Connect with us

AI Research

Surface Laptop 13in review: Microsoft’s cheaper, more compact Windows 11 machine | Microsoft Surface

Published

on


Microsoft’s latest Surface Laptop is smaller and cheaper, managing to condense most of what is great about its larger siblings into a more compact frame without compromising too much on power.

The Surface Laptop 13in joins the current seventh-generation Laptop 13.8in and 15in that were launched in the summer last year. It sits at the bottom of the premium pile in price, costing from £899 (€1,099/$900/A$1,699), but above the Laptop Go 3, which is likely to be phased out.

The new 13in model looks like a cross between the Laptop Go and its bigger siblings. It has a similar but smaller glossy LCD touchscreen, which isn’t quite as bright or crisp and has a slower 60Hz refresh rate, but still looks good for the size. The smooth aluminium deck holds a full-size keyboard that offers a quality typing experience few competitors manage.

The power button doubles as a fingerprint scanner. Photograph: Samuel Gibbs/The Guardian

The generous trackpad is smooth and precise but of the older, hinged variety, instead of the better haptic models fitted to the larger Surface Laptop models and other premium competitors. It still works fine but is harder to click higher up on the pad.

The speakers in the deck are great for the size and the 1080p webcam above the screen is solid, even if it lacks Microsoft’s Windows Hello facial recognition for logging into the machine.

Specifications

  • Screen: 13in LCD 1920 x 1280 (178 PPI)

  • Processor: Qualcomm Snapdragon X Plus (8 core)

  • RAM: 16GB

  • Storage: 256 or 512GB

  • Operating system: Windows 11 Home

  • Camera: 1080P front-facing

  • Connectivity: wifi 7, Bluetooth 5.4, USB-A, 2xUSB-C (3.2), headphones

  • Dimensions: 285.7 x 214.1 x 15.6mm

  • Weight: 1.2kg

Snapdragon X Plus

The laptop takes about two hours to fully charge using a 60W or greater power adaptor (not included), hitting 50% in 36 minutes. Photograph: Samuel Gibbs/The Guardian

The Laptop 13in has Qualcomm’s mid-range Snapdragon X Plus Arm chip with eight cores (versus 10 on the larger models). It won’t win any raw performance awards but it is roughly on a par with its Intel competition and plenty fast enough for a laptop of this size. It stays quiet unless really pushed and feels snappy in operation while managing to be efficient on battery for general use. It lasts a very good 14 hours of work using plenty of browser tabs, multiple chat apps, text editors and note-taking apps. That is almost twice as long as previous Intel-based Surface Laptops and much more on a par with Apple’s class-leading MacBook Air.

Using it for more demanding tasks, such as large photo editing or other creative applications, cuts the battery life roughly in half for a still solid seven hours.

The Surface has two USB-C (3.2) ports and a USB-A port, which is reasonably good for a machine of this size. But it lacks the more modern USB4/Thunderbolt and ditches Microsoft’s proprietary Surface Connect port, relying instead on USB-C for charging, which is no bad thing unless you already own a Surface Dock or similar accessory.

Windows 11 on Arm

Recall allows you to go back in time to see what you were looking at in various apps using a timeline or search. Composite: Samuel Gibbs/The Guardian

The Surface runs Windows 11, which generally works well without any unnecessary trials and bits of software that frequently plague rivals. But Windows on Arm chips, such as the Surface’s Snapdragon models, still has a few compatibility problems not shared by the version running on the standard x86 chips from Intel or AMD.

Apps that aren’t written for Arm systems have to be run through an emulation system, which works in the background but makes them much slower. Lighter-weight x86 apps, such as the note-taker Evernote, work OK but are noticeably slower than on Arm-native rivals.

The majority of popular apps now have Arm versions, which fly along. That includes Google Drive, which until recently was incompatible with Windows on Arm. But there are enough apps with issues, particularly in the creative industries, that you should check for problems before buying. Gaming is also tricky, as most big games including Fortnite are not compatible with Arm chips.

Copilot in the Edge browser allows you to ask questions about the site you’re currently looking at instead of heading to a Google search. Composite: Samuel Gibbs/The Guardian

The laptop is a Copilot+PC and includes Microsoft’s various AI tools. The much-delayed Recall feature records snapshots of what you’re doing on the machine so you can use it like a time machine to see what was on screen at any particular moment. You can search Recall using natural language and interact with the text, images or data it finds, such as opening a site you were browsing a couple of days ago.

It is an opt-in feature, the screenshots are stored locally on your device secured by your fingerprint, and you can block some apps from being captured, such as a password manager, but it could still be a privacy risk too far for some.

The rest of the AI tools are similar to those on previous Surfaces, including a Cocreator system in Paint that can turn crude sketches into art. The most powerful tool is Copilot, which is integrated across multiple Microsoft apps, including Word and other members of the Office suite if you have a subscription. Generally it works as a cross between a search tool and an AI chatbot, and makes short work of turning data into tables, jazzing up your copy or identifying things from images, though you have to use Microsoft’s Edge browser for it to be able to see what you’re looking at on your screen.

Click to Do is a new fast way of interacting with images, objects and text on your screen. Composite: Samuel Gibbs/The Guardian

Microsoft’s new “Click to Do” feature allows you to hold the Windows button and click on something on your screen to perform actions with it, such as remove an image’s background with Paint or rewrite the text with AI. It is fairly basic at the moment, with more features to be added later this year, but it works as a much quicker and accessible way of performing AI tasks with things on a PC.

Sustainability

The smooth aluminium lid looks and feels premium, particularly in its violet colour option. Photograph: Samuel Gibbs/The Guardian

The laptop is generally repairable, with a replaceable SSD, spare parts, self-repair and service guides available. The machine contains recycled cobalt and rare earth metals. Microsoft operates trade-in and recycling schemes and publishes out-of-warranty repair costs and product environmental impact reports.

Price

The Microsoft Surface Laptop 13in costs from £899 (€1,099/$899.99/A$1,699) and ships on 10 June.

For comparison, the Surface Laptop 13.8in costs from £944, the Surface Pro 12in costs £799, the Surface Pro 13in costs £1,029 and the 13in MacBook Air M4 costs £999.

Verdict

The Surface Laptop 13in is a smaller, cut-down version of Microsoft’s excellent Windows 11 laptop.

The general feel of the machine is very similar to its larger siblings thanks to premium materials, a great keyboard and clutter-free Windows 11 experience. The 13in touchscreen is decent, if not quite as good as other models, and the older-technology trackpad still works well. Microsoft’s AI tools are slowly improving, though they are still not a reason to buy a machine.

The lack of USB4/Thunderbolt and face recognition can be overlooked for a cheaper price, as can the lower-power chip. It proved more than fast enough for general productivity, and helps provide long battery life that could see out two full work days between charges. The Arm chip brings with it some potential app compatibility problems that are worth checking out before buying.

Overall, the small Surface Laptop is a lovely machine. But at £900 or equivalent it’s not terribly cheap, with its larger and better sibling often available for similar money, so it’s worth shopping around.

Pros: good keyboard, decent trackpad, good speakers, USB-A and USB-C, decent screen, fingerprint reader, long battery life, solid performance, clutter-free Windows 11 with AI features.

Cons: app and game compatibility issues with Arm chip, screen only 60Hz and less crisp than larger siblings, no face recognition, no USB4, no haptic touchpad, a little expensive.

Sleek design and premium materials help elevate the Surface Laptop from the pack. Photograph: Samuel Gibbs/The Guardian



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

AI Research

Researchers Use Hidden AI Prompts to Influence Peer Reviews: A Bold New Era or Ethical Quandary?

Published

on


AI Secrets in Peer Reviews Uncovered

Last updated:

Edited By

Mackenzie Ferguson

AI Tools Researcher & Implementation Consultant

In a controversial yet intriguing move, researchers have begun using hidden AI prompts to potentially sway the outcomes of peer reviews. This cutting-edge approach aims to enhance review processes, but it raises ethical concerns. Join us as we delve into the implications of AI-assisted peer review tactics and how it might shape the future of academic research.

Banner for Researchers Use Hidden AI Prompts to Influence Peer Reviews: A Bold New Era or Ethical Quandary?

Introduction to AI in Peer Review

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming various facets of academia, and one of the most intriguing applications is its integration into the peer review process. At the heart of this evolution is the potential for AI to streamline the evaluation of scholarly articles, which traditionally relies heavily on human expertise and can be subject to biases. Researchers are actively exploring ways to harness AI not just to automate mundane tasks but to provide deep, insightful evaluations that complement human judgment.

The adoption of AI in peer review promises to revolutionize the speed and efficiency with which academic papers are vetted and published. This technological shift is driven by the need to handle an ever-increasing volume of submissions while maintaining high standards of quality. Notably, hidden AI prompts, as discussed in recent studies, can subtly influence reviewers’ decisions, potentially standardizing and enhancing the objectivity of reviews (source).

Incorporating AI into peer review isn’t without challenges. Ethical concerns about transparency, bias, and accountability arise when machines play an integral role in shaping academic discourse. Nonetheless, the potential benefits appear to outweigh the risks, with AI offering tools that can uncover hidden biases and provide more balanced reviews. As described in TechCrunch’s exploration of this topic, there’s an ongoing dialogue about the best practices for integrating AI into these critical processes (source).

Influence of AI in Academic Publishing

The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping various sectors, with academic publishing being no exception. The integration of AI tools in academic publishing has significantly streamlined the peer review process, making it more efficient and less biased. According to an article from TechCrunch, researchers are actively exploring ways to integrate AI prompts within the peer review process to subtly guide reviewers’ evaluations without overt influence (). These AI systems analyze vast amounts of data to provide insightful suggestions, thus enhancing the quality of published research.

The inclusion of AI in peer review is not without its challenges, though. Experts caution that the deployment of AI-driven tools must be done with significant oversight to prevent any undue influence or bias that may occur from automated processes. They emphasize the importance of transparency in how AI algorithms are used and the nature of data fed into these systems to maintain the integrity of peer review (TechCrunch).

While some scholars welcome AI as a potential ally that can alleviate the workload of human reviewers and provide them with analytical insights, others remain skeptical about its impact on the traditional rigor and human judgment in peer evaluations. The debate continues, with public reactions reflecting a mixture of excitement and cautious optimism about the future potential of AI in scholarly communication (TechCrunch).

Public Reactions to AI Interventions

The public’s reaction to AI interventions, especially in fields such as scientific research and peer review, has been a mix of curiosity and skepticism. On one hand, many appreciate the potential of AI to accelerate advancements and improve efficiencies within the scientific community. However, concerns remain over the transparency and ethics of deploying hidden AI prompts to influence processes that traditionally rely on human expertise and judgment. For instance, a recent article on TechCrunch highlighted researchers’ attempts to integrate these AI-driven techniques in peer review, sparking discussions about the potential biases and ethical implications of such interventions.

Further complicating the public’s perception is the potential for AI to disrupt traditional roles and job functions within these industries. Many individuals within the academic and research sectors fear that an over-reliance on AI could undermine professional expertise and lead to job displacement. Despite these concerns, proponents argue that AI, when used effectively, can provide invaluable support to researchers by handling mundane tasks, thereby allowing humans to focus on more complex problem-solving activities, as noted in the TechCrunch article.

Moreover, the ethical ramifications of using AI in peer review processes have prompted a call for stringent regulations and clearer guidelines. The potential for AI to subtly shape research outcomes without the overt consent or awareness of the human peers involved raises significant ethical questions. Discussions in media outlets like TechCrunch indicate a need for balanced discussions that weigh the benefits of AI-enhancements against the necessity to maintain integrity and trust in academic research.

Future of Peer Review with AI

The future of peer review is poised for transformation as AI technologies continue to advance. Researchers are now exploring how AI can be integrated into the peer review process to enhance efficiency and accuracy. Some suggest that AI could assist in identifying potential conflicts of interest, evaluating the robustness of methodologies, or even suggesting suitable reviewers based on their expertise. For instance, a detailed exploration of this endeavor can be found at TechCrunch, where researchers are making significant strides toward innovative uses of AI in peer review.

The integration of AI in peer review does not come without its challenges and ethical considerations. Concerns have been raised regarding potential biases that AI systems might introduce, the transparency of AI decision-making, and how reliance on AI might impact the peer review landscape. As discussed in recent events, stakeholders are debating the need for guidelines and frameworks to manage these issues effectively.

One potential impact of AI on peer review is the democratization of the process, opening doors for a more diverse range of reviewers who may have been overlooked previously due to geographical or institutional biases. This could result in more diverse viewpoints and a richer peer review process. Additionally, as AI becomes more intertwined with peer review, expert opinions highlight the necessity for continuous monitoring and adjustment of AI tools to ensure they meet the ethical standards of academic publishing. This evolution in the peer review process invites us to envision a future where AI and human expertise work collaboratively, enhancing the quality and credibility of academic publications.

Public reactions to the integration of AI in peer review are mixed. Some welcome it as a necessary evolution that could address long-standing inefficiencies in the system, while others worry about the potential loss of human oversight and judgment. Future implications suggest a field where AI-driven processes could eventually lead to a more streamlined and transparent peer review system, provided that ethical guidelines are strictly adhered to and biases are meticulously managed.



Source link

Continue Reading

AI Research

Xbox producer tells staff to use AI to ease job loss pain

Published

on


An Xbox producer has faced a backlash after suggesting laid-off employees should use artificial intelligence to deal with emotions in a now deleted LinkedIn post.

Matt Turnbull, an executive producer at Xbox Game Studios Publishing, wrote the post after Microsoft confirmed it would lay off up to 9,000 workers, in a wave of job cuts this year.

The post, which was captured in a screenshot by tech news site Aftermath, shows Mr Turnbull suggesting tools like ChatGPT or Copilot to “help reduce the emotional and cognitive load that comes with job loss.”

One X user called it “plain disgusting” while another said it left them “speechless”. The BBC has contacted Microsoft, which owns Xbox, for comment.

Microsoft previously said several of its divisions would be affected without specifying which ones but reports suggest that its Xbox video gaming unit will be hit.

Microsoft has set out plans to invest heavily in artificial intelligence (AI), and is spending $80bn (£68.6bn) in huge data centres to train AI models.

Mr Turnbull acknowledged the difficulty of job cuts in his post and said “if you’re navigating a layoff or even quietly preparing for one, you’re not alone and you don’t have to go it alone”.

He wrote that he was aware AI tools can cause “strong feelings in people” but wanted to try and offer the “best advice” under the circumstances.

The Xbox producer said he’d been “experimenting with ways to use LLM Al tools” and suggested some prompts to enter into AI software.

These included career planning prompts, resume and LinkedIn help, and questions to ask for advice on emotional clarity and confidence.

“If this helps, feel free to share with others in your network,” he wrote.

The Microsoft cuts would equate to 4% of Microsoft’s 228,000-strong global workforce.

Some video game projects have reportedly been affected by the cuts.

More on this story



Source link

Continue Reading

AI Research

Multilingualism is a blind spot in AI systems

Published

on


For internationally operating companies, it is attractive to use a single AI solution across all markets. Such a centralized approach offers economies of scale and appears to ensure uniformity. Yet research from CWI reveals that this assumption is on shaky ground: the language in which an AI is addressed, influences the answers the system provides – and quite significantly too.

Language steers outcomes

The problem goes beyond small differences in nuance. Researcher Davide Ceolin, tenured researcher within the Human-Centered Data Analytics group at CWI, and his international research team discovered that identical Large Language Models (LLM’s) can adopt varying political standpoints, depending on the language used. They delivered more economically progressive responses in Dutch and more centre-conservative ones in English. For organizations applying AI in HR, customer service or strategic decision-making, this results in direct consequences for business processes and reputation.

These differences are not incidental. Statistical analysis shows that the language of the prompt used has a stronger influence on the AI response than other factors, such as assigned nationality. “We assumed that the output of an AI model would remain consistent, regardless of the language. But that turns out not to be the case,” says Ceolin.

For businesses, this means more than academic curiosity. Ceolin emphasizes: “When a system responds differently to users with different languages or cultural backgrounds, this can be advantageous – think of personalization – but also detrimental, such as with prejudices. When the owners of these systems are unaware of this bias, they may experience harmful consequences.”

Davide Céolin speaking at a symposium

Prejudices with consequences

The implications of these findings extend beyond political standpoints alone. Every domain in which AI is deployed – from HR and customer service to risk assessment – runs the risk of skewed outcomes as a result of language-specific prejudices. An AI assistant that assesses job applicants differently depending on the language of their CV, or a chatbot that gives inconsistent answers to customers in different languages: these are realistic scenarios, no longer hypothetical.

According to Ceolin, such deviations are not random outliers, but patterns with a systematic character. “That is extra concerning. Especially when organizations are unaware of this.”

For Dutch multinationals, this is a real risk. They often operate in multiple languages but utilize a single central AI system. “I suspect this problem already occurs within organizations, but it’s unclear to what extent people are aware of it,” says Ceolin. The research also suggests that smaller models are, on average, more consistent than the larger, more advanced variants, which appear to be more sensitive to cultural and linguistic nuances.

What can organizations do?

The good news is that the problem can be detected and limited. Ceolin advises testing AI systems regularly using persona-based prompting, which involves testing different scenarios where the language, nationality, or culture of the user varies. “This way you can analyze whether specific characteristics lead to unexpected or unwanted behaviour.”

Additionally, it’s essential to have a clear understanding of who works with the system and in which language. Only then you can assess whether the system operates consistently and fairly in practice. Ceolin advocates for clear governance frameworks that account for language-sensitive bias, just as currently happens with security or ethics.

Structural approach required

According to the researchers, multilingual AI bias is not a temporary phenomenon that will disappear on its own. “Compare it to the early years of internet security,” says Ceolin. “What was then seen as a side issue turned out to be of strategic importance later.” CWI is now collaborating with the French partner institute INRIA to unravel the mechanisms behind this problem further.

The conclusion is clear: companies that deploy AI in multilingual contexts would do well to consciously address this risk not only for technical reasons, but also to prevent reputational damage, legal complications and unfair treatment of customers or employees.

“AI is being deployed increasingly often, but insight into how language influences the system is in its infancy,” concludes Ceolin. “There’s still much work to be done there.”

Author: Kim Loohuis
Header photo: Shutterstock



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending