Latest news with #ScienceandTransportation
Business Mayor
09-05-2025
- Business
- Business Mayor
OpenAI, Microsoft tell Senate ‘no one country can win AI'
Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More The Trump administration walked back an Executive Order from former President Joe Biden that created rules around the development and deployment of AI. Since then, the government has stepped back from regulating the technology. In a more than three-hour hearing at the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, executives like OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, AMD CEO Lisa Su, Coreweave co-founder and CEO Michael Intrator and Microsoft Vice Chair and President Brad Smith urged policymakers to ease the process of building infrastructure around AI development. The executives told policymakers that speeding up permitting could make building new data centers, power plants to energize data centers and even chip fabricators crucial in shoring up the AI Tech Stack and keeping the country competitive against China. They also spoke about the need for more skilled workers like electricians, easing software talent immigration and encouraging 'AI diffusion' or the adoption of generative AI models in the U.S. and worldwide. Altman, fresh from visiting the company's $500 billion Stargate project in Texas, told senators that the U.S. is leading the charge in AI, but it needs more infrastructure like power plants to fuel its next phase. 'I believe the next decade will be about abundant intelligence and abundant energy. Making sure that America leads in both of those, that we are able to usher in these dual revolutions that will change the world we live in incredibly positive ways is critical,' Altman said. The hearing came as the Trump administration is determining how much influence the government will have in the AI space. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, chair of the committee, said he proposed creating an AI regulatory sandbox. Microsoft's Smith said in his written testimony that American AI companies need to continue innovating because ' it is a race that no company or country can win by itself.' Microsoft's Smith laid out the AI Tech Stack, which he said shows how important each segment of the sector is to innovation. 'We're all in this together. If the United States is gonna succeed in leading the world in AI, it requires infrastructure, it requires success at the platform level, it requires people who create applications,' Smith said. He added, 'Innovation will go faster with more infrastructure, faster permitting and more electricians.' AMD's Su reiterated that 'maintaining our lead actually requires excellence at every layer of the stack.' 'I think open ecosystems are really a cornerstone of U.S. leadership, and that allows ideas to come from everywhere and every part of the innovation sector,' Su said. 'It's reducing barriers to entry and strengthening security as well as creating a competitive marketplace for ideas.' With AI models needing more and more GPUs for training, the need to improve the production of chips, build more data centers, and find ways to power them has become even more critical. The Chips and Science Act, a Biden-era law, was meant to jumpstart semiconductor production in the U.S., but making the needed chips to power the world's most powerful models locally is proving to be slow and expensive. In recent months, companies like Cerebras have announced plans to build more data centers to help process model training and inference. The Senate majority of Republican policymakers made it clear during the hearing that the Trump administration would prefer not to regulate AI development, preferring a more market-driven, hands-off approach. This administration has also pushed for more U.S.-focused growth, demanding businesses use American products and create more American jobs. Read More Netflix announces next games, including a Mighty Quest title However, the executives noted that for American AI to remain competitive, companies need access to international talent and, more importantly, clear export policies so models made in the U.S. can be attractive to other countries. 'We need faster adoption, what people refer to as AI diffusion. The ability to put AI to work across every part of the American economy to boost productivity, to boost economic growth, to enable people to innovate in their work,' Smith said. 'If America is gonna lead the world, we need to connect with the world. Our global leadership relies on our ability to serve the world with the right approach and on our ability to sustain the trust of the rest of the world.' He added that removing quantitative caps for tier two countries is essential because these policies 'sent a message to 120 nations that couldn't count on us to provide the AI they want and need.' Altman noted, 'There will be great chips and models trained around the world,' reiterating American companies' leading position in the space. There's some good news in the area of AI diffusion because while the hearing was ongoing, the Commerce Department announced it was modifying rules from the Biden administration that limited which countries could receive chips made by American companies. The rule was set to take effect on May 15. While the executives said government standards would be helpful, they decried any move to 'pre-approve' model releases, similar to the EU. Generative AI occupies a liminal space in tech regulation. On the one hand, the comparative lack of rules has allowed companies like OpenAI to develop technology without much fear of repercussions. On the other hand, AI, like the internet and social media before it, touches people's lives professionally and personally. Read More Gartner: Generative AI will be everywhere, so strategize now In some ways, the executives veered away from how the Trump administration has positioned U.S. growth. The hearing showed that while AI companies want support from the government to speed up the process of expanding the AI infrastructure, they also need to be more open to the rest of the world. It requires talent from abroad. It needs to sell products and platforms to other countries. Social media commentary varied, with some pointing out that executives, in particular Altman, had different opinions on regulation before. 2023 Sam Altman: Tells Congress a new agency should be created to require licenses for powerful AI models 2025 Sam Altman: Tells Congress requiring licenses for powerful AI models would be 'disastrous' — Tom Simonite (@tsimonite) May 8, 2025 AI execs used to beg for regulation. Not anymore. — Daniel Patrick Forrester (@DPForrester) May 9, 2025 Others noted that other countries might see where their own AI policies have failed. This is very long and partially boring. But if you work in a European country or in the EU, this should be a must-watch. Senate hearing on AI with Sam Altman, CEO of AMD, Chairman Microsoft and founder of Coreweave. One big recurring theme: 'How do we make sure the failures… — Jo Bhakdi (@JOBhakdi) May 8, 2025
CNBC
01-05-2025
- Business
- CNBC
CNBC Sport: Top sports executives head to Washington over media rights
Every so often, the world of politics collides with the world of sports. One of those moments is on deck next week – Tuesday, May 6 at 10 a.m. ET. That's when the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation will convene a full committee hearing on the future of sports broadcasting. The committee, chaired by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, will hear testimony from top executives at three of the biggest U.S. sports leagues — Bill Koenig, the National Basketball Association's President of Global Content and Media Distribution; David Proper, the National Hockey League's Senior Executive Vice President of Media and International Strategy; and Kenny Gersh, Major League Baseball's Executive Vice President of Media and Business Development. The hearing "will examine the policy questions raised by the changing ways Americans are watching live professional sports on television, particularly how traditional over-the-air broadcasts are increasingly supplemented—or even replaced—by digital platforms, subscription services, and exclusive streaming arrangements," according to a committee press release. The CNBC Sport newsletter with Alex Sherman brings you the biggest news and exclusive interviews from the worlds of sports business and media, delivered weekly to your inbox. Subscribe here to get access today. Many rules surrounding sports broadcasting are arguably woefully antiquated. Live sporting events are often still blacked out in certain regions due to contractual broadcast rights either at the local or national level. This can be infuriating to fans, who can be trapped in areas of the country where they simply can't watch certain games, despite technology allowing easy access to all other entertainment at any time, in any place, on any device. Streaming services – the clear future of media distribution – have given fans some relief by offering games in certain leagues (such as Major League Soccer) without blackouts. Any subscriber to Apple TV+'s MLS Season Pass gets every game in every market for $14.99 per month. But regional sports networks for MLB, NBA and NHL still own the local rights for most teams, which forces fans to pay for either cable or a litany of streaming services to watch most games. One issue that's certain to come up at the hearing is the increasing proliferation of these streaming services. As leagues carve up their rights into smaller bundles, the onus falls on consumers to pay for more and more services – Apple TV+, Amazon Prime Video, WBD's Max and Disney's ESPN all own different packages of MLB games, for example. Senators (the elected U.S. officials, not to be confused with the NHL team from Ottawa) are likely to question league executives on their plans to bundle these streaming services to ensure that costs don't continue to balloon. "Catching your favorite team on TV shouldn't feel like solving a puzzle," Cruz said in a statement this week. "Games that used to be free or easy to find are now scattered across pricey apps and exclusive deals. This hearing will explore how leagues intend to keep sports accessible and affordable for the fans who make it all possible." Another issue likely to surface next week: There is some fear that the National Football League, in particular, may be getting too aggressive with its growing streaming strategy to offer games on new nights. Traditionally, the NFL hasn't broadcast on Friday and Saturday nights. This has protected high school and college football audiences, both in person and on TV. This isn't an accident. It's actually law. In 1961, a U.S. District Court ruled the NFL's proposed method of pooling media rights among all the teams as an exclusive contract with broadcaster CBS violated antitrust law. As a settlement, the NFL worked with Congress to pass the Sports Broadcasting Act (yup, that's a real thing), which created an exception to the Sherman Act allowing for sports leagues to make TV deals directly with networks on behalf of all of their teams. As part of that law, the NFL agreed not to broadcast on Friday and Saturday nights after 6 p.m. from the second Friday in September until the second Saturday in December. Obviously in 1961, streaming didn't exist. I'm told Congress (and the courts) may consider extending that provision to account for streaming as further protection for high school and college football. "The way Americans watch live sports, including the NFL, has changed dramatically in recent years," Cruz wrote in an open letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell on April 17. "Many sporting events, once broadly available for free or through basic cable packages, are now distributed through subscription services and other fragmented models that have left some fans confused about where and how to watch their favorite teams. These shifts and existing, potentially outdated rules raise questions about accessibility, affordability, market competition, and the long-term implications for fan engagement." Cruz asked the NFL to testify alongside the other three sports leagues, but the league declined, citing timing conflicts, according to people familiar with the matter. The NFL did offer to send the committee information and communicate outside the hearing. (The NFL has a Washington, D.C., office.) The league's absence from the hearing – especially when executives from the other three leagues will be there – may make for a prime punching bag opportunity for Cruz and others. There are 15 Republicans and 13 Democrats on the committee. There's little doubt the NFL has been aggressive in carving out new packages with different streaming services to maximize revenue and potentially groom new media partners to buy the rights to more games down the road. This year, the NFL has three different games on Christmas – two on Netflix and one on Amazon. Christmas falls on a Thursday this year and on Friday next year. I'm told some members of the committee are fearful the NFL could eventually try to take over more territory by using streaming services as a platform to move games to Fridays and Saturdays earlier in the season if proper protections aren't installed. I'm told from league sources that this idea has never really come up before internally. So, the whole notion of the NFL moving in on high school and college football may be more grandstanding than anything based in substance. Having watched Senate hearings before, let's just say this wouldn't shock me. An NFL spokesperson declined to comment. If you're interested in watching the hearing, the committee will be taking advantage of the wonders of modern technology and streaming it live on its website. With NBC Sports President Rick Cordella ...
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
As lawmakers call for year-round daylight saving time, could Ohio ‘lock the clock'?
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — Federal lawmakers and President Donald Trump are reviving calls to 'lock the clock' and observe daylight saving time permanently, an effort that previously gained traction at the Ohio Statehouse. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) gathered the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on April 10 for a hearing to examine whether the U.S. should abandon the biannual tradition of 'springing forward' in March and 'falling back' in November. Cruz argued during the hearing, titled 'If I Could Turn Back Time: Should We Lock the Clock,' that changing clocks has 'a very real impact on Americans' businesses, health and happiness.' 'This hearing is an excellent opportunity to examine a thoughtful and rational approach to how we manage time,' Cruz said during his opening remarks. 'Whether we lock the clock on standard time year-round or daylight saving time, let's put our health, the economy, and well-being first and embrace a sensible approach to time management.' What yes or no vote really means for Ohio Issue 2 in May election The effort garnered the attention of Trump, who took to social media the day after the hearing to express his support for ending the biannual tradition. The president's comment came after he called it 'a 50/50 issue' in March, saying 'it's hard to get excited about it.' 'The House and Senate should push hard for more daylight at the end of a day,' Trump wrote on Truth Social on April 11. 'Very popular and, most importantly, no more changing of the clocks, a big inconvenience and, for our government, a very costly event.' Cruz's hearing came after Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) reintroduced bipartisan legislation earlier this year to keep time permanently 'forward,' meaning clocks would not be set back in November. Named the 'Sunshine Protection Act,' the bill's passage would mean later sunsets in the winter but also later sunrises. For example, the sun rises around 7:15 a.m. and sets around 4:30 p.m. on the first day of winter in New York. The act would change sunrise to 8:15 a.m. and sunset to 5:30 p.m. 'My bipartisan, bicameral Sunshine Protection Act, it will end the twice-year time change and make Daylight Saving Time the national year-round standard,' Scott said during the hearing. 'It's an understatement to say that our nation has changed since the United States began changing the clock over a century ago. … Now, changing the clock twice a year proves more of an annoyance to families than a benefit to them. Ohio budget plan renews possibility of high-speed rail Scott noted that when he was Florida governor, he signed legislation to allow the state to opt out of the biannual time change and remain on daylight saving year-round. However, adoption of that bill depends on federal approval, which is why Scott has routinely advocated for the effort nationwide. The same can be said in Ohio. While the Buckeye State is among more than two dozen states that have previously pushed to observe daylight saving permanently, the state's effort is curtailed until federal law changes. Under the Uniform Time Act of 1966, states can change to standard time but not daylight saving, which requires a change to federal law to transition to perpetual daylight saving. Ohio's House of Representatives passed a bipartisan bill in December 2023 to urge the U.S. Congress to pass a previous version of the Sunshine Protection Act. The measure was under consideration in Ohio's Senate, but only received one hearing last June and never passed out of the General Government Committee. Reps. Rodney Creech (R-West Alexandria) and Bob Peterson (R-Sabina), the bill's primary sponsors, also argued the U.S. no longer needs to change clocks, pointing to studies that say moving clocks in the spring and fall causes a number of work, school, safety and sleep-related issues. Provision would restrict how Ohioans spend SNAP benefits 'Continuing to change the time results in a higher number of cardiac issues and strokes and prolonged seasonal depression,' Creech said. 'A recent study revealed that sleep loss, even for as little as one hour, can decrease a child's quality of life, showing significant negative impacts on the children's physical well-being as well as their ability to cope with the school environment.' Jay Pea, president of the nonprofit Save Standard Time, has long said in previous hearings that permanent daylight saving would delay Ohio's sunrise past 8 a.m. for more than four months, sometimes as late as 9:06 a.m., and noted Ohio rejected an effort in 1974 to enact daylight saving permanently. Rather, Pea advocates for extending standard time to the entire year. 'Permanent standard time would protect start times for schoolchildren and essential workers by letting most sleep naturally past dawn year-round. Its benefits to circadian health would improve immunity, longevity, mood, alertness, and performance in school, sports, and work,' Pea said. 'Standard time is the natural clock, set to the sun.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
CBS News
09-04-2025
- Business
- CBS News
NASA administrator nominee Jared Isaacman supports a return to the moon, argues for a parallel path to Mars
Billionaire entrepreneur and space traveler Jared Isaacman , President Trump's nominee to serve as NASA's next administrator, told lawmakers Wednesday he supports sending astronauts back to the moon in the Artemis program but plans to "prioritize" eventual trips to Mars. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) chaired Isaacman's confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, directly asking the nominee if he would "maintain course with the Artemis program so that we can return American astronauts to the moon before President Trump leaves office?" "I couldn't agree more with the president and his inspiring and ambitious goal to send American astronauts to plant the stars and stripes on Mars," Isaacman said. "He didn't say we shouldn't go to the moon. "I suspect the president, as I feel and probably a lot of Americans (are), is wondering what's taking us so long to get back to the moon, and why does it cost so much money?" Along with the president's call to eventually send astronauts to Mars, senior advisor Elon Musk, the founder of SpaceX, has called NASA's Artemis moon program a "distraction" and "jobs-maximizing program, not a results-maximizing program." The Artemis program, with contractors spread across dozens of congressional districts, is behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget. But it has strong bipartisan support in Washington and there has been pushback from lawmakers over Musk's comments and the possibility of major changes that could scale back Artemis, resulting in China beating the United States back to the moon. Isaacman tried to ease those concerns. "I absolutely want to see us return to the moon," he said. "As I mentioned in my prepared remarks, determine the economic, scientific, and national security value while we are also proceeding towards Mars. "I don't think we have to make any tough trades here, Senator. I think if we can concentrate our resources at the world's greatest space agency, we don't have to make a binary decision of moon versus Mars or moon has to come first versus Mars." Cruz asked if NASA, given current budget constraints, could realistically support both a return to the moon along with "a full mission to Mars simultaneously." "Senator, as I mentioned my prepared remarks, I think we can absolutely do that," Isaacman said. "We can figure out the space economy in low-Earth orbit. We can run more scientific missions. "This is the agency that went from sending Alan Shepard on a suborbital mission and eight years later we saw Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the surface of the moon. Do I think that we can get back to the moon, chart a course for Mars and do all the other things? Absolutely." Sitting in the audience behind Isaacman were the four NASA astronauts scheduled for launch next year on an around-the-moon flight, the second mission in the Artemis program and the first carrying a crew. NASA says the third mission, tentatively planned for mid-2027, will carry two astronauts to the lunar surface, the first in a series of ever more ambitious Artemis flights. A renaissance man of sorts, Isaacman, 42, dropped out of high school at age 16 to develop what became Shift4 Payments, a company that processes payments for more than 200,000 restaurants and other retail entities. He also is an accomplished aviator, with a degree in aeronautics, owning a fleet of fighter jets used in part to train military pilots. He paid SpaceX hundreds of millions — the exact cost is not known — to charter two flights aboard SpaceX Crew Dragon spacecraft, the first purely commercial orbital spaceflights featuring non-government, all-civilian crews. The first flight, Inspiration4 , generated more than $250 million as part of a charity drive for St. Jude Children's Research hospital. During the second flight, Polaris Dawn , he and a SpaceX crewmate became the first private citizens to walk in space. "Someday in the future, 50, 100 years from now, you're going to have a lunar base, you're going to probably have some sort of a Martian colony," he said before his first spaceflight in 2021. "But you have to start somewhere. And I think when this mission is complete, people are going to look at it and say it was the first time everyday people could go to space." Reviewing a Netflix documentary about the Inspiration4 mission, The Guardian called Isaacman "that rarest of beasts - a genuinely personable billionaire." Before his nomination to serve as NASA's next administrator, Isaacman was in the process of planning two additional flights, including the first crewed flight of SpaceX's gargantuan Super Heavy-Starship rocket. Those plans will be suspended upon confirmation as NASA administrator. "I am not a typical nominee for this position," Isaacman said. "I've been relatively apolitical. I am not a scientist, I never worked at NASA. I do not think these are weaknesses, in fact I believe President Trump found them to be strengths. "If confirmed, I will bring all my experience to the greatest adventure in human history, the quest to discover the secrets of the universe." Trump announced Isaacman's nomination in December, saying on his Truth Social platform: "Jared will drive NASA's mission of discovery and inspiration, paving the way for groundbreaking achievements in Space science, technology and exploration." Isaacman's "passion for space, astronaut experience and dedication to pushing the boundaries of exploration, unlocking the mysteries of the universe and advancing the new space economy, make him ideally suited to lead NASA into a bold new era," Trump wrote. Isaacman's confirmation hearing came at a time of turmoil at NASA as the agency braces for widespread cuts across multiple programs expected from Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency. The biggest question mark is the fate of NASA's Artemis moon program, its giant Space Launch System rocket and its Orion crew capsule. Along with the ongoing International Space Station program, NASA's primary goal since the first Trump administration has been to send astronauts back to the moon, focusing on the lunar south pole where deposits of ice may be present in permanently shadowed craters. If ice is present in extractable quantities, future astronauts may be able to process it into water, air and even rocket fuel, vastly lowering the cost of deep space exploration. The Chinese are pursuing their own moon program with plans to land their own "taikonauts" on the lunar surface by 2030. Bill Nelson, the NASA administrator under President Joe Biden, couched the superpower competition as a new space race, arguing a U.S. presence on the moon was essential to national security and the nation's leadership on the world stage. The Artemis program is built around the Boeing-managed SLS rocket, which will propel astronauts in Lockheed Martin-built Orion capsules to the moon. In the initial moon landing, they will descend to the lunar surface aboard a variant of the Starship upper stage. Even though NASA is paying SpaceX nearly $4 billion to develop the Artemis lunar lander, Musk, in the wake of Trump's election, has suggested that NASA should bypass the moon and head for Mars. "The Artemis architecture is extremely inefficient, as it is a jobs-maximizing program, not a results-maximizing program. Something entirely new is needed," Musk said on X . But Cruz does not agree. He repeatedly raised the prospect of China beating America back to the moon as a clear challenge to U.S. national security and global leadership. "If China beats us to the moon, what consequences might America face?" Cruz asked. "We certainly cannot lose," Isaacman replied. "If we do not lead the way and we're following, we may be following forever, the consequence of which could be extraordinary. "Even if you're talking about things that have maybe even a low probability, let's say, for example, on the lunar surface helium-3 becomes a new source of fusion power. It could shift the balance of power here on Earth. I don't think we can afford to find that out the hard way. ... Space is the ultimate high ground. We cannot afford to cede that ground." But when pressed, Isaacman would not commit to establishing a permanent presence on the moon, saying more research is needed to determine the scientific value and costs of such a program. Asked about his past relationship with Musk and whether the SpaceX founder would enjoy any unusual access, Isaacman said "my loyalty is to this nation, the space agency and their world-changing mission." "I have to imagine that in the 1960s, Administrator (James) Webb would have taken phone calls and welcomed the input from all the various contractors that were contributing to the endeavor," he said. "But NASA is the customer. They work for us, not the other way around."
Yahoo
09-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
NASA chief nominee, contradicting Musk, opts for the moon first over Mars
NASA administrator nominee Jared Isaacman vowed to prioritize a lunar landing on Wednesday, siding with lawmakers who want to focus efforts on returning to the moon over the desires of Elon Musk to head straight to Mars. Isaacman, a commercial astronaut and billionaire business partner of Musk's, allayed concerns during his confirmation hearing that he would pull resources out of a long-planned mission to the moon in favor of a more perilous — and nearly impossible — trip to the red planet. 'I'd like nothing more than to see … Americans walking on the moon,' he said, referring to a planned moon mission known as Artemis. 'I don't think we have to make any tough trades' between a moon and Mars mission. Isaacman's comments — in response to questions from Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Chair Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) — appeared to conflict with his opening statement, which supported a crewed mission to Mars but made no explicit promise to land on the moon. The entrepreneur didn't rule out the agency ever supporting a Mars landing. But he made it clear that the moon would come out on top. And he committed to maintaining NASA's Artemis mission at least through its next voyage in 2026. Musk, a close adviser to President Donald Trump, has called the agency's moon focus a 'distraction' and promoted a crewed Mars mission. Trump, whose first administration set the goal of a moon landing for NASA, promised the U.S. would head to Mars during his inaugural address. Isaacman said that he would not be influenced by Musk when making NASA policy. Cruz, who seemed relieved at the billionaire's moon focus, warned that any shifting of priorities would benefit Beijing. 'An extreme shift in priorities at this stage would almost certainly mean a red moon, ceding ground to China for generations to come,' he said. But Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the panel's top Democrat, appeared unsatisfied. She had unanswered questions about his support for launch, redundancy, space centers and contracting methods. NASA needs a leader with a strong vision to take it in a clear direction, she said in an interview after the hearing. 'He's still being a little too vague about his view,' she said. 'Of the whole thing.' Joe Gould contributed to this report. CORRECTION: A previous version of this report misspelled Ted Cruz's name.
