AI Insights

Google is offering all its best Gemini AI features for free, but only long enough to get you hooked

Published

6 hours ago

July 10, 2025

This week, Samsung Galaxy Unpacked unveiled its latest smartphones, the Galaxy Z Fold 7, Flip 7, and Flip 7 FE, all integrated with Google Gemini AI features. To sweeten the deal for potential customers, Google announced a special offer: six free months of Google AI Pro for those who purchase the new phones. This premium subscription service includes access to the Gemini 2.5 Pro model, the Google Veo 3 AI video generator, two terabytes of cloud storage, and early access to upcoming AI features.

Of course, once those six months are up, you’ll have to pay the standard $20 a month to keep your subscription. But, Google likely believes more than a few people will be happy to pay after they get accustomed to its AI toolkit. The psychology behind this is as simple as free samples at the grocery store. Google isn’t trying to sell you a subscription right now because it thinks you won’t want to give it up just because it isn’t free anymore.

It’s a pretty impressive set of features. Veo 3 is one of the most powerful consumer-facing video generators available. And Gemini 2.5 Pro is far more coherent in conversation than its predecessors.

Gemini try and buy

It’s easy to imagine how Google hopes the six months will go. You might spend a month fiddling with Veo and creating movies about your dog going on adventures. Or start turning to Gemini to summarize very long emails, and eventually every email. Or you might get a great recipe from a random prompt to Gemini and soon use it to plan your every meal. By the end of six months, Google’s AI might just be what you turn to a dozen times a day as a reflex. By the time Google asks for $20 a month, you might even consider it a bargain.

That’s Google’s dream scenario, but it comes with a risk. Google is betting that people will find these tools indispensable. But, if people take it for granted for six months, they might resent having to pay for it, no matter how much you enjoy playing with Veo 3 and talking to Gemini. Nobody likes the feeling of having something useful pulled away unless you pony up. That’s probably even more likely when it comes bundled with a device that already costs over a thousand dollars. There’s a version of this where the user relationship becomes less “wow, this is useful,” and more “wait, I have to pay extra for that now?”

But, I wouldn’t be surprised if a scenario somewhere between the extremes still makes Google happy. Tying its most advanced AI tools to Samsung’s brand-new hardware is smart. The Galaxy Z Fold 7 and Flip 7 are devices people buy because they want the bells and whistles. They’re practically built for people who like to show off. In other words, the people most likely to find ways to use AI enough to justify $20.

But it cuts both ways. Because if the experience feels too essential, people will feel punished when it disappears. And if it doesn’t feel essential enough, they won’t bother subscribing. The six-month trial is walking a very fine line between generosity and locking someone in to an AI future.

Source link

AI Insights

New York Passes RAISE Act—Artificial Intelligence Safety Rules

Published

13 minutes ago

July 10, 2025

The Editors

The New York legislature recently passed the Responsible AI Safety and Education Act (SB6953B) (“RAISE Act”). The bill awaits signature by New York Governor Kathy Hochul.

Applicability and Relevant Definitions

The RAISE Act applies to “large developers,” which is defined as a person that has trained at least one frontier model and has spent over $100 million in compute costs in aggregate in training frontier models.

“Frontier model” means either (1) an artificial intelligence (AI) model trained using greater than 10°26 computational operations (e.g., integer or floating-point operations), the compute cost of which exceeds $100 million; or (2) an AI model produced by applying knowledge distillation to a frontier model, provided that the compute cost for such model produced by applying knowledge distillation exceeds $5 million.
“Knowledge distillation” is defined as any supervised learning technique that uses a larger AI model or the output of a larger AI model to train a smaller AI model with similar or equivalent capabilities as the larger AI model.

The RAISE Act imposes the following obligations and restrictions on large developers:

Prohibition on Frontier Models that Create Unreasonable Risk of Critical Harm: The RAISE Act prohibits large developers from deploying a frontier model if doing so would create an unreasonable risk of “critical harm.”
- “Critical harm” is defined as the death or serious injury of 100 or more people, or at least $1 billion in damage to rights in money or property, caused or materially enabled by a large developer’s use, storage, or release of a frontier model through (1) the creation or use of a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapon; or (2) an AI model engaging in conduct that (i) acts with no meaningful human intervention and (ii) would, if committed by a human, constitute a crime under the New York Penal Code that requires intent, recklessness, or gross negligence, or the solicitation or aiding and abetting of such a crime.
Pre-Deployment Documentation and Disclosures: Before deploying a frontier model, large developers must:
- (1) implement a written safety and security protocol;
- (2) retain an unredacted copy of the safety and security protocol, including records and dates of any updates or revisions, for as long as the frontier model is deployed plus five years;
- (3) conspicuously publish a redacted copy of the safety and security protocol and provide a copy of such redacted protocol to the New York Attorney General (“AG”) and the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services (“DHS”) (as well as grant the AG access to the unredacted protocol upon request);
- (4) record and retain for as long as the frontier model is deployed plus five years information on the specific tests and test results used in any assessment of the frontier model that provides sufficient detail for third parties to replicate the testing procedure; and
- (5) implement appropriate safeguards to prevent unreasonable risk of critical harm posed by the frontier model.
Safety and Security Protocol Annual Review: A large developer must conduct an annual review of its safety and security protocol to account for any changes to the capabilities of its frontier models and industry best practices and make any necessary modifications to protocol. For material modifications, the large developer must conspicuously publish a copy of such protocol with appropriate redactions (as described above).
Reporting Safety Incidents: A large developer must disclose each safety incident affecting a frontier model to the AG and DHS within 72 hours of the large developer learning of the safety incident or facts sufficient to establish a reasonable belief that a safety incident occurred.
- “Safety incident” is defined as a known incidence of critical harm or one of the following incidents that provides demonstrable evidence of an increased risk of critical harm: (1) a frontier model autonomously engaging in behavior other than at the request of a user; (2) theft, misappropriation, malicious use, inadvertent release, unauthorized access, or escape of the model weights of a frontier model; (3) the critical failure of any technical or administrative controls, including controls limiting the ability to modify a frontier model; or (4) unauthorized use of a frontier model. The disclosure must include (1) the date of the safety incident; (2) the reasons the incident qualifies as a safety incident; and (3) a short and plain statement describing the safety incident.

If enacted, the RAISE Act would take effect 90 days after being signed into law.

Source link

AI Insights

Humanists pass global declaration on artificial intelligence and human values

Published

45 minutes ago

July 10, 2025

The Editors

Luxembourg was the host city for the 2025 general assembly of Humanists International

Representatives of the global humanist community collectively resolved to pass The Luxembourg Declaration on Artificial Intelligence and Human Values at the 2025 general assembly of Humanists International, held in Luxembourg on Sunday 6 July.

Drafted by Humanists UK with input from leading AI experts and other member organisations of Humanists International, the declaration outlines a set of ten shared ethical principles for the development, deployment, and regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) systems. It calls for AI to be aligned with human rights, democratic oversight, and the intrinsic dignity of every person, and for urgent action from governments and international bodies to make sure that AI serves as a tool for human flourishing, not harm.

Humanists UK patrons Professor Kate Devlin and Dr Emma Byrne were among the experts who consulted on an early draft of the declaration, prior to amendments from member organisations. Professor Devlin is Humanists UK’s commissioner to the UK’s AI Faith & Civil Society Commission.

Defining the values of our AI future

Introducing the motion on the floor of the general assembly, Humanists UK Director of Communications and Development Liam Whitton urged humanists to recognise that the AI revolution was not a distant prospect on the horizon but already upon us. He argued that it fell to governments, international institutions, and ultimately civil society to define the values against which AI models should be trained, and the standards by which AI products and companies ought to be regulated.

Uniquely, humanists bring to the global conversation a principled secular ethics grounded in evidence, compassion, and human dignity. As governments and institutions grapple with the challenge of ‘AI alignment’ – ensuring that artificial intelligence reflects and respects human values – humanists offer a hopeful vision, rooted in a long tradition of thought about human happiness, moral progress, and the common good.

Read the Luxembourg Declaration on Artificial Intelligence and Human Values:

Adopted by the Humanists International General Assembly, Luxembourg, 2025.

In the face of artificial intelligence’s rapid advancement, we stand at a unique moment in human history. While new technologies offer unprecedented potential to enhance human flourishing, handled carelessly they also pose profound risks to human freedoms, human security, and our collective future.

AI systems already pervade innumerable aspects of human life and are developing far more rapidly than current ethical frameworks and governance structures can adapt. At the same time, the rapid concentration of these powerful capabilities within a small number of hands threatens to issue new challenges to civil liberties, democracies, and our vision of a more just and equal world.

In response to these historic challenges, the global humanist community affirms the following principles on the need to align artificial intelligence with human values rooted in reason, evidence, and our shared humanity:

Human judgment: AI systems have the potential to empower and assist individuals and societies to achieve more in all aspects of human life. But they must never displace human judgment, human reason, human ethics, or human responsibility for our actions. Decisions that deeply affect people’s lives must always remain in human hands.
Common good: Fundamentally, states must recognise that AI should be a tool to serve humanity rather than enrich a privileged few. The benefits of technological advancement should flow widely throughout society rather than concentrate power and wealth in ever-fewer hands.
Democratic governance: New technologies must be democratically accountable at all levels – from local communities and small private enterprises through to large multinationals and countries. No corporation, nation, or special interest should wield unaccountable power through technologies with potential to affect every sphere of human activity. Lawmakers, regulators, and public bodies must develop and sustain the expertise to keep pace with AI’s evolution and respond to emerging challenges.
Transparency and autonomy: Citizens cannot meaningfully participate in democracies if the decisions affecting their lives are opaque. Transparency must be embedded not only in laws and regulations, but in the design of AI systems themselves — designed responsibly, with clear intent and purpose, and full human accountability. Laws should guarantee that every individual can freely decide how their personal data is used, and grant all citizens the means to query, contest, and shape how technologies are deployed.
Protection from harm: Protecting people from harm must be a foundational principle of all AI systems, not an afterthought. As AI risks amplifying existing injustices in society – including racism, sexism, homophobia, and ableism – states and developers must act to prevent its use in discrimination, manipulation, unjust surveillance, targeted violence, or the suppression of lawful speech. Governments and business leaders must commit to long-term AI safety research and monitoring, aligning future AI systems with human goals, desires, and needs.
Shared prosperity: Previous industrial revolutions pursued progress without sufficient regard for human suffering. Today we must not. Technological advancement cannot be allowed to erode human dignity or entrench social divides. A truly human-centric approach demands bold investment in training, education, and social protections to enhance jobs, protect human dignity, and support those workers and communities most affected.
Creators and artists: Properly harnessed, AI can help more people enjoy the benefits of creativity — expressing themselves, experimenting with new ideas, and collaborating in ways that bring personal meaning and joy. But we must continue to recognise and protect the unique value that human artists bring to creative work. Intellectual property frameworks must guarantee fair compensation, attribution, and protection for human artists and creators.
Reason, truth, and integrity: Human freedom and progress depend on our ability to distinguish truth from falsehood and fact from fiction. As AI systems introduce new and far-reaching risks to the integrity of information, legal frameworks must rise to protect free inquiry, freedom of expression, and the health of democracy itself from the growing threat of misinformation, disinformation, and deliberate deception at scale.
Future generations: The choices we make about AI today will shape the world for generations to come. Governments, civil society, and technology leaders must remain vigilant and act with foresight – prioritising the mitigation of environmental harms and long-term risks to human survival. These decisions must be guided by our responsibilities not only to one another, but to future generations, the ecosystem we rely on, and the wider animal kingdom.
Human freedom, human flourishing: The ultimate value of AI will lie in its contribution to human happiness. To that end, we should embed shared values that promote human flourishing into AI systems — and be ambitious in using AI to maximise human freedom. For individuals, this could mean more time at leisure, pursuing passion projects, learning, reflecting, and making richer connections with other human beings. Collectively, we should realise these benefits by making advances in science and medicine, resolving pressing global challenges, and addressing inequalities within our societies.

We commit ourselves as humanist organisations and as individuals to advocating these same principles in the governance, ethics, and deployment of AI worldwide.

We affirm the importance of humanist values to navigating these new frontiers – only by prioritising reason, compassion, dignity, freedom, and our shared humanity can human societies adequately navigate these emerging challenges.

We call upon governments, corporations, civil society, and individuals to adopt these same principles through concrete policies, practices, and international agreements, taking this opportunity to renew our commitments to human rights, human dignity, and human flourishing now and always.

Previous Humanists International declarations – binding statements of organisational policy recognising outlooks, policies, and ethical convictions shared by humanist organisations in every continent – include the Auckland Declaration against the Politics of Division (2018), Reykjavik Declaration on the Climate Change Crisis (2019), and the Oxford Declaration on Freedom of Thought and Expression (2014). Traditionally, humanist organisations have marshalled these declarations as resources in their domestic and UN policy work, such as in Humanists UK’s advocacy of robust freedom of expression laws, or in formalising specific programmes of voluntary work, such as that of Humanist Climate Action in the UK.

Notes

For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.

From 2022: The time has come: humanists must define the values that will underpin our AI future.

Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 150,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.

Source link