Will there be an AI-optimized programming language at the expense of human readability? There's now been experiments with minimizing tokens for "LLM efficiency, without any concern for how it would serve human developers." This new article asks if AI will force source code to evolve — or make it extinct, noting that Stephen Cass, the special projects editor at IEEE Spectrum, has even been asking the ultimate question about our future. "Could we get our AIs to go straight from prompt to an intermediate language that could be fed into the interpreter or compiler of our choice? Do we need high-level languages at all in that future?" Cass acknowledged the obvious downsides. ("True, this would turn programs into inscrutable black boxes, but they could still be divided into modular testable units for sanity and quality checks.") But "instead of trying to read or maintain source code, programmers would just tweak their prompts and generate software afresh." This leads to some mind-boggling hypotheticals, like "What's the role of the programmer in a future without source code?" Cass asked the question and announced "an emergency interactive session" in October to discuss whether AI is signaling the end of distinct programming languages as we know them. In that webinar, Cass said he believes programmers in this future would still suggest interfaces, select algorithms, and make other architecture design choices. And obviously the resulting code would need to pass tests, Cass said, and "has to be able to explain what it's doing." But what kind of abstractions could go away? And then "What happens when we really let AIs off the hook on this?" Cass asked — when we "stop bothering" to have them code in high-level languages. (Since, after all, high-level languages "are a tool for human beings.") "What if we let the machines go directly into creating intermediate code?" (Cass thinks the machine-language level would be too far down the stack, "because you do want a compile layer too for different architecture....") In this future, the question might become 'What if you make fewer mistakes, but they're different mistakes?'" Cass said he's keeping an eye out for research papers on designing languages for AI, although he agreed that it's not a "tomorrow" thing — since, after all, we're still digesting "vibe coding" right now. But "I can see this becoming an area of active research." The article also quotes Andrea Griffiths, a senior developer advocate at GitHub and a writer for the newsletter Main Branch, who's seen the attempts at an "AI-first" languages, but nothing yet with meaningful adoption. So maybe AI coding agents will just make it easier to use our existing languages — especially typed languages with built-in safety advantages. And Scott Hanselman's podcast recently dubbed Chris Lattner's Mojo "a programming language for an AI world," just in the way it's designed to harness the computing power of today's multi-core chips.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An anonymous reader shared this report from Tom's Hardware: GrapheneOS, the privacy-focused Android fork, said in a post on X on Friday that it will not comply with emerging laws requiring operating systems to collect user age data at setup. "GrapheneOS will remain usable by anyone around the world without requiring personal information, identification or an account," the project stated. "If GrapheneOS devices can't be sold in a region due to their regulations, so be it." The statement came after Brazil's Digital ECA (Law 15.211) took effect on March 17, imposing fines of up to R$50 million (roughly $9.5 million) per violation on operating system providers that fail to implement age verification... Motorola and GrapheneOS announced a long-term partnership at MWC on March 2, to bring to bring the hardened OS to future Motorola hardware, ending GrapheneOS's long-standing exclusivity to Google Pixel devices. A GrapheneOS-powered Motorola phone is expected in 2027. If Motorola sells devices with GrapheneOS pre-installed, those devices would need to comply with local regulations in every market where they ship, or Motorola may need to restrict sales geographically. Or, "People can buy the devices without GrapheneOS and install it themselves in any region where that's an issue," according to a post on the GrapheneOS BlueSky account. "Motorola devices with GrapheneOS preinstalled is something we want but it doesn't have to happen right away and doesn't need to happen everywhere for the partnership to be highly successful. Pixels are sold in 33 countries which doesn't include many countries outside North America and Europe." Tom's Hardware also notes that GrapheneOS "isn't the first and won't be the last company to outright refuse compliance with incoming age verification laws." "The developers of open-source calculator firmware DB48X issued a legal notice recently, stating that their software 'does not, cannot and will not implement age verification,' while MidnightBSD updated its license to ban users in Brazil."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Yes, Microsoft announced it's fixing common Windows 11 complaints. But what about getting rid of that requirement to have a Microsoft account before installing Windows 11? While Microsoft didn't mention that at all, the senior editor at the blog Windows Central reports there's "a number of people" internally pushing at Microsoft to relax that requirement: Microsoft Vice President and overall developer legend Scott Hanselman has posted on X in response to someone asking him about possibly relaxing the Microsoft account requirements, saying "Ya I hate that. Working on it...." [Hanselman made that remark Friday, to his 328,200 followers.] The blog notes "It would be very easy for Microsoft to remove this requirement from a technical perspective, it's just whether or not the company can agree to make the change that needs to be decided." Elsewhere on X someone told Hanselman they wanted to see Windows "cut out the borderline malware tactics we've seen in recent years to push things like Edge, Bing, ads into the start menu, etc." Hanselman's reply? "Yes a calmer and more chill OS with fewer upsells is a goal." Q: When will we see first changes? for now it's just words... Hanselman: This month and every month this year.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Walmart is "rolling out digital price tags to replace the old paper ones," reports CNBC, planning to implement them in all U.S. stores by the end of the year: Amanda Bailey, a team leader in electronics who works at a Walmart in West Chester, Ohio, estimates that the digital shelf labels — known as DSLs — have cut the time she used to spend on pricing duties by 75%, time that has freed her up to help customers. She also said the DSLs are a game-changer because Walmart's Spark delivery drivers looking for an item will see a flashing DSL so they can more easily find the product... Sean Turner, chief technology officer of Swiftly, a retail technology and media platform serving the grocery industry, said that while it makes sense that people are raising questions about dynamic pricing, the real issue is store-level efficiency. "Digital shelf labels solve some very real operational headaches. They cut down on manual price changes, reduce checkout discrepancies, and make it easier to keep in-store and digital promotions aligned," Turner said. All of that can mean fewer surprises at the register for shoppers and better-tailored promotions. "For consumers, the biggest benefit is accuracy and consistency," Benedict said. "Shoppers want to know the price they see is the price they pay. Digital labels can also make it easier for stores to mark down perishable items in real time, which can lower food waste and create savings opportunities." A Walmart spokeswoman promised CNBC that "the price you see is the same for everyone in any given store." But the article also notes that several U.S. states "are looking to ban dynamic pricing. Pennsylvania became one of the latest states to introduce a bill outlawing the practice, following New York's Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act, which became law in November." And at the federal level, U.S. Senator Ben Ray Luján recently introduced the "Stop Price Gouging in Grocery Stores" act, which would ban digital labels in any grocery store over 10,000 square feet, while Congresswoman Val Hoyle is sponsoring similar legislation in the House. "There needs to be laws and enforcement to protect consumers," Hoyle tells CNBC, "and until then, I'd like to see them banned outright." CNBC adds that "While there is no reported use of digital shelf labeling being tied to surge pricing yet," in Hoyle's view "it's only a matter of time."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.