WEBVTT - US Department of Justice Proposes Google Sell Off Chrome Browser

0:00:04.440 --> 0:00:12.360
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there,

0:00:12.400 --> 0:00:15.800
<v Speaker 1>and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host Jonathan Strickland.

0:00:15.800 --> 0:00:18.799
<v Speaker 1>I'm an executive producer with iHeart Podcasts and How the

0:00:18.880 --> 0:00:22.680
<v Speaker 1>tech are you. It's time for the tech news for

0:00:22.760 --> 0:00:27.720
<v Speaker 1>the week ending Friday, November twenty second, twenty twenty four.

0:00:28.440 --> 0:00:32.760
<v Speaker 1>This week, the US Department of Justice filed proposals regarding

0:00:32.840 --> 0:00:36.000
<v Speaker 1>what to do about Google, and by what to do,

0:00:36.320 --> 0:00:38.760
<v Speaker 1>I mean how best to address the issue of Google

0:00:39.120 --> 0:00:43.239
<v Speaker 1>absolutely dominating web search, among other things. So this is

0:00:43.280 --> 0:00:48.440
<v Speaker 1>like an anti trust lawsuit proceeding, so as expected, the

0:00:48.520 --> 0:00:53.560
<v Speaker 1>suggestions the DOJ has are pretty extensive. One really big

0:00:53.560 --> 0:00:56.840
<v Speaker 1>one is that the DOJ says Google should stop paying

0:00:56.840 --> 0:00:59.880
<v Speaker 1>out gobs of cash to other platforms in order to

0:00:59.880 --> 0:01:03.440
<v Speaker 1>make Google Search the default search tool on those platforms.

0:01:03.880 --> 0:01:08.800
<v Speaker 1>So Google literally spends billions of dollars every year on

0:01:08.840 --> 0:01:12.360
<v Speaker 1>this effort and pays out companies like Apple to use

0:01:12.440 --> 0:01:16.199
<v Speaker 1>Google Search as the default on their various platforms, whether

0:01:16.240 --> 0:01:19.679
<v Speaker 1>that's iOS or whatever. And the DOJ argues that this

0:01:19.760 --> 0:01:24.319
<v Speaker 1>has led to Google essentially squashing competition and entrenching itself

0:01:24.600 --> 0:01:28.160
<v Speaker 1>as the dominant web search provider. But the proposal goes

0:01:28.240 --> 0:01:32.160
<v Speaker 1>further and says Google should also sell off its Chrome

0:01:32.400 --> 0:01:37.240
<v Speaker 1>browser entirely. Google introduced Chrome back in September two thousand

0:01:37.280 --> 0:01:40.119
<v Speaker 1>and eight, and since then it has become the most

0:01:40.160 --> 0:01:44.200
<v Speaker 1>popular web browser on the market. Stat Counter estimates that

0:01:44.240 --> 0:01:47.280
<v Speaker 1>it holds around sixty six percent of the market share

0:01:47.360 --> 0:01:50.480
<v Speaker 1>right now. The DOJ says the Google should not be

0:01:50.520 --> 0:01:54.160
<v Speaker 1>allowed to release some other browser during the term of judgment,

0:01:54.240 --> 0:01:56.440
<v Speaker 1>so not to create a workaround by oh, yeah, we'll

0:01:56.480 --> 0:01:59.480
<v Speaker 1>sell off Chrome, we just happen to release a different

0:01:59.480 --> 0:02:03.080
<v Speaker 1>browser CO called really highly polished Metal or something like

0:02:03.160 --> 0:02:06.240
<v Speaker 1>that would be a no no. Also, if Google doesn't

0:02:06.400 --> 0:02:10.560
<v Speaker 1>do what the DOJ says, then the department indicated that

0:02:10.600 --> 0:02:15.280
<v Speaker 1>it might come after Android, which is Google's mobile operating system. Well,

0:02:15.320 --> 0:02:19.919
<v Speaker 1>Google has of course protested these proposals in these strongest

0:02:19.960 --> 0:02:22.280
<v Speaker 1>possible terms, even going so far as to suggest the

0:02:22.360 --> 0:02:25.960
<v Speaker 1>changes that the DOJ is demanding would essentially break the

0:02:26.040 --> 0:02:30.400
<v Speaker 1>Internet and harm America's standing in the global technology market.

0:02:30.800 --> 0:02:33.880
<v Speaker 1>Companies like Apple are probably feeling a little antsy too,

0:02:33.960 --> 0:02:37.440
<v Speaker 1>because if the DOJ's proposals do move forward, well, Apple

0:02:37.480 --> 0:02:40.519
<v Speaker 1>would be saying bye bye to several billion dollars of

0:02:40.560 --> 0:02:43.760
<v Speaker 1>revenue every year, so that would be rough. The DOJ

0:02:44.040 --> 0:02:47.360
<v Speaker 1>argues that the payments to companies like Apple also end

0:02:47.440 --> 0:02:51.240
<v Speaker 1>up being incentives that Google is paying out. Essentially, Google

0:02:51.360 --> 0:02:56.040
<v Speaker 1>is incentivizing companies to not develop competing products on the

0:02:56.080 --> 0:02:59.440
<v Speaker 1>market because these companies can make more money just taking

0:02:59.440 --> 0:03:02.480
<v Speaker 1>money from Google and using Google's tool than they would

0:03:02.520 --> 0:03:06.560
<v Speaker 1>if they develop their own product individually. These proposals are

0:03:06.800 --> 0:03:09.720
<v Speaker 1>just proposals right now. These are not rules that Google

0:03:09.800 --> 0:03:12.320
<v Speaker 1>is going to have to immediately abide by. In fact,

0:03:12.400 --> 0:03:14.800
<v Speaker 1>this is something that will be brought before a judge

0:03:14.800 --> 0:03:18.120
<v Speaker 1>in the United States later in twenty twenty five, possibly

0:03:18.160 --> 0:03:21.000
<v Speaker 1>in the second half of twenty twenty five. So we're

0:03:21.080 --> 0:03:24.840
<v Speaker 1>far from a point where Google is facing actual consequences

0:03:25.200 --> 0:03:28.320
<v Speaker 1>just yet. And seeing where the US elections went this

0:03:28.400 --> 0:03:31.120
<v Speaker 1>past year, I would be shocked if the government continues

0:03:31.160 --> 0:03:34.960
<v Speaker 1>to take such a strong stance against corporations and anti

0:03:35.000 --> 0:03:39.840
<v Speaker 1>competitive practices moving forward. Generally speaking, Donald Trump has shown

0:03:39.920 --> 0:03:45.320
<v Speaker 1>to be very friendly toward corporations and less concerned about

0:03:45.320 --> 0:03:48.839
<v Speaker 1>things like, you know, anti competitive behaviors, so it would

0:03:48.880 --> 0:03:53.080
<v Speaker 1>really surprise me if we see continued movement on those fronts.

0:03:53.400 --> 0:03:57.120
<v Speaker 1>But that being said, the Trump administration also has its

0:03:57.200 --> 0:04:01.840
<v Speaker 1>own acts to grind against Google for perceived bias, not

0:04:01.880 --> 0:04:05.800
<v Speaker 1>saying there's actual bias, but there's definitely they perceive a

0:04:05.920 --> 0:04:09.840
<v Speaker 1>bias and have since identified Google as like an enemy

0:04:09.880 --> 0:04:15.760
<v Speaker 1>of the people by presenting search results that conservatives sometimes

0:04:15.920 --> 0:04:20.479
<v Speaker 1>argue are purposefully biased against them. And so it could

0:04:20.480 --> 0:04:24.039
<v Speaker 1>be possible that we'll still see government action brought against Google,

0:04:24.080 --> 0:04:27.039
<v Speaker 1>but it will be driven more by retribution than by

0:04:27.040 --> 0:04:30.160
<v Speaker 1>a desire to break up a trust, which is kind

0:04:30.200 --> 0:04:34.040
<v Speaker 1>of a weird place to be. Bahima abdel Rahman and

0:04:34.160 --> 0:04:37.800
<v Speaker 1>Joe Teddy have an article on BBC World Service. It

0:04:37.839 --> 0:04:40.160
<v Speaker 1>was in Arabic and so I had to rely upon

0:04:40.760 --> 0:04:44.560
<v Speaker 1>a translate feature, so hopefully everything that I read was

0:04:44.640 --> 0:04:48.000
<v Speaker 1>accurately translated. That can always be tricky, but it revealed

0:04:48.040 --> 0:04:52.080
<v Speaker 1>some pretty disturbing information about verified users on X, some

0:04:52.279 --> 0:04:55.400
<v Speaker 1>verified users a small selection, and of course X is

0:04:55.440 --> 0:04:59.599
<v Speaker 1>the service formerly known as Twitter. So the reporters say

0:05:00.040 --> 0:05:04.400
<v Speaker 1>that a BBC investigation found verified users on X who

0:05:04.480 --> 0:05:07.560
<v Speaker 1>were sharing links to sites that traffic in images and

0:05:07.640 --> 0:05:12.160
<v Speaker 1>videos of child sexual abuse material or CEESAM. The reporters

0:05:12.240 --> 0:05:16.719
<v Speaker 1>state that once they alerted X to these accounts, in question.

0:05:17.040 --> 0:05:21.160
<v Speaker 1>The service did ban those accounts, but questions remain about

0:05:21.200 --> 0:05:25.240
<v Speaker 1>the actual verification process, because one would hope that if

0:05:25.279 --> 0:05:28.760
<v Speaker 1>you're providing a check like a verified check, and if

0:05:28.760 --> 0:05:33.560
<v Speaker 1>you're allowing verified accounts to have a much larger reach

0:05:33.760 --> 0:05:36.680
<v Speaker 1>than standard accounts, you would also have a process that

0:05:36.720 --> 0:05:39.400
<v Speaker 1>would include some sort of vetting to make sure that

0:05:39.400 --> 0:05:43.440
<v Speaker 1>those accounts in question aren't violating the law. The BBC

0:05:43.560 --> 0:05:46.560
<v Speaker 1>reported that at least one verified account had been posting

0:05:46.640 --> 0:05:50.240
<v Speaker 1>links to illegal material for at least six months without

0:05:50.279 --> 0:05:54.039
<v Speaker 1>any intervention on behalf of x The investigators found the

0:05:54.080 --> 0:05:57.159
<v Speaker 1>accounts by searching for a few keywords in quote unquote

0:05:57.240 --> 0:06:00.560
<v Speaker 1>Arabic dialect. These words have been used as a sort

0:06:00.600 --> 0:06:03.680
<v Speaker 1>of code among se Sam traffickers as a means of

0:06:03.720 --> 0:06:07.800
<v Speaker 1>finding one another without directly raising suspicion. According to the BBC,

0:06:07.920 --> 0:06:11.880
<v Speaker 1>the verified accounts didn't have very many followers, but because

0:06:11.920 --> 0:06:15.360
<v Speaker 1>those accounts were verified, their posts actually had a really

0:06:15.400 --> 0:06:19.440
<v Speaker 1>broad reach and thousands of people saw these posts. So

0:06:19.480 --> 0:06:21.920
<v Speaker 1>while there weren't a lot of followers for the individual accounts,

0:06:22.200 --> 0:06:25.120
<v Speaker 1>they still had a pretty big impact. And obviously the

0:06:25.200 --> 0:06:29.039
<v Speaker 1>story is absolutely horrifying, and in my opinion, it also

0:06:29.080 --> 0:06:32.279
<v Speaker 1>puts a spotlight on how X's approach to verification, where

0:06:32.279 --> 0:06:35.919
<v Speaker 1>it becomes just a simple paid option, is far inferior

0:06:36.040 --> 0:06:38.480
<v Speaker 1>to the way it worked in the old Twitter days.

0:06:38.720 --> 0:06:41.200
<v Speaker 1>But I guess I should stop beating that drum and

0:06:41.640 --> 0:06:47.960
<v Speaker 1>just accept that X is, in my opinion, totally inferior

0:06:48.240 --> 0:06:53.000
<v Speaker 1>to what Twitter used to be. Smritty Malapti and my

0:06:53.080 --> 0:06:58.840
<v Speaker 1>apologies for Armalapati. I suppose I'm mispronouncing this name terribly anyway.

0:06:59.000 --> 0:07:02.440
<v Speaker 1>A reporter for Nature has an article that's titled a

0:07:02.560 --> 0:07:06.000
<v Speaker 1>Place of Joy Why scientists are joining the rush to

0:07:06.040 --> 0:07:09.320
<v Speaker 1>Blue Sky. Now, if you recall, blue Sky is an

0:07:09.360 --> 0:07:13.640
<v Speaker 1>alternative to x, slash, Twitter or Meta's threads, it's closer

0:07:13.640 --> 0:07:17.520
<v Speaker 1>to mast it on. It's like the federated version of

0:07:17.760 --> 0:07:21.400
<v Speaker 1>these services, which means that it's housed on multiple servers

0:07:21.760 --> 0:07:25.200
<v Speaker 1>that connect to one another, but it's not centralized the

0:07:25.240 --> 0:07:28.800
<v Speaker 1>way Twitter was or is. Blue Sky itself started as

0:07:28.840 --> 0:07:32.280
<v Speaker 1>a project within Twitter. Jack Dorsey was behind the initial creation,

0:07:32.360 --> 0:07:35.080
<v Speaker 1>although he is no longer involved with the company. So

0:07:35.320 --> 0:07:38.960
<v Speaker 1>why are scientists migrating to blue Sky? Well, according to

0:07:39.000 --> 0:07:42.760
<v Speaker 1>the article, it's for several reasons. One, there's more control

0:07:42.840 --> 0:07:45.440
<v Speaker 1>over what you see on Blue Sky, You're more likely

0:07:45.480 --> 0:07:48.560
<v Speaker 1>to see messages posted by people and accounts you actively follow,

0:07:48.960 --> 0:07:51.800
<v Speaker 1>rather than stuff that some algorithm is just shoving at

0:07:51.840 --> 0:07:55.800
<v Speaker 1>you for whatever reason, For example, prioritizing posts from folks

0:07:55.840 --> 0:07:58.480
<v Speaker 1>who paid to be verified over other stuff that you

0:07:58.520 --> 0:08:02.040
<v Speaker 1>actually want to see. Moderation has taken far more seriously

0:08:02.080 --> 0:08:04.320
<v Speaker 1>at blue Sky. If you block someone on blue Sky,

0:08:04.440 --> 0:08:06.720
<v Speaker 1>it is a real block. It's not the way it

0:08:06.760 --> 0:08:09.080
<v Speaker 1>is over on X. People who are blocked from you

0:08:09.440 --> 0:08:12.520
<v Speaker 1>on X can still see what you post, which is wild,

0:08:12.840 --> 0:08:15.800
<v Speaker 1>and it sounds like their reasons for leaving X are

0:08:15.840 --> 0:08:18.520
<v Speaker 1>pretty similar to my own reasons when I left X

0:08:18.560 --> 0:08:20.240
<v Speaker 1>a couple of years ago. If you still have an

0:08:20.240 --> 0:08:22.680
<v Speaker 1>account on X, I'm not throwing any shade at you.

0:08:23.000 --> 0:08:25.240
<v Speaker 1>I mean, lots of people have accounts for lots of reasons.

0:08:25.440 --> 0:08:27.880
<v Speaker 1>But it just became clear that X is not the

0:08:27.960 --> 0:08:30.800
<v Speaker 1>right place for me, and I think for a lot

0:08:30.840 --> 0:08:34.400
<v Speaker 1>of other folks they're coming to a similar conclusion. Sticking

0:08:34.400 --> 0:08:37.679
<v Speaker 1>with Blue Sky, Jonathan Vanian of CNBC has an article

0:08:37.679 --> 0:08:41.040
<v Speaker 1>in which Blue Sky's CEO Jay Graber has explained that

0:08:41.080 --> 0:08:44.720
<v Speaker 1>Blue Sky is quote unquote billionaire proof, meaning that Blue

0:08:44.720 --> 0:08:47.720
<v Speaker 1>Sky couldn't be bought and repurposed the way Elon Musk

0:08:47.800 --> 0:08:51.200
<v Speaker 1>bought and transformed Twitter. Blue Sky's design is based on

0:08:51.320 --> 0:08:54.600
<v Speaker 1>an open source approach with federated service as I mentioned,

0:08:54.720 --> 0:08:58.000
<v Speaker 1>so even if someone were buying up blue Sky servers,

0:08:58.080 --> 0:09:00.480
<v Speaker 1>you could create a new one and port your server

0:09:00.600 --> 0:09:03.520
<v Speaker 1>over to that one and maintain all your previous connections

0:09:03.559 --> 0:09:06.320
<v Speaker 1>with those whom you follow and those who follow you.

0:09:06.840 --> 0:09:09.920
<v Speaker 1>And Blue Sky's approach appears to be resonating with lots

0:09:09.920 --> 0:09:12.360
<v Speaker 1>of people. The service has seen millions of people sign

0:09:12.440 --> 0:09:14.520
<v Speaker 1>up in the wake of the US elections. It now

0:09:14.600 --> 0:09:17.520
<v Speaker 1>has more than twenty one million registered users, but that

0:09:17.679 --> 0:09:21.360
<v Speaker 1>is still minuscule compared to a service like Twitter. Twitter

0:09:21.600 --> 0:09:25.520
<v Speaker 1>has reported having hundreds of millions of monthly users. So

0:09:25.720 --> 0:09:29.040
<v Speaker 1>let's keep everything in perspective. Okay, we've gotten more news

0:09:29.080 --> 0:09:31.000
<v Speaker 1>to get through. Before we get to that, let's take

0:09:31.040 --> 0:09:44.760
<v Speaker 1>a quick break. We're back. The US Consumer Financial Protection

0:09:44.880 --> 0:09:48.959
<v Speaker 1>Bureau or CFPB issued rules that will group large digital

0:09:49.000 --> 0:09:52.440
<v Speaker 1>payment providers under the Bureau's regulations. So this is only

0:09:52.480 --> 0:09:55.520
<v Speaker 1>going to apply to digital payment apps that handle more

0:09:55.520 --> 0:09:59.560
<v Speaker 1>than fifty million transactions a year. That covers heavy hitters

0:09:59.600 --> 0:10:02.800
<v Speaker 1>like Google Wallet and Apple Pay that kind of thing. Initially,

0:10:03.360 --> 0:10:08.080
<v Speaker 1>the CFPB was planning on a much more comprehensive list

0:10:08.520 --> 0:10:12.160
<v Speaker 1>that would include apps that handle five million transactions or

0:10:12.160 --> 0:10:14.880
<v Speaker 1>more per year, but it switched to this, so these

0:10:14.880 --> 0:10:17.760
<v Speaker 1>services are now going to be subjected to regulations the

0:10:17.800 --> 0:10:19.960
<v Speaker 1>same way that banks and credit unions are here in

0:10:19.960 --> 0:10:23.640
<v Speaker 1>the United States. The CFPB issued a statement saying that

0:10:23.679 --> 0:10:26.360
<v Speaker 1>the rules mean that consumers are going to receive more

0:10:26.400 --> 0:10:31.080
<v Speaker 1>protection as a result, including against actions like illegal account closures,

0:10:31.360 --> 0:10:35.120
<v Speaker 1>just meaning that if these digital payment systems do certain

0:10:35.440 --> 0:10:40.360
<v Speaker 1>acts that are questionable or illegal, the CFPB has the

0:10:40.440 --> 0:10:45.320
<v Speaker 1>authority to regulate that and to punish a company for

0:10:45.400 --> 0:10:47.880
<v Speaker 1>doing those kinds of things, and that this was just

0:10:47.920 --> 0:10:50.840
<v Speaker 1>to establish that they do have to follow these rules.

0:10:51.160 --> 0:10:53.640
<v Speaker 1>There's some rough news for gamers as we head into

0:10:53.640 --> 0:10:56.920
<v Speaker 1>the holidays. Nvidia announced that it is facing a potential

0:10:57.040 --> 0:11:00.480
<v Speaker 1>gaming GPU shortage this quarter. This is a into an

0:11:00.559 --> 0:11:04.600
<v Speaker 1>article by Hassam Nasir of Tom's Hardware. Nasir reports that

0:11:04.720 --> 0:11:08.120
<v Speaker 1>during the most recent Nvidia earnings call to shareholders that

0:11:08.240 --> 0:11:12.760
<v Speaker 1>chief financial Officer Collette Kress revealed a possible squeeze in

0:11:12.880 --> 0:11:16.680
<v Speaker 1>GPU supplies, one that would likely be addressed early next year,

0:11:16.920 --> 0:11:19.400
<v Speaker 1>and this could mean that finding graphics cards in the

0:11:19.400 --> 0:11:22.760
<v Speaker 1>short term the holiday season, particularly graphics cards that are

0:11:22.800 --> 0:11:27.360
<v Speaker 1>not exorbitantly expensive, might be a little tricky. Nasir writes

0:11:27.400 --> 0:11:30.839
<v Speaker 1>that one possible reason for this shortage could actually be

0:11:30.880 --> 0:11:34.000
<v Speaker 1>in Vidia's plan to launch a new series of cards,

0:11:34.120 --> 0:11:37.640
<v Speaker 1>a new generation of GPUs called Blackwell, and this will

0:11:37.640 --> 0:11:41.160
<v Speaker 1>happen in January of next year, So the reduction in

0:11:41.200 --> 0:11:44.520
<v Speaker 1>supply could partly be due to Nvidia wanting to set

0:11:44.559 --> 0:11:46.720
<v Speaker 1>the stage for a huge launch with a new generation

0:11:46.800 --> 0:11:48.480
<v Speaker 1>of cards next year. And I know it's a lot

0:11:48.520 --> 0:11:50.960
<v Speaker 1>easier to sell a bunch of new cards if there

0:11:51.000 --> 0:11:55.000
<v Speaker 1>aren't a bunch of previous generation cards on sale for

0:11:55.200 --> 0:11:58.240
<v Speaker 1>a lower price on the market already. Tom Warren of

0:11:58.280 --> 0:12:01.000
<v Speaker 1>The Verge has an article explaining how Microsoft appears to

0:12:01.040 --> 0:12:03.640
<v Speaker 1>be urging Windows ten owners to upgrade to a new

0:12:03.679 --> 0:12:06.800
<v Speaker 1>computer in order to migrate to Windows eleven and to

0:12:06.840 --> 0:12:10.760
<v Speaker 1>take advantage of copilot features. Warren reports that some Windows

0:12:10.760 --> 0:12:14.320
<v Speaker 1>ten users are encountering full screen pop ups that not

0:12:14.440 --> 0:12:17.199
<v Speaker 1>only point out that Microsoft will be ending support for

0:12:17.280 --> 0:12:20.880
<v Speaker 1>Windows ten in October next year, but also that it

0:12:20.960 --> 0:12:23.160
<v Speaker 1>might be time to get a new machine because as

0:12:23.200 --> 0:12:26.360
<v Speaker 1>Warren points out the messaging is suggesting, you know, well,

0:12:26.400 --> 0:12:28.840
<v Speaker 1>you need a new computer to run Windows eleven because

0:12:29.280 --> 0:12:32.520
<v Speaker 1>Windows eleven has system requirements that a lot of older

0:12:32.520 --> 0:12:35.640
<v Speaker 1>computers just don't meet. But Warren also points out the

0:12:35.679 --> 0:12:39.640
<v Speaker 1>messaging could be considered a little misleading because Microsoft will

0:12:39.679 --> 0:12:43.560
<v Speaker 1>continue to provide limited ongoing support for Windows ten. However,

0:12:43.640 --> 0:12:45.680
<v Speaker 1>you will have to pay thirty dollars a year to

0:12:45.760 --> 0:12:48.800
<v Speaker 1>get those extra updates. But yeah, I don't know how

0:12:48.800 --> 0:12:50.920
<v Speaker 1>I would feel if I were working on my computer

0:12:51.000 --> 0:12:53.840
<v Speaker 1>and I just got a message that completely took up

0:12:53.880 --> 0:12:56.960
<v Speaker 1>the entire screen that essentially is saying, Hey, I know

0:12:57.080 --> 0:12:59.680
<v Speaker 1>stuff's real expensive right now, and you probably have a

0:12:59.679 --> 0:13:01.800
<v Speaker 1>lot of other things on your mind, but you should

0:13:01.840 --> 0:13:04.840
<v Speaker 1>really get a new computer. That would really cheese me off. Obviously,

0:13:05.200 --> 0:13:09.079
<v Speaker 1>the actual messages don't say that. I am liberally paraphrasing

0:13:09.080 --> 0:13:13.800
<v Speaker 1>and interpreting here and switching over to Alfonso Maruccia of

0:13:13.880 --> 0:13:16.840
<v Speaker 1>techt Spot, let's talk about another article that details a

0:13:16.840 --> 0:13:19.400
<v Speaker 1>move by Microsoft that is rubbing people the wrong way.

0:13:19.520 --> 0:13:23.480
<v Speaker 1>That article is called the Official Bing Wallpaper app does

0:13:23.520 --> 0:13:27.800
<v Speaker 1>some nasty malware like things to Windows. Yikes. So here's

0:13:27.840 --> 0:13:30.600
<v Speaker 1>the deal. The app is meant to let users swap

0:13:30.640 --> 0:13:33.840
<v Speaker 1>out their desktop wallpaper on their computers in a really

0:13:33.880 --> 0:13:37.120
<v Speaker 1>easy and seamless way. Only it seems to do stuff

0:13:37.120 --> 0:13:40.840
<v Speaker 1>that's not at all related to displaying wallpapers, you know,

0:13:40.880 --> 0:13:45.720
<v Speaker 1>stuff like decrypting cookies, including cookies saved in browsers other

0:13:45.760 --> 0:13:49.320
<v Speaker 1>than Microsoft Edge, like Chrome or Firefox. It also apparently

0:13:49.320 --> 0:13:53.800
<v Speaker 1>incorporates some sort of geolocation features and installs bing visual

0:13:53.880 --> 0:13:56.640
<v Speaker 1>search on the computer, as well as prompts users to

0:13:56.679 --> 0:14:00.360
<v Speaker 1>make Edge their default browser and install some sneaky browser

0:14:00.440 --> 0:14:03.960
<v Speaker 1>extensions and competing browsers of Chrome and Firefox. So it

0:14:04.040 --> 0:14:08.400
<v Speaker 1>certainly sounds like the Being Wallpaper app is drastically overstepping

0:14:08.440 --> 0:14:12.880
<v Speaker 1>itself here. I'm reminded of Sony and DRM, where Sony

0:14:13.000 --> 0:14:18.760
<v Speaker 1>inadvertently created malware with its digital rights management approach. That

0:14:18.960 --> 0:14:22.040
<v Speaker 1>sounds kind of like what we're talking about here, But

0:14:22.280 --> 0:14:24.720
<v Speaker 1>I have no idea what the intent was, but it

0:14:24.800 --> 0:14:27.680
<v Speaker 1>definitely doesn't doesn't sound like it was a good move

0:14:27.720 --> 0:14:31.880
<v Speaker 1>on in my opinion. Maxwell Zef of tech Crunch reports

0:14:31.880 --> 0:14:34.960
<v Speaker 1>that Apple is apparently developing an updated version of Siri

0:14:35.160 --> 0:14:38.280
<v Speaker 1>that will lean heavily on the large language model approach

0:14:38.320 --> 0:14:42.640
<v Speaker 1>to AI. This means that Siri would ideally become more conversational.

0:14:43.000 --> 0:14:45.800
<v Speaker 1>Presumably this will make it possible to use Siri to

0:14:45.920 --> 0:14:49.520
<v Speaker 1>interact with apps in a deeper, more complex way, but

0:14:49.600 --> 0:14:51.840
<v Speaker 1>it is going to take some time. Zef says. The

0:14:51.880 --> 0:14:54.400
<v Speaker 1>plan is for Apple to release this new version of

0:14:54.520 --> 0:14:58.440
<v Speaker 1>Siri in the spring of twenty twenty six. In the

0:14:58.680 --> 0:15:01.000
<v Speaker 1>do As I Say and Not As I Do category,

0:15:01.080 --> 0:15:03.800
<v Speaker 1>our next story is about generative AI and why you

0:15:03.840 --> 0:15:07.960
<v Speaker 1>should not rely on it, especially for important stuff like say,

0:15:08.280 --> 0:15:12.360
<v Speaker 1>filing expert testimony in a lawsuit that is aimed to

0:15:12.440 --> 0:15:17.200
<v Speaker 1>take on generative AI. All right, so not really generative AI.

0:15:17.280 --> 0:15:19.640
<v Speaker 1>Deep fakes. It's related, but not the same thing. So

0:15:19.800 --> 0:15:22.840
<v Speaker 1>in Minnesota, there is a state law that makes it

0:15:22.960 --> 0:15:27.040
<v Speaker 1>illegal to knowingly disseminate deep fakes up to ninety days

0:15:27.080 --> 0:15:30.440
<v Speaker 1>before an election if the material in that deep fake

0:15:30.560 --> 0:15:34.200
<v Speaker 1>video was made with an intent to influence the election,

0:15:34.480 --> 0:15:37.480
<v Speaker 1>and if the subject of the deep fake video did

0:15:37.480 --> 0:15:42.120
<v Speaker 1>not consent to being in it. Christopher Coles has challenged

0:15:42.280 --> 0:15:45.520
<v Speaker 1>this law, filing a lawsuit that argues this violates the

0:15:45.680 --> 0:15:49.080
<v Speaker 1>First Amendment the Freedom of speech in the US Constitution.

0:15:49.600 --> 0:15:54.000
<v Speaker 1>The state Minnesota has tapped the director of Stanford University's

0:15:54.000 --> 0:15:57.080
<v Speaker 1>Social Media Lab a guy named Jeff Hancock to provide

0:15:57.120 --> 0:16:00.600
<v Speaker 1>expert testimony regarding the dangers of deep fake technology. So

0:16:00.720 --> 0:16:04.760
<v Speaker 1>Hancock did, but apparently the testimony he submitted contains hints

0:16:04.800 --> 0:16:08.320
<v Speaker 1>that he himself relied on Generative AI in order to

0:16:08.400 --> 0:16:11.600
<v Speaker 1>write it, which is a big old whoopsie. Hancock's testimony

0:16:11.680 --> 0:16:15.240
<v Speaker 1>cites a study that doesn't appear to actually exist, which

0:16:15.280 --> 0:16:19.200
<v Speaker 1>suggests it is an AI hallucination. Now, some of y'all

0:16:19.280 --> 0:16:22.120
<v Speaker 1>might remember that several months ago I did an episode

0:16:22.160 --> 0:16:25.800
<v Speaker 1>of Tech Stuff that was quote unquote written by Generative AI,

0:16:26.200 --> 0:16:28.400
<v Speaker 1>and one of the things I found really upsetting when

0:16:28.440 --> 0:16:31.800
<v Speaker 1>I did this was that the AI invented experts in

0:16:31.880 --> 0:16:35.960
<v Speaker 1>order to present certain information as having academic validity, like

0:16:36.040 --> 0:16:39.080
<v Speaker 1>it was presenting a point of view, and then inventing

0:16:39.080 --> 0:16:42.080
<v Speaker 1>a person to have apparently given that point of view.

0:16:42.200 --> 0:16:44.280
<v Speaker 1>But those experts, as far as I can determine, were

0:16:44.280 --> 0:16:47.040
<v Speaker 1>not real people at all. So the same sort of

0:16:47.080 --> 0:16:49.440
<v Speaker 1>thing appears to have happened here in this case with

0:16:49.480 --> 0:16:53.320
<v Speaker 1>the expert testimony, and at the very least that is embarrassing. Now,

0:16:53.360 --> 0:16:56.440
<v Speaker 1>for the record, I do think deep fakes are incredibly

0:16:56.520 --> 0:17:00.200
<v Speaker 1>dangerous and that regulation is needed. I understand the First

0:17:00.240 --> 0:17:03.440
<v Speaker 1>Amendment argument, but if I can create a video that

0:17:03.520 --> 0:17:07.399
<v Speaker 1>appears to show you proclaiming beliefs that you absolutely do

0:17:07.520 --> 0:17:11.320
<v Speaker 1>not hold, or that shows you admitting to a crime

0:17:11.480 --> 0:17:14.960
<v Speaker 1>that you did not commit, or your calling for action

0:17:15.080 --> 0:17:17.399
<v Speaker 1>that you would never actually agree to, all of that

0:17:17.560 --> 0:17:20.280
<v Speaker 1>is a problem. Right, Like, if I create something that

0:17:20.359 --> 0:17:23.360
<v Speaker 1>makes it seem like you, like it's coming from you

0:17:23.440 --> 0:17:26.119
<v Speaker 1>and you are the ones saying these things, that's not really,

0:17:26.600 --> 0:17:29.440
<v Speaker 1>in my opinion, a First Amendment thing, because the First

0:17:29.440 --> 0:17:32.600
<v Speaker 1>Amendment covers my freedom of expression. But if I'm using

0:17:32.640 --> 0:17:35.520
<v Speaker 1>deep fakes, it appears that I am co opting your

0:17:35.600 --> 0:17:38.240
<v Speaker 1>freedom of expression to say whatever it is I want

0:17:38.280 --> 0:17:40.840
<v Speaker 1>you to say. At least that's my opinion. I'm not

0:17:40.880 --> 0:17:43.800
<v Speaker 1>an expert. I am not a legal expert by any means,

0:17:44.000 --> 0:17:48.040
<v Speaker 1>but yeah, I think the law actually has merit in

0:17:48.080 --> 0:17:52.000
<v Speaker 1>this case. But I guess that's a matter for the

0:17:52.000 --> 0:17:54.800
<v Speaker 1>courts to decide. And of course it kind of stinks.

0:17:54.800 --> 0:17:57.920
<v Speaker 1>I mean, it really stinks that the expert witness apparently

0:17:58.000 --> 0:18:01.560
<v Speaker 1>used generative AI to create their testimony, because it really

0:18:01.640 --> 0:18:06.080
<v Speaker 1>undermines their credibility and I think hurts the state's case,

0:18:06.440 --> 0:18:09.000
<v Speaker 1>and I don't want to see this go the other way.

0:18:09.560 --> 0:18:13.040
<v Speaker 1>One last story page, Gaully of Vice dot Com has

0:18:13.080 --> 0:18:16.800
<v Speaker 1>a piece titled AI Jesus is now taking confessions at

0:18:16.800 --> 0:18:19.639
<v Speaker 1>a church in Switzerland. That headline, I think is a

0:18:19.760 --> 0:18:23.280
<v Speaker 1>tad bit misleading. The AI Jesus is not meant to

0:18:23.400 --> 0:18:26.320
<v Speaker 1>take confession at least, it's not meant to perform the

0:18:26.400 --> 0:18:32.800
<v Speaker 1>sacrament of confession. So instead, this AI power generative tool

0:18:33.040 --> 0:18:35.800
<v Speaker 1>is meant to communicate in a way that's aligned with

0:18:35.960 --> 0:18:39.560
<v Speaker 1>at least depictions of Jesus. I don't know which depiction

0:18:39.920 --> 0:18:42.320
<v Speaker 1>of Jesus, like I don't know which interpretation of the

0:18:42.359 --> 0:18:45.960
<v Speaker 1>Bible was used to create this particular AI chatbot. But

0:18:46.080 --> 0:18:49.440
<v Speaker 1>church attendees can go into a confessional booth and have

0:18:49.520 --> 0:18:55.200
<v Speaker 1>a conversation with an AI chatbot that's meant to emulate Jesus,

0:18:55.440 --> 0:18:58.080
<v Speaker 1>and they receive answers to their questions that are meant

0:18:58.119 --> 0:19:02.160
<v Speaker 1>to engage their spiritual wary thoughts and questions and things

0:19:02.200 --> 0:19:05.040
<v Speaker 1>like that, And it sounds like lots of people find

0:19:05.040 --> 0:19:08.679
<v Speaker 1>the experience actually pretty enlightening, but others have dismissed it

0:19:08.720 --> 0:19:11.520
<v Speaker 1>as just a gimmick. It actually reminds me a lot

0:19:11.560 --> 0:19:14.679
<v Speaker 1>of early chat thoughts, because those were programmed to mimic

0:19:14.720 --> 0:19:19.320
<v Speaker 1>specific kinds of social interactions, like talking to a psychoanalyst,

0:19:19.359 --> 0:19:23.080
<v Speaker 1>for example. So this doesn't exactly surprise me. But again,

0:19:23.160 --> 0:19:26.280
<v Speaker 1>this isn't to say that there's some sort of robopowered,

0:19:26.320 --> 0:19:29.359
<v Speaker 1>coin operated confessional booth or something. We haven't gotten to

0:19:29.400 --> 0:19:33.119
<v Speaker 1>that point. We're not quite at Futurama levels of absurdity

0:19:33.200 --> 0:19:35.399
<v Speaker 1>just yet. But you know, give it a year, we'll

0:19:35.440 --> 0:19:37.640
<v Speaker 1>see where we end up. That's it for the tech

0:19:37.680 --> 0:19:40.359
<v Speaker 1>News for this week, the week ending November twenty second,

0:19:40.400 --> 0:19:43.200
<v Speaker 1>twenty twenty four. I hope all of you out there

0:19:43.240 --> 0:19:46.760
<v Speaker 1>are doing well, and I'll talk to you again really soon.

0:19:53.240 --> 0:19:57.920
<v Speaker 1>Tech Stuff is an iHeartRadio production. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio,

0:19:58.240 --> 0:20:01.920
<v Speaker 1>visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen

0:20:01.960 --> 0:20:03.040
<v Speaker 1>to your favorite shows.