now feels like an old fail-safe. 'If you can explain to me what Donald Trump will do next, then maybe I could,' he said. Questions around ITV's sticky share price — Cosslett and ITV boss Carolyn McCall faced three during the 45-minute AGM alone — are inextricably linked to the constant mutterings around its potential sale. On this matter, ITV has been a little less forthcoming with answers than the celeb bookings on The Assembly. The company that gave the world Downton Abbey has been finding new ways to say 'no comment' to inquiries about whether it will submit to suitors, including RedBird IMI and Banijay. Cosslett did, however, reveal a little more at the AGM, first noting that 'the board has an obligation to review offers,' before positing: 'If someone approaches with an offer we have to take interest and it's very clear from the room that there are lots of people interested in getting the share price up.' This week has been a high watermark for sale speculation. Twenty-six miles west of the AGM, ITV Studios' unscripted producers were gathering for their annual 'creative exchange' in Windsor. The meeting has long been in the diary, and although the sale was not officially on the agenda, it was certainly on the lips of those in attendance, some of whom expressed anxiety about a buyer smashing production labels together. 'People are scared sh**less — a lot of people will be losing their jobs,' said one producer. ITV matters, hence the steady drip of press reports and speculation. 'ITV creates more rumors than dramas,' joked one insider. The £3B ($4B) behemoth is a British cultural icon, which entertains the nation with Coronation Street and Britain's Got Talent. The company is also a world-straddling production titan, with ITV Studios boasting shows from Love Island to Rivals, and a great deal in between. Were the listed company to come under new ownership, or if it were to flog ITV Studios, it would profoundly reshape the British TV sector and reorder the global production power list. Flanked by its banking advisors at Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Robey Warshaw, ITV has reportedly been entertaining potential suitors since at least last November. RedBird IMI, run by former CNN chief Jeff Zucker, emerged as the frontrunner to a deal after the Abu Dhabi-backed investment fund acquired All3Media last year. The rumor mill continued to turn last month when The Financial Times reported that French media giant Banijay had held early-stage talks with ITV. The configuration of any deal is opaque, but what is clear is that ITV Studios is the prize for a buyer with production ambition. RedBird IMI's Interest Cools Four sources with knowledge of the talks told Deadline that RedBird IMI's interest has cooled significantly in recent weeks, though the situation remains fluid and could change again quickly. These people said RedBird IMI believes ITV Studios' valuation is too high. Ironically, ITV is said to be citing the £1.15B price RedBird IMI paid for All3Media — around 10 times All3Media's profit that year — as a benchmark for the valuation it is hoping to achieve, though Zucker has previously played down suggestions he overpaid for The Traitors production group. It would put a circa-£3B valuation on ITV Studios, which generated record profits of £300M last year. 'Valuation is always vexed,' someone drily noted. One source said RedBird IMI has reservations about ITV wanting ITV Studios' management team to remain in place post-deal, which has proved a sticking point. Any agreement could see ITV Studios boss Julian Bellamy and All3Media chief Jane Turton vying for the top job, for example. Turton, linked with the soon-to-be vacant Channel 4 CEO role, is said to have frustrations that RedBird IMI has not yet fully unleashed All3Media on the M&A market after it has missed out on targets, such as See-Saw Films. RedBird IMI and All3Media declined to comment. Banijay's talks are said to be tentative. The French production empire behind Big Brother and Peaky Blinders has the appetite for big buys following its €2B ($2.2B) acquisition of Endemol Shine in 2020 and its serious interest in All3Media more recently. Some think ITV Studios might be too big a bite for a company with a net debt pile of €2.6B. The FT reported that Banijay could look to involve other investors if it attempted to acquire all of ITV. 'Banijay is over-leveraged,' said one senior source from the M&A sector. 'They raised money when they bought Endemol but I don't think there are billions of pounds around at the moment to chase down media production content assets. The market is in trouble.' The potential to unlock savings by combining the companies is obvious, this source added, but they questioned whether ITV Studios has a 'game-changing' asset amongst its labels and sales arm to catapult Banijay to the next level. Banijay declined to comment. Sources point out that talks with RedBird IMI or Banijay have not matured to the point where ITV has needed to alert the market to a potential deal. Regulatory rules in the UK required the FTSE 250 company to tell shareholders in June 2023 that it was 'actively exploring' acquiring All3Media. Watching from the sidelines is Liberty Global, ITV's biggest shareholder with a 9.9% stake, which has long been a cheerleader for a sale. Shape Of A Deal Selling ITV Studios could be a simpler transaction, but where this would leave an ad revenue-dependent TV network business is unclear. The so-called Media & Entertainment division boasts sales of £2.1B, of which around a quarter is generated online, including via streaming service ITVX. It is a depreciating asset, but ITV has just been awarded a new license, meaning it is committed to broadcasting public service content for another decade. A full sale would likely attract the interest of UK regulators and lawmakers. This could be particularly thorny for Abu Dhabi-backed RedBird IMI, which has been told it cannot own The Daily Telegraph, let alone a public service broadcaster with guaranteed platform prominence and an audience of millions. Lord Grade, chairman of Ofcom, gestured to this when asked by lawmakers if the media regulator has any concerns about RedBird IMI's interest in ITV. He said this month that RedBird IMI is a 'peculiar' prospect because of its links to the United Arab Emirates government. An industry source told us RedBird IMI has 'never expressed any interest in the broadcast arm,' meaning the foreign ownership questions are not an issue. RedBird IMI's acquisition of All3Media was waived through without so much as an eyebrow being raised by the government. Grade also pointed out that foreign ownership of public service broadcasters is not off the table, given Paramount controls Channel 5. Banijay may be a more palatable option in this respect, with one person suggesting that the French producer could use the ITV network as a testing ground for new shows, akin to the way John de Mol has done at Talpa. There are other options. Some think ITV should explore a joint venture for ITV Studios, allowing it to secure investment and scale while maintaining some control. ITV CEO McCall, who has been in the job for more than seven years, has continued to bolster the production arm, recently sanctioning deals for The Gentlemen co-producer Moonage Pictures and Hartswood Films, the company behind Sherlock. Those close to her say she is unwilling to 'stand on touchlines' as consolidation goes on around ITV in a market where it is competing with Netflix, YouTube, and Meta for eyeballs and revenue. What can be said with certainty is that any deal will be complicated. Thomas Dey, a seasoned media industry M&A broker at investment bank ACF, summed it up like this: 'Achieving the transaction will be hard. I think you've got to be quite special and get quite a lot of support.' For now, ITV's future feels like the subject that everyone and no one is talking about. Best of Deadline Everything We Know About The 'Hunger Games: Sunrise On The Reaping' Movie So Far TV Show Book Adaptations Arriving In 2025 So Far Book-To-Movie Adaptations Coming Out In 2025 Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
