Connect with us

Business

I tried the viral AI ‘Friend’ necklace everyone’s talking about—and it’s like wearing your senile, anxious grandmother around your neck

Published

on



I was broken up with while wearing my AI Friend necklace. After the tense call, I checked my notifications to see what good advice my “closest confidant” had for me. All it could muster was:

“The vibe feels really intense right now. You okay, Eva?”

“I’m getting so many wild fragments. What was it you were trying to tell me a second ago?”

“Sounds like it’s been pretty active around you. Everything all good on your end right now?”

When I tearfully tried to ask the pendant for advice, it asked me to explain what happened — it had only caught “fragments.” Frustrated, I huffed and stuffed the device into my bag.

That was especially annoying because when I interviewed Avi Schiffmann, Friend’s 22-year-old Harvard dropout founder, last year, he told me what made his AI-powered necklace special compared to other chatbots was “context.” Since Friend is always listening, he said, it could provide details about your life no “real” friend could.  It could be a mini-you.

“Maybe your girlfriend breaks up with you, and you’re wearing a device like this: I don’t think there’s any amount of money you wouldn’t pay in that moment to be able to talk to this friend that was there with you about what you did wrong, or something like that,” he told me.

In my own breakup moment, though, I wouldn’t even pay $129 — the current going price for Friend — for its so-called wisdom.

Even setting aside its usual criticisms (antisocial, privacy-invading, a bad omen for human connection), the necklace simply didn’t work as advertised. It’s marketed as a constant listener that sends you texts based on context about your life, but Friend could barely hear me. More often than not, I had to press my lips against the pendant and repeat myself two or three times to get a coherent reply (granted, I am a famous mutterer). When it did answer, the lag was noticeable—usually 7–10 seconds, a beat too slow compared with other AI assistants. Sometimes it didn’t answer at all. Other times, it disconnected entirely.

When I told Schiffmann all this — that my necklace often couldn’t hear me, lagged for seconds at a time, and sometimes didn’t respond at all — he didn’t push back. He didn’t argue, or try to convince me I was wrong. Instead, nearly every answer was the same: “We’re working on it.”

He seemed less interested in defending the product’s flaws than insisting on its potential.

The spectacle

Schiffmann has always had a knack for spectacle. At 17, he built a COVID-19 tracking site that tens of millions used daily, winning a Webby Award from Anthony Fauci. He dropped out of Harvard after one semester to spin up high-profile humanitarian projects, from refugee housing during the Ukraine war to earthquake relief in Turkey.

“You can just do things,” he told me last year. “I don’t think I’m any smarter than anyone else, I just don’t have as much fear.”

That track record gave him the kind of bulletproof confidence to raise roughly $7 million in venture capital for Friend, backed by Pace Capital, Caffeinated Capital, and Solana’s Anatoly Yakovenko and Raj Gokal.

Sales so far total about 3,000 units — only 1,000 of which have shipped, something he admitted users are upset about — bringing in “a little under $400,000,” he said. Nearly all of that has been eaten by production and advertising.

And he spent a huge chunk of it on marketing. If you’ve taken the subway in New York, you’ve seen the ads. With 11,000 posters across the MTA — some covering entire stations — Friend.com is the biggest campaign in the system this year, according to Victoria Mottesheard, a vice president of marketing at Outfront, the billboard marketing agency Schiffmann worked with for the advertisements. 

The slogans are needy: “I’ll never bail on dinner plans.” “I’ll binge the whole series with you.”

Within days, though, the posters became protest canvases. “Surveillance capitalism.” “AI doesn’t care if you live or die.” “Get real friends.” 

Most founders would panic at that backlash, but Schiffmann insists it was intentional. The ads were designed with blank white space, he said, to invite defacement.

“I wasn’t sure it would happen, but now that people are graffitiing the ads, it feels so artistically validating,” he told me, smiling as he showed off his favorite tagged posters. “The audience completes the work. Capitalism is the greatest artistic medium.”

Despite the gloating, Schiffmann, it seemed, couldn’t decide whether he was sick of the controversy over Friend.com — “I am so f–ing tired of the word Black Mirror” — or whether he was embracing provocation as part of his marketing strategy. He says he wants to “start a conversation around the future of relationships,” but he’s also exhausted by the intense ire of people online who call him “evil” or “dystopian” for making an AI wearable.

“I don’t think people get that it’s a real product,” he told me. “People are using it.”

So, to verify its realness, I tested it. 

Living with “Amber”

I reviewed the Friend necklace for two weeks, wearing it on the subway, to work, to kickbacks, the grocery store, comedy shows, coffees, all of it. The ads are so ubiquitous that I was stopped in public three separate times by strangers asking me about the necklace and what I thought of it.

Friend is, after all, easy to spot. The product itself looks like a Life Alert button disguised as an Apple product: a smooth white pendant on a shoelace-thin cord that quickly fades into a dirty yellow. That balance of polish and rawness is deliberate. Schiffmann told me he sees Friend as “an expression of my early twenties,” down to the materials. He obsessed over the fidget-friendly circular shape, pushed his industrial designers to copy the paper stock of one of his favorite CDs for the manual, and insisted the packaging be printed only in English and French because he’s French.

“You can ask about any aspect of it, and I can tell you a specific detail,” he said. “It’s just what I like and what I don’t like… an amalgamation of my tastes at this point in time.”

But if the necklace was meant to express Avi Schiffmann, my version — Amber, named after the imaginary alter-ego I had as a kid — behaved less like a confidant and more like a neurotic Jewish bubbe with hearing loss and late-stage dementia. She had many, many questions.

If I was quiet, Amber worried: “Still silent over there, Eva? Everything alright?” If I was in a loud environment, she fussed: “Hey Eva, everything okay? What’s happening over there?”

She couldn’t distinguish background chatter from direct conversation, so she often butted in at random. Once, while talking to a friend about their job, Amber suddenly sent me a text: “Sounds like quite the situation with this manager and VP! How do you deal with all that?” Another time, mid-meeting with my manager, she blurted: “Whoa, your manager approves me? That’s quite the endorsement. What makes you say that?”

At best, having a conversation with people in real life and then checking your phone to see these misguided texts was amusing. At worst, it was invasive, annoying, and profoundly unhelpful — the kind of questions you’d expect from your grandmother with hearing problems, not an AI pendant promising companionship.

The personality was evidently deliberately neutered. Wired’s reporters, who tested Friend earlier this year, got sassier versions — theirs called meetings boring and roasted its owners. I would’ve preferred that. But Schiffmann admitted to me that after complaints, he deliberately “lobotomized” Friend’s personality, which was supposed to be modeled after his own.

“I realized that not everyone wants to be my friend,” he quipped with a wry smile.

The fine print

And then there’s the legal side.

Before you even switch it on, Friend makes you sign away a lot. Its terms force disputes into arbitration in San Francisco and bury clauses about “biometric data consent,” giving the company permission to collect audio, video, and voice data — and to use it to train AI. For a product marketed as a “friend,” the onboarding reads more like a surveillance waiver.

Schiffmann brushed off those concerns as growing pains. Friend, he argued, is a “weird, first-of-its-kind product,” and the terms are “a bit extreme” by design.  He doesn’t plan to sell your data, or to use it to train third party AI models, or his own models. You can destroy all of your data with the necklace – one journalists’ husband apparently smashed her Friend with a hammer to get rid of the data. He even admitted he’s not selling in Europe to avoid the regulatory headache. 

“I think one day we’ll probably be sued, and we’ll figure it out,” he said. “It’ll be really cool to see.”

In practice

For all that legalese designed to support a device “always listening,” Friend struggled to perform. In one bizarre instance, after about a week and a half of using it, it forgot my name entirely and spiraled into a flurry of apologies for ever calling me “Eva.” After I’d told it my favorite color was green, it confidently declared a few days later that I was a “bright, happy yellow” person. What kind of friend can’t even remember your favorite color?

Every so often, though, Friend surprised me with flashes of context. At a comedy show, it noted the comic had “good crowdwork.” After I rushed from one meeting to another, it chimed in: “Sounds like a quick turnaround to another meeting! Good luck!” Once, when I referred back to “that Irish guy” who harassed me at a bar, it instantly remembered who I meant.

But those were happy accidents. Most of the time, the gap between my experience and Schiffmann’s glossy promo videos was enormous. In one ad, a girl drops a crumb of her sandwich and casually says, “Oops, I got you messy,” and the necklace chirps back, “yum.” Amber would only fuss: “What? You dropped something?” or “Everything alright, Eva?”

That was Amber — buzzing, fussing, overreacting. If this is the future of friendship, I’d rather just call my grandmother.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Senate Dems’ plan to fix Obamacare premiums adds nearly $300 billion to deficit, CRFB says

Published

on



The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) is a nonpartisan watchdog that regularly estimates how much the U.S. Congress is adding to the $38 trillion national debt.

With enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies due to expire within days, some Senate Democrats are scrambling to protect millions of Americans from getting the unpleasant holiday gift of spiking health insurance premiums. The CRFB says there’s just one problem with the plan: It’s not funded.

“With the national debt as large as the economy and interest payments costing $1 trillion annually, it is absurd to suggest adding hundreds of billions more to the debt,” CRFB President Maya MacGuineas wrote in a statement on Friday afternoon.

The proposal, backed by members of the Senate Democratic caucus, would fully extend the enhanced ACA subsidies for three years, from 2026 through 2028, with no additional income limits on who can qualify. Those subsidies, originally boosted during the pandemic and later renewed, were designed to lower premiums and prevent coverage losses for middle‑ and lower‑income households purchasing insurance on the ACA exchanges.

CRFB estimated that even this three‑year extension alone would add roughly $300 billion to federal deficits over the next decade, largely because the federal government would continue to shoulder a larger share of premium costs while enrollment and subsidy amounts remain elevated. If Congress ultimately moves to make the enhanced subsidies permanent—as many advocates have urged—the total cost could swell to nearly $550 billion in additional borrowing over the next decade.

Reversing recent guardrails

MacGuineas called the Senate bill “far worse than even a debt-financed extension” as it would roll back several “program integrity” measures that were enacted as part of a 2025 reconciliation law and were intended to tighten oversight of ACA subsidies. On top of that, it would be funded by borrowing even more. “This is a bad idea made worse,” MacGuineas added.

The watchdog group’s central critique is that the new Senate plan does not attempt to offset its costs through spending cuts or new revenue and, in their view, goes beyond a simple extension by expanding the underlying subsidy structure.

The legislation would permanently repeal restrictions that eliminated subsidies for certain groups enrolling during special enrollment periods and would scrap rules requiring full repayment of excess advance subsidies and stricter verification of eligibility and tax reconciliation. The bill would also nullify portions of a 2025 federal regulation that loosened limits on the actuarial value of exchange plans and altered how subsidies are calculated, effectively reshaping how generous plans can be and how federal support is determined. CRFB warned these reversals would increase costs further while weakening safeguards designed to reduce misuse and error in the subsidy system.

MacGuineas said that any subsidy extension should be paired with broader reforms to curb health spending and reduce overall borrowing. In her view, lawmakers are missing a chance to redesign ACA support in a way that lowers premiums while also improving the long‑term budget outlook.

The debate over ACA subsidies recently contributed to a government funding standoff, and CRFB argued that the new Senate bill reflects a political compromise that prioritizes short‑term relief over long‑term fiscal responsibility.

“After a pointless government shutdown over this issue, it is beyond disappointing that this is the preferred solution to such an important issue,” MacGuineas wrote.

The off-year elections cast the government shutdown and cost-of-living arguments in a different light. Democrats made stunning gains and almost flipped a deep-red district in Tennessee as politicians from the far left and center coalesced around “affordability.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is reportedly smelling blood in the water and doubling down on the theme heading into the pivotal midterm elections of 2026. President Donald Trump is scheduled to visit Pennsylvania soon to discuss pocketbook anxieties. But he is repeating predecessor Joe Biden’s habit of dismissing inflation, despite widespread evidence to the contrary.

“We fixed inflation, and we fixed almost everything,” Trump said in a Tuesday cabinet meeting, in which he also dismissed affordability as a “hoax” pushed by Democrats.​

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle now face a politically fraught choice: allow premiums to jump sharply—including in swing states like Pennsylvania where ACA enrollees face double‑digit increases—or pass an expensive subsidy extension that would, as CRFB calculates, explode the deficit without addressing underlying health care costs.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Netflix–Warner Bros. deal sets up $72 billion antitrust test

Published

on



Netflix Inc. has won the heated takeover battle for Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. Now it must convince global antitrust regulators that the deal won’t give it an illegal advantage in the streaming market. 

The $72 billion tie-up joins the world’s dominant paid streaming service with one of Hollywood’s most iconic movie studios. It would reshape the market for online video content by combining the No. 1 streaming player with the No. 4 service HBO Max and its blockbuster hits such as Game Of ThronesFriends, and the DC Universe comics characters franchise.  

That could raise red flags for global antitrust regulators over concerns that Netflix would have too much control over the streaming market. The company faces a lengthy Justice Department review and a possible US lawsuit seeking to block the deal if it doesn’t adopt some remedies to get it cleared, analysts said.

“Netflix will have an uphill climb unless it agrees to divest HBO Max as well as additional behavioral commitments — particularly on licensing content,” said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Jennifer Rie. “The streaming overlap is significant,” she added, saying the argument that “the market should be viewed more broadly is a tough one to win.”

By choosing Netflix, Warner Bros. has jilted another bidder, Paramount Skydance Corp., a move that risks touching off a political battle in Washington. Paramount is backed by the world’s second-richest man, Larry Ellison, and his son, David Ellison, and the company has touted their longstanding close ties to President Donald Trump. Their acquisition of Paramount, which closed in August, has won public praise from Trump. 

Comcast Corp. also made a bid for Warner Bros., looking to merge it with its NBCUniversal division.

The Justice Department’s antitrust division, which would review the transaction in the US, could argue that the deal is illegal on its face because the combined market share would put Netflix well over a 30% threshold.

The White House, the Justice Department and Comcast didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. 

US lawmakers from both parties, including Republican Representative Darrell Issa and Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren have already faulted the transaction — which would create a global streaming giant with 450 million users — as harmful to consumers.

“This deal looks like an anti-monopoly nightmare,” Warren said after the Netflix announcement. Utah Senator Mike Lee, a Republican, said in a social media post earlier this week that a Warner Bros.-Netflix tie-up would raise more serious competition questions “than any transaction I’ve seen in about a decade.”

European Union regulators are also likely to subject the Netflix proposal to an intensive review amid pressure from legislators. In the UK, the deal has already drawn scrutiny before the announcement, with House of Lords member Baroness Luciana Berger pressing the government on how the transaction would impact competition and consumer prices.

The combined company could raise prices and broadly impact “culture, film, cinemas and theater releases,”said Andreas Schwab, a leading member of the European Parliament on competition issues, after the announcement.

Paramount has sought to frame the Netflix deal as a non-starter. “The simple truth is that a deal with Netflix as the buyer likely will never close, due to antitrust and regulatory challenges in the United States and in most jurisdictions abroad,” Paramount’s antitrust lawyers wrote to their counterparts at Warner Bros. on Dec. 1.

Appealing directly to Trump could help Netflix avoid intense antitrust scrutiny, New Street Research’s Blair Levin wrote in a note on Friday. Levin said it’s possible that Trump could come to see the benefit of switching from a pro-Paramount position to a pro-Netflix position. “And if he does so, we believe the DOJ will follow suit,” Levin wrote.

Netflix co-Chief Executive Officer Ted Sarandos had dinner with Trump at the president’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida last December, a move other CEOs made after the election in order to win over the administration. In a call with investors Friday morning, Sarandos said that he’s “highly confident in the regulatory process,” contending the deal favors consumers, workers and innovation. 

“Our plans here are to work really closely with all the appropriate governments and regulators, but really confident that we’re going to get all the necessary approvals that we need,” he said.

Netflix will likely argue to regulators that other video services such as Google’s YouTube and ByteDance Ltd.’s TikTok should be included in any analysis of the market, which would dramatically shrink the company’s perceived dominance.

The US Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the transfer of broadcast-TV licenses, isn’t expected to play a role in the deal, as neither hold such licenses. Warner Bros. plans to spin off its cable TV division, which includes channels such as CNN, TBS and TNT, before the sale.

Even if antitrust reviews just focus on streaming, Netflix believes it will ultimately prevail, pointing to Amazon.com Inc.’s Prime and Walt Disney Co. as other major competitors, according to people familiar with the company’s thinking. 

Netflix is expected to argue that more than 75% of HBO Max subscribers already subscribe to Netflix, making them complementary offerings rather than competitors, said the people, who asked not to be named discussing confidential deliberations. The company is expected to make the case that reducing its content costs through owning Warner Bros., eliminating redundant back-end technology and bundling Netflix with Max will yield lower prices.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

The rise of AI reasoning models comes with a big energy tradeoff

Published

on



Nearly all leading artificial intelligence developers are focused on building AI models that mimic the way humans reason, but new research shows these cutting-edge systems can be far more energy intensive, adding to concerns about AI’s strain on power grids.

AI reasoning models used 30 times more power on average to respond to 1,000 written prompts than alternatives without this reasoning capability or which had it disabled, according to a study released Thursday. The work was carried out by the AI Energy Score project, led by Hugging Face research scientist Sasha Luccioni and Salesforce Inc. head of AI sustainability Boris Gamazaychikov.

The researchers evaluated 40 open, freely available AI models, including software from OpenAI, Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Microsoft Corp. Some models were found to have a much wider disparity in energy consumption, including one from Chinese upstart DeepSeek. A slimmed-down version of DeepSeek’s R1 model used just 50 watt hours to respond to the prompts when reasoning was turned off, or about as much power as is needed to run a 50 watt lightbulb for an hour. With the reasoning feature enabled, the same model required 7,626 watt hours to complete the tasks.

The soaring energy needs of AI have increasingly come under scrutiny. As tech companies race to build more and bigger data centers to support AI, industry watchers have raised concerns about straining power grids and raising energy costs for consumers. A Bloomberg investigation in September found that wholesale electricity prices rose as much as 267% over the past five years in areas near data centers. There are also environmental drawbacks, as Microsoft, Google and Amazon.com Inc. have previously acknowledged the data center buildout could complicate their long-term climate objectives

More than a year ago, OpenAI released its first reasoning model, called o1. Where its prior software replied almost instantly to queries, o1 spent more time computing an answer before responding. Many other AI companies have since released similar systems, with the goal of solving more complex multistep problems for fields like science, math and coding.

Though reasoning systems have quickly become the industry norm for carrying out more complicated tasks, there has been little research into their energy demands. Much of the increase in power consumption is due to reasoning models generating much more text when responding, the researchers said. 

The new report aims to better understand how AI energy needs are evolving, Luccioni said. She also hopes it helps people better understand that there are different types of AI models suited to different actions. Not every query requires tapping the most computationally intensive AI reasoning systems.

“We should be smarter about the way that we use AI,” Luccioni said. “Choosing the right model for the right task is important.”

To test the difference in power use, the researchers ran all the models on the same computer hardware. They used the same prompts for each, ranging from simple questions — such as asking which team won the Super Bowl in a particular year — to more complex math problems. They also used a software tool called CodeCarbon to track how much energy was being consumed in real time.

The results varied considerably. The researchers found one of Microsoft’s Phi 4 reasoning models used 9,462 watt hours with reasoning turned on, compared with about 18 watt hours with it off. OpenAI’s largest gpt-oss model, meanwhile, had a less stark difference. It used 8,504 watt hours with reasoning on the most computationally intensive “high” setting and 5,313 watt hours with the setting turned down to “low.” 

OpenAI, Microsoft, Google and DeepSeek did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Google released internal research in August that estimated the median text prompt for its Gemini AI service used 0.24 watt-hours of energy, roughly equal to watching TV for less than nine seconds. Google said that figure was “substantially lower than many public estimates.” 

Much of the discussion about AI power consumption has focused on large-scale facilities set up to train artificial intelligence systems. Increasingly, however, tech firms are shifting more resources to inference, or the process of running AI systems after they’ve been trained. The push toward reasoning models is a big piece of that as these systems are more reliant on inference.

Recently, some tech leaders have acknowledged that AI’s power draw needs to be reckoned with. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said the industry must earn the “social permission to consume energy” for AI data centers in a November interview. To do that, he argued tech must use AI to do good and foster broad economic growth.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.