Age-related vision loss affects millions of people, and so far, there has been no way to reverse the damage. A newly approved retinal implant could change that by allowing some people with severe vision loss to regain functional sight.

More than five million people worldwide suffer from geographic atrophy, the late stage of the progressive eye condition dry age-related macular degeneration. The disease destroys the photoreceptors at the center of the retina, known as the macula, which is responsible for the sharp central vision required to read or recognize faces.

In the US, treatment options are limited to two drugs that can be injected into the eye to slow the disease’s progression. But neither can undo the damage. That could be about to change. California neurotech startup Science Corporation recently won European approval for a retinal implant designed to treat the condition.

“For decades, losing central vision to this disease meant losing the ability to read, recognize faces, and ultimately losing independence. There was no viable treatment. Now there is,” Max Hodak, Science’s CEO and co-founder, said in a press release.

The company’s PRIMA system combines an implant smaller than a grain of rice installed underneath the patient’s macula with a pair of camera-mounted glasses that translate incoming visual information into near-infrared light that is then beamed to the retina. The eye can’t detect this wavelength, so the device doesn’t interfere with any natural sight that remains.

The chip, which works on similar principles to a solar panel, converts the incoming light into electrical pulses that stimulate retinal neurons called bipolar cells. These are downstream of the rod and cone photoreceptor cells damaged by macular degeneration and normally spared by the disease.

In a clinical trial involving 38 patients across five countries, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine last year, the company and its collaborators showed participants gained an average of 25.5 letters—more than five lines—on a standard eye chart after having the device fitted.

And now the device has received a CE mark from the European Union making it possible to sell in 30 European countries. The company says the first commercial implants are expected to be fitted in Germany within weeks, with Italy, the Netherlands, and the UK to follow. In the US, PRIMA holds Breakthrough and Humanitarian Use Device designations from the FDA, but the company is confident it will gain full approval in the near future.

The device is a long way from restoring normal vision. The images it produces are black and white and the field of vision is extremely narrow. Hodak described the experience to the Financial Times as “kind of like looking through a straw in the center of their vision,” though he added that they see a pathway to color vision and higher acuity.

While the implantation procedure is fairly simple, it takes months of training to unlock the device’s full potential. Nonetheless, Hodak told STAT that the company expects to install 20 to 40 devices this year and 200 globally by the end of next if they get US approval in early 2027.

The approval is welcome news for the wider neurotech industry, which has absorbed billions of dollars of investment in recent years with little to show in terms of return.

“Science is showing that brain-computer interface companies have a path to real revenue now,” Jacob Robinson, founder of startup Motif Neuroscience, told STAT. “These companies aren’t all just making a bet on a market that is 10 to 15 years away.”

Hodak told the Financial Times hehopes sales from PRIMA will bankroll Science’s more ambitious work on “biohybrid” interfaces, which use genetically engineered living neurons to connect to the brain rather than metallic wires. “This is the financial backbone,” he said. “This is the thing that pays for the rest.”

Other companies are hot on Science’s heels. Neuralink, which Hodak co-founded with Elon Musk before leaving to start Science, is also working on a vision implant called Blindsight, which is due to enter human trials this year.

While the field remains a long way from the sci-fi vision of seamless two-way communication between humans and machines, this approval is growing evidence the neurotech industry is starting to move out of the lab and into the real world.

The post Europe Approves Bionic Eye to Restore Vision Lost to Blindness appeared first on SingularityHub.

Governments around the world are racing to regulate AI before it becomes too deeply embedded in society. But new research suggests poorly designed rules could make AI systems less safe than having no regulation at all.

Regulatory disagreements in the US are leading to a patchwork of approaches as states take matters into their own hands. A key question is who should be responsible for the safety of AI products—the big tech companies building the underlying models or the firms that adapt them for a particular task, such as a customer service chatbot or an AI tutor.

Working this out is trickier than it looks. While it might seem logical to put the bulk of the burden on downstream companies directly serving these tools to customers, a new study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds that could be worse than having no rules at all.

“There’s a free-riding behavior that occurs,” Benjamin Laufer from Cornell University, who led the research, said in a press release. “The regulation acts as a tool for the general provider to offload the safety burden onto the downstream specialist.”

The researchers’ analysis relied on a model based on game theory—a mathematical approach to studying decision making. It treated AI development as a two-step game, in which a “generalist” developer first invests in building a broadly capable AI model before a “specialist” adapts it for a specific domain and takes it to market.

In the game, a regulator sets a minimum safety standard for both players, and the models see this in advance. They then invest in both the performance and safety of their product, and the revenue is split between them. Investments in both get progressively higher, while the extra revenue each improvement brings in stays flat.

The problem, the researchers found, is that the generalist moves first and knows exactly what the specialist will be legally required to do afterwards. This creates problems when the generalist is set a low bar for safety, or none at all, and safety standards for the downstream specialist are also fairly weak.

In the absence of any rules, both firms invest in safety, because the model assumes a safer product earns more revenue. But if the specialist is forced to invest a certain amount into safety to meet regularity requirements, the generalist can cut its own spending and let the downstream firm close the gap.

That’s because the generalist’s revenue depends on the final safety level of the shipped product, not on its own contribution, so it can get a revenue boost from improved safety without paying for it from its own pocket. The specialist, for its part, has no reason to do more than the rule demands, so total safety settles at the legal minimum, which is below what would have occurred had there been no regulation at all.

On a more positive note, the researchers found that if safety levels on both the generalist and the specialist are set high enough, regulation can actually improve safety while leaving both companies more profitable than they were in an unregulated market.

“Appropriately designed AI regulation can make it possible for different firms involved in the AI development pipeline to collectively arrive at good outcomes for consumers, knowing that the regulation is designed to help each firm operate in a way that the others can more reasonably predict,” co-author Jon Kleinberg from Cornell University said in the press release.

However, the researchers’ model relies on the market setting a real price on safety. As the gap widens between what customers will pay for performance and what they’ll pay for safety, the range of circumstances in which weak rules backfire gets narrower.

The authors also note that the model’s two-player setup is a simplification of real AI supply chains where multiple competing specialists and base-model providers operate across different jurisdictions with different rules.

“People think of AI as a single object, but actually AI involves a very complicated set of stakeholders and actors that each have their own contributions to the technology,” said Laufer. “To regulate in a thoughtful way, we need to consider the whole supply chain, not just a single provider or entity.”

Still, the results suggest that taking an overly simplistic and light-handed approach to AI regulation may end up achieving the opposite of what law makers intend.

The post Weak AI Regulation Could Be Worse Than None at All appeared first on SingularityHub.

Rapidly falling launch costs are making space more accessible than ever. But new research suggests the economics are improving even faster than most people realize, potentially opening the door to entirely new industries beyond Earth.

For most of the space age, the cost of getting material into space was so vast that only the most well-heeled governments and corporations could participate. In 1960, getting a kilogram of payload into orbit would have cost you more than $87,000 (in 2024 US dollars).

But according to researchers at the University of Cambridge, that figure had collapsed 96 percent to $3,868 by 2025. The team’s modeling suggests this trend will continue apace for at least the next few decades, with prices forecast to hit just $1,569 by 2030 and as little as $273 by 2040.

The rapid decline in prices is thanks to a well-established economic principle known as Wright’s Law, which holds that technologies get predictably cheaper as cumulative production grows. The Cambridge team says the trends seen in launch costs could soon make a host of possibilities previously confined to science fiction commercially viable, including orbital solar power, asteroid mining, and space-based manufacturing.

“Space is no longer a science-fiction fantasy or a purely scientific pursuit, it is becoming a marketplace,” Alessio Terzi, who led the study, said in a press release. “Rapidly falling launch costs could open the way to space colonization and commercial activity far beyond low Earth orbit.”

To conduct their study, published in PNAS Nexus,the researchers assembled a massive dataset of rocket launches covering over 4,400 flights by more than 330 different rocket designs from 1960 to 2025. For each launch, they estimated the “unit flyaway cost,” or the total cost to manufacture, maintain, and launch the vehicles, excluding research and development investments.

They then checked how this data stacked up against Wright’s Law, which predicts that every time production volumes double the cost should fall by a fixed percentage. This is known as a technology’s “learning curve” as the reduction in costs is attributed to an industry getting better at producing the technology with experience.

The researchers found space launches obey the law almost perfectly, with every doubling of payload sent to orbit shaving 21.2 percent off the average cost per kilogram. More importantly, this represents a particularly steep learning curve compared to previous technologies.

Solar panels are often held up as the poster boy for learning curves, with prices falling 99.8 percent between 1975 and 2023. But while solar power’s total price reduction is higher than that achieved by launch vehicles, the technology got there by scaling deployment far more. When accounting for total production, solar’s learning curve lags launch costs at 20.2 percent.

The researchers also compared launch costs to another revolution in transport. Steamships transformed our ability to ship goods like wheat and cotton around the world in the 19th century. They found that steamship costs only fell 15.5 percent with each doubling of cargo.

“The cost of space launch technology is now falling faster than during one of history’s greatest transport revolutions,” said Terzi. “Steamships cut costs through explosive growth in global trade. Space technology, by contrast, has achieved even steeper declines at a far smaller scale. This suggests there is plenty of scope for further cost reductions and the industry may now be on the cusp of a comparable economic boom.”

There are, of course, caveats. The researchers note that the industry’s progress is inextricably tied to the fate of a single company. SpaceX already accounts for roughly 80 percent of payload reaching orbit. If the company successfully scales up its reusable, heavy-lift Starship vehicle it could massively reduce costs.

But a company with a stranglehold on the global launch market may be tempted to take advantage of its monopolistic position. This may also push foreign governments and companies away from relying on SpaceX even if it’s the cheapest option.

There’s also the danger that as costs fall and launching material into space becomes more accessible, low Earth orbit could quickly become clogged with debris that makes it increasingly difficult to reach orbit safely.

If these challenges can be sidestepped, the implications of such rapidly falling costs could be profound. The researchers suggest that everything from zero-gravity research and orbital tourism to factories churning out fiber-optic cables and 3D-bioprinted organs could become financially viable.

The post Spaceflight Nears Its Steamship Era appeared first on SingularityHub.