WEBVTT - Tech News: AI is Either Dumb or it is Changing the World or Both 0:00:04.360 --> 0:00:12.280 Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there, 0:00:12.280 --> 0:00:15.920 and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland. 0:00:16.000 --> 0:00:19.919 I'm an executive producer with iHeartRadio. And how the tech 0:00:20.000 --> 0:00:22.640 are you. It's time for the tech news for Thursday, 0:00:23.160 --> 0:00:28.760 March second in twenty twenty three. And AI is on 0:00:28.800 --> 0:00:32.199 the brink of changing the world for the better, with 0:00:32.320 --> 0:00:36.160 the potential to boost the world economy by nearly sixteen 0:00:36.520 --> 0:00:41.360 trillion dollars in just a few years, or it's all 0:00:41.400 --> 0:00:45.280 overblown and far less impressive than you think. My first 0:00:45.320 --> 0:00:50.360 two stories take these very different perspectives. So first up 0:00:50.680 --> 0:00:55.720 from Markets Insider is a piece that's titled Artificial intelligence 0:00:55.880 --> 0:00:58.560 is on the brink of an iPhone moment and can 0:00:58.640 --> 0:01:03.000 boost the world economy by fifteen point seven trillion dollars 0:01:03.120 --> 0:01:07.880 in seven years. Bank of America says, now, command Markets Insider, 0:01:08.240 --> 0:01:11.160 you can at least save some of the content for 0:01:11.280 --> 0:01:13.839 the actual article. It doesn't all have to go into 0:01:13.840 --> 0:01:17.280 the headline, but yeah. Bank of America sent on a 0:01:17.319 --> 0:01:21.120 message to clients outlining why the financial institution believes that 0:01:21.200 --> 0:01:25.479 AI is poised to change things forever, similar to how 0:01:25.480 --> 0:01:29.480 the iPhone helped transform the web from something most folks 0:01:29.560 --> 0:01:34.360 access through computers into a mobile experience, and honestly, that 0:01:34.440 --> 0:01:39.160 transformation was huge. Anyone who was just working in web 0:01:39.160 --> 0:01:41.840 based content at the time can tell you that and 0:01:41.959 --> 0:01:45.360 about how it was so incredibly disruptive. We still see 0:01:45.400 --> 0:01:49.000 that today, with companies offering up web page services designed 0:01:49.000 --> 0:01:51.960 to scale properly no matter what kind of device connects 0:01:52.000 --> 0:01:55.720 to the page. That doesn't even touch the rise of 0:01:55.760 --> 0:02:00.400 the app developer market, which really didn't exist in any 0:02:00.720 --> 0:02:05.520 significant way before the iPhone. Anyway, Bank of America says 0:02:05.560 --> 0:02:08.920 AI is about to do something on the same scale, 0:02:09.400 --> 0:02:13.760 and surely lots of companies are pushing AI prominently. That's 0:02:13.800 --> 0:02:16.200 something that we're coming to be revisiting throughout the early 0:02:16.240 --> 0:02:21.400 part of this episode. But I take some issue with 0:02:21.560 --> 0:02:26.160 the conclusions. For example, the Bank of America note includes 0:02:26.240 --> 0:02:31.320 this bit quote it took chat GPT just five days 0:02:31.400 --> 0:02:35.960 to reach one million users, one billion cumulative visits in 0:02:36.040 --> 0:02:39.440 three months, and an adoption rate which is three times 0:02:39.520 --> 0:02:45.519 tiktoks and ten times instagrams. The technology is developing exponentially 0:02:45.720 --> 0:02:50.320 end quote. Okay, that conclusion does not follow the premise. 0:02:51.080 --> 0:02:53.600 You know, I think you could say that the appeal 0:02:53.840 --> 0:02:58.360 of AI, the curiosity people have, the eagerness they have 0:02:58.440 --> 0:03:01.080 to try it out, the enthusiasm around it. All of 0:03:01.120 --> 0:03:05.520 that developed very quickly. Perhaps you could even argue it 0:03:05.600 --> 0:03:11.399 developed exponentially, but that is not the same thing as 0:03:11.440 --> 0:03:17.440 saying the technology itself is developing exponentially. I think conflating 0:03:17.520 --> 0:03:22.320 these two things is dangerous because it creates this heightened 0:03:22.440 --> 0:03:26.320 expectation for a technology that, depending upon its use, has 0:03:26.360 --> 0:03:30.560 often proven to be far from perfect or reliable. I 0:03:30.680 --> 0:03:34.160 do think it's undeniable that companies are going to continue 0:03:34.160 --> 0:03:38.280 to invest huge amounts of money in developing AI. That 0:03:38.520 --> 0:03:41.760 is unavoidable. It is happening and will continue to happen. 0:03:42.120 --> 0:03:46.800 But I would caution against making this assumption that it 0:03:46.840 --> 0:03:50.880 means we're going to see incredibly rapid development in the space. 0:03:51.240 --> 0:03:55.000 That might happen, but we might also just see more 0:03:55.120 --> 0:04:00.760 iterative improvements rather than these big revolutionary leaps. A huge 0:04:00.800 --> 0:04:05.280 increase in attention is not the same as an increase 0:04:05.320 --> 0:04:10.400 in a technology's capabilities. Meanwhile, Alex Shephard at New Republic 0:04:10.680 --> 0:04:14.920 has a different take from the Bank of America approach. 0:04:15.400 --> 0:04:19.320 It is far less bullish. Alex wrote an article titled 0:04:19.520 --> 0:04:23.479 artificial intelligence is dumb. Okay, So this is a much 0:04:23.839 --> 0:04:28.479 more straightforward but simple title, and Shepherd's argument is that 0:04:28.600 --> 0:04:31.599 AI is in the early stage of the Gartner hype 0:04:31.640 --> 0:04:35.799 cycle that we've talked about in recent episodes. That enthusiasm, excitement, 0:04:35.839 --> 0:04:38.279 and expectations are on the rise, but if you spend 0:04:38.279 --> 0:04:41.360 any meaningful amount of time with tools like chat GPT, 0:04:42.320 --> 0:04:45.840 you come to the realization that the actual experience doesn't 0:04:45.880 --> 0:04:49.679 quite live up to the hype surrounding it. Shepherd spends 0:04:50.120 --> 0:04:54.440 much of the article using chat GPT as the primary example, 0:04:54.800 --> 0:04:58.040 and argues that while the chat bot is remarkably more 0:04:58.040 --> 0:05:02.040 advanced than ones that preceded it, conclusions like what Bank 0:05:02.080 --> 0:05:05.960 of America has come to are largely unfounded. That the 0:05:05.960 --> 0:05:10.400 belief that we're on the precipice of disruptive transformation is 0:05:10.440 --> 0:05:14.400 really based on nothing more than conjecture and hypotheses, and 0:05:14.440 --> 0:05:16.880 that we lack any actual evidence to say that we 0:05:16.960 --> 0:05:21.320 are in fact on that precipice. Now, you could argue 0:05:21.640 --> 0:05:23.680 that these are the sort of things that we really 0:05:23.760 --> 0:05:27.919 can't assess until they've actually happened, but really it's only 0:05:27.960 --> 0:05:32.159 with hindsight that we can say that moment was when 0:05:32.279 --> 0:05:36.279 everything changed, because as you're living through the moment, you 0:05:36.320 --> 0:05:39.000 don't have enough perspective to judge whether or not it's 0:05:39.080 --> 0:05:41.520 that pivotal. It's only after the fact that you can 0:05:41.560 --> 0:05:45.200 make that assessment. I do think Shepherd makes some very 0:05:45.240 --> 0:05:48.000 good points, but I also find the arguments of the 0:05:48.120 --> 0:05:51.640 article to be a little too narrow and reductive. Shepherd 0:05:51.640 --> 0:05:54.159 says that those who claim AI is going to have 0:05:54.520 --> 0:06:00.880 transformational impact on absolutely everything are making quote unquote insane claims. 0:06:00.920 --> 0:06:06.360 But since the article almost exclusively focuses on chat GPT, 0:06:06.880 --> 0:06:09.880 I feel that leaving out all the other manifestations of 0:06:09.920 --> 0:06:13.839 AI undermines this argument, because we're already seeing how AI 0:06:13.960 --> 0:06:18.360 is transforming the world, both in good and bad ways. 0:06:18.839 --> 0:06:22.640 It can help optimize processes which might not be as 0:06:22.680 --> 0:06:27.000 world shattering as I don't know, facilitating meaningful conversations between 0:06:27.040 --> 0:06:31.880 different countries, but it does have an impact. We've seen 0:06:31.960 --> 0:06:35.479 it in stock trades, right, We've seen micro trading and 0:06:36.000 --> 0:06:40.520 ultra fast stock trades that's making economic impacts that are 0:06:40.680 --> 0:06:42.920 honestly still kind of difficult for us to get our 0:06:42.920 --> 0:06:45.799 minds wrapped around. And then we've also seen how AI 0:06:45.880 --> 0:06:49.760 can exacerbate social problems like the use of facial recognition 0:06:49.760 --> 0:06:54.240 technology among law enforcement. That kind of AI can really 0:06:54.400 --> 0:06:58.440 crank the knob on already difficult problems, like the fact 0:06:58.440 --> 0:07:03.200 that people of color are disproportionately targeted by law enforcement 0:07:03.279 --> 0:07:05.800 here in the United States. So while I think some 0:07:05.920 --> 0:07:10.320 versions of AI are undeniably dumber than what the hype suggests, 0:07:10.680 --> 0:07:13.520 we also have to remember AI does not manifest in 0:07:13.600 --> 0:07:19.280 just one way. AI is not just chat GPT. It's 0:07:19.760 --> 0:07:23.280 not just the idea of a seemingly sentient computer like 0:07:23.400 --> 0:07:26.680 how in two thousand and one. It's in all sorts 0:07:26.680 --> 0:07:31.640 of stuff, from robotics to stock trading to assisting surgeons 0:07:31.680 --> 0:07:34.840 with medical procedures. So I think we have to avoid 0:07:35.000 --> 0:07:39.400 using a specific product as the gateway to criticizing the 0:07:39.400 --> 0:07:44.200 general field. It's too reductive and it doesn't really help 0:07:44.280 --> 0:07:47.960 us get a deeper understanding of what's actually happening. Moving 0:07:47.960 --> 0:07:52.680 on to another version of AI. Earlier this week, Microsoft 0:07:52.720 --> 0:08:00.400 researchers unveiled Cosmos one. That's Kosmos one. This is a 0:08:00.440 --> 0:08:04.840 form of multimodal AI that, according to the researchers, can 0:08:04.920 --> 0:08:09.520 solve visual puzzles. It can recognize text visually, so it's 0:08:09.560 --> 0:08:12.320 not you know, reading, it's reading the text like a 0:08:12.360 --> 0:08:15.160 person would. So you could have like a picture that 0:08:15.240 --> 0:08:17.560 has text in it, and this would be able to 0:08:17.600 --> 0:08:22.040 distinguish what that text is. It can analyze pictures and 0:08:22.120 --> 0:08:26.040 be able to tell what's in those pictures and describe them. 0:08:26.080 --> 0:08:30.720 It can have natural language interactions, and that could mean 0:08:30.760 --> 0:08:33.520 we're about to have another change in how captures work. 0:08:34.080 --> 0:08:37.360 You know, captures are those tools that websites and other 0:08:37.440 --> 0:08:41.480 services use to determine whether or not you're human. And 0:08:41.880 --> 0:08:44.200 you know, you sometimes will encounter a capture that will 0:08:44.240 --> 0:08:47.520 ask you to do something like select all the images 0:08:47.559 --> 0:08:50.160 that have a fire hydrant in them, or a crosswalk 0:08:50.280 --> 0:08:54.360 or a motorcycle or whatever. Well that's because that's a 0:08:54.440 --> 0:08:59.720 task that most humans can do fairly easily, but bots 0:09:00.000 --> 0:09:04.160 additionally have a hard time doing it. Cosmos one, it seems, 0:09:04.400 --> 0:09:09.439 could potentially complete those kinds of captures. It could analyze 0:09:09.760 --> 0:09:14.400 images and determine which of them, if any, have the 0:09:14.480 --> 0:09:17.880 important feature in them. The whole history of captcha actually 0:09:18.000 --> 0:09:22.240 is a swinging pendulum between foiling AI and then creating 0:09:22.280 --> 0:09:25.000 AI that's capable of foiling the capture. So this is 0:09:25.040 --> 0:09:30.120 nothing new anyway. The Cosmos ones system was given tasks 0:09:30.160 --> 0:09:34.880 that included writing captions for images, like trying to describe 0:09:34.960 --> 0:09:39.160 what the image showed, and it even took a visual 0:09:39.240 --> 0:09:44.320 IQ test. Essentially, what the researchers did was they fed 0:09:45.559 --> 0:09:49.640 answers to a visual IQ test to the Cosmos one 0:09:49.720 --> 0:09:54.160 model and ask Cosmos whether or not the answer was correct. Now, 0:09:54.200 --> 0:09:58.080 according to the researchers, the AI scored below thirty percent 0:09:58.320 --> 0:10:03.360 on that visual i Q test. That's a pretty dang 0:10:03.440 --> 0:10:05.800 low score. Technically, I think it was between twenty two 0:10:05.800 --> 0:10:09.880 and twenty six percent. That's not good, but it is 0:10:10.520 --> 0:10:15.360 better than chance, so it's better than just answering yes 0:10:15.440 --> 0:10:18.200 or no randomly. So that suggests that this could be 0:10:18.200 --> 0:10:22.240 a starting point from which this model will improve over time. 0:10:22.960 --> 0:10:26.240 Microsoft has indicated that the company plans to make Cosmos 0:10:26.280 --> 0:10:29.160 one available to developers in the future, though at the 0:10:29.160 --> 0:10:32.480 time I'm recording this, there's not a timetable mentioned about 0:10:32.520 --> 0:10:36.160 when that might happen. This is a different approach than 0:10:36.200 --> 0:10:43.120 the generative pre trained transform of GPT, So again, we're 0:10:43.200 --> 0:10:47.880 looking at different ways that AI manifests. It's not always 0:10:47.880 --> 0:10:53.720 in just one single direction. There's so many different disciplines 0:10:53.760 --> 0:10:56.800 that are involved in AI, and many of them are 0:10:56.840 --> 0:11:00.720 approaching AI from a very different angle, and there's no 0:11:00.800 --> 0:11:03.320 telling which versions are going to end up being the 0:11:03.360 --> 0:11:06.559 most dominant further on, or if it will truly be 0:11:07.160 --> 0:11:12.160 a convergence of all these different disciplines that ultimately produces 0:11:12.800 --> 0:11:16.760 the AI that we're thinking of that will be truly transformational. 0:11:17.280 --> 0:11:20.920 The US Federal Trade Commission, or FTC has its own 0:11:21.000 --> 0:11:24.280 concerns about AI, and in this case, it has more 0:11:24.280 --> 0:11:27.079 to do with the way companies are marketing their services 0:11:27.160 --> 0:11:31.680 by including mentions of AI. The FTC is concerned the 0:11:31.720 --> 0:11:36.280 companies could be overpromising or misleading people by leaning on 0:11:36.320 --> 0:11:40.880 a trendy, buzzworthy term and concept. If you need to 0:11:40.880 --> 0:11:43.360 get investors to pour money and your startup, well, you know, 0:11:43.559 --> 0:11:46.000 just start using the term AI in there. Even if 0:11:46.040 --> 0:11:49.439 AI doesn't really make sense or you're not really using it, 0:11:49.720 --> 0:11:52.480 you're bound to snag a few fish with that approach 0:11:52.520 --> 0:11:58.240 because AI is such a crazy popular concept right now. 0:11:58.800 --> 0:12:01.360 That's the kind of thing that the FTC is concerned about. 0:12:01.640 --> 0:12:04.160 Folks who are trying to cash in on a popular 0:12:04.240 --> 0:12:08.200 but largely misunderstood technology. And as I've said many times, 0:12:08.440 --> 0:12:11.880 when you have excitement mixed with a lack of information 0:12:12.160 --> 0:12:16.200 or knowledge or understanding what you have is the perfect 0:12:16.360 --> 0:12:20.679 condition for scam artists, or if not outright scams, at 0:12:20.760 --> 0:12:23.840 least unethical folks who don't mind leaning a little heavily 0:12:23.880 --> 0:12:27.600 on ignorance in order to make some money. So, if 0:12:28.080 --> 0:12:33.000 there's something that sounds really exciting, like a huge investment opportunity, 0:12:33.040 --> 0:12:37.880 but you don't actually understand the underlying approach, whether it's 0:12:37.880 --> 0:12:42.800 a technology or otherwise, huge red flag, y'all, Huge red flag. 0:12:43.160 --> 0:12:46.280 I don't care if it's an NFT or if it's AI. 0:12:47.040 --> 0:12:49.720 It is something you need to take a step back 0:12:49.800 --> 0:12:54.160 from and start asking critical questions to get a better understanding. 0:12:54.160 --> 0:12:57.240 And it might turn out to be total legit, which 0:12:57.280 --> 0:13:00.120 is awesome. But if it's not total legit, it will 0:13:00.160 --> 0:13:03.520 benefit you from taking that step back. So the FTC 0:13:03.679 --> 0:13:06.679 is essentially sending a message out there, and it is saying, hey, 0:13:07.640 --> 0:13:10.800 be sure any claims y'all are making about AI in 0:13:10.880 --> 0:13:14.240 your products and services are substantive or else we're going 0:13:14.280 --> 0:13:17.080 to ask you to prove it, and if you can't 0:13:17.120 --> 0:13:21.120 prove it, you're gonna be in trouble. Mashable reports that 0:13:21.160 --> 0:13:24.600 Google layoffs have affected all sorts of employees that you 0:13:24.600 --> 0:13:28.840 wouldn't expect, like robots. I mean, I'm talking about actual robots. 0:13:29.440 --> 0:13:33.320 We usually worry about robots taking our jobs. Rarely do 0:13:33.360 --> 0:13:36.520 we think about them losing their jobs. All right, So 0:13:36.600 --> 0:13:40.120 the robots in question are one armed robots from the 0:13:40.240 --> 0:13:44.120 Everyday Robots team that was within Google. This team had 0:13:44.160 --> 0:13:48.960 been working on robots systems that could operate in consumer applications, 0:13:49.200 --> 0:13:51.840 and Google was actually making use of them in the 0:13:51.960 --> 0:13:55.920 Google HQ to do odd jobs like cleaning surfaces like 0:13:56.040 --> 0:13:58.920 counters and stuff and that kind of thing, or taking 0:13:58.960 --> 0:14:01.880 stuff to recycling bends. But it now sounds like this 0:14:01.920 --> 0:14:05.360 project has been dissolved, and in addition, the robots themselves 0:14:05.360 --> 0:14:09.320 have been shut down and packed away. So times are 0:14:09.360 --> 0:14:12.319 tough even for the machines out there. I guess Okay, 0:14:12.320 --> 0:14:14.920 we've got some more news stories we're going to be covering, 0:14:14.920 --> 0:14:27.160 but first let's take a quick break. All right, we're back. 0:14:27.720 --> 0:14:30.760 We still have another AI story, because, like I said, 0:14:30.840 --> 0:14:34.080 it has just become the big tech topic for twenty 0:14:34.160 --> 0:14:38.080 twenty three, unless something massive changes later in this year, 0:14:38.120 --> 0:14:41.440 which is entirely possible. I suspect that end of the 0:14:41.520 --> 0:14:44.680 year roundups in various tech podcasts are going to be 0:14:44.680 --> 0:14:48.160 talking about how this was the year of AI hype, 0:14:48.560 --> 0:14:52.560 but switching over to Apple. The company has a very 0:14:52.600 --> 0:14:57.400 well earned reputation for having an obtuse process for approving 0:14:57.440 --> 0:15:02.840 apps on its iOS platform. You can re countless descriptions 0:15:02.880 --> 0:15:07.440 among app developers of encountering frustration as they have submitted 0:15:07.440 --> 0:15:11.720 apps to Apple and only found them rejected and often 0:15:11.800 --> 0:15:14.680 with not enough direction for them to be able to 0:15:15.160 --> 0:15:18.440 make informed changes to the app so that it could 0:15:18.440 --> 0:15:22.880 actually pass. But recently, Apple send a communication to one 0:15:22.920 --> 0:15:27.720 app developer called blue Mail that was planning on pushing 0:15:27.720 --> 0:15:31.360 out an update to its existing email application, and this 0:15:31.480 --> 0:15:35.600 update would have incorporated an AI powered feature that could 0:15:35.600 --> 0:15:38.800 assist with language tools. Think of something kind of similar 0:15:39.200 --> 0:15:44.160 to chat GPT that could help you construct an email message. 0:15:44.600 --> 0:15:48.280 Apple has delayed this upgrade rollout, citing concerns with that 0:15:48.360 --> 0:15:52.080 the AI could end up generating inappropriate content and that 0:15:52.240 --> 0:15:55.640 the app developer needs to take that into consideration since 0:15:55.960 --> 0:15:59.600 children could be using the app. So Apple is telling 0:15:59.680 --> 0:16:04.360 blue Mail that if it wishes to incorporate this AI feature, 0:16:04.440 --> 0:16:07.080 that it also has to change the app so that 0:16:07.120 --> 0:16:09.440 the app is now going to be restricted to users 0:16:09.440 --> 0:16:13.440 who are seventeen years or older, just in case the 0:16:14.280 --> 0:16:18.880 AI starts to generate offensive messages or material that could 0:16:18.920 --> 0:16:22.960 be considered harmful for kids. Blue Mail has protested this decision. 0:16:23.480 --> 0:16:27.480 The company has argued that there are already apps on 0:16:27.760 --> 0:16:31.000 the iOS platform that are not held under the same 0:16:31.040 --> 0:16:35.520 sort of restriction, but that have some similarity in capability, 0:16:36.240 --> 0:16:39.280 and the company says that if it is forced to 0:16:39.520 --> 0:16:42.880 offer this email app with that restriction, the age restriction, 0:16:43.240 --> 0:16:47.120 that this harms visibility and discoverability, and it hurts the 0:16:47.200 --> 0:16:51.080 app's performance in the marketplace. Now, I do not doubt 0:16:51.360 --> 0:16:54.880 that there is an uneven landscape among apps on iOS. 0:16:55.320 --> 0:16:58.000 I don't think it's fair at all. I think there 0:16:58.040 --> 0:17:03.000 are far too many inconsistencies with apps that get the 0:17:03.720 --> 0:17:06.639 green light and apps that are prevented. I do not 0:17:06.720 --> 0:17:10.119 think it's a very transparent process at all. But I 0:17:10.160 --> 0:17:14.120 also think concerns about generative AI have some validity to them. 0:17:14.560 --> 0:17:18.040 If you just take the Nothing Forever show on Twitch, 0:17:18.160 --> 0:17:23.520 that's the AI generated show that creates an endless Seinfeld episode. 0:17:23.960 --> 0:17:27.800 That's proof that without careful guidelines and controls, you can 0:17:27.880 --> 0:17:31.240 run into problems So for those who don't remember, Twitch 0:17:31.320 --> 0:17:36.879 actually temporarily banned the Nothing Forever show the channel because 0:17:37.600 --> 0:17:41.360 they had temporarily reverted to an earlier version of GPT 0:17:41.560 --> 0:17:45.120 when they encountered some technical issues, and the earlier version 0:17:45.119 --> 0:17:50.520 of GPT did not have the content restrictions that the 0:17:50.560 --> 0:17:53.879 more recent version had, and the show began to generate 0:17:53.920 --> 0:17:57.760 content that was homophobic in nature. They violated twitch his policies. 0:17:58.000 --> 0:18:01.879 They got a ban. Well, that show that these AI 0:18:01.960 --> 0:18:06.679 tools can end up being problematic. I know that's a 0:18:06.720 --> 0:18:10.480 word we use to the point where people complain about 0:18:10.480 --> 0:18:13.920 it's use, but it's it's an inappropriate word in this case. 0:18:14.160 --> 0:18:18.600 So I do get the concern, but I also can 0:18:18.640 --> 0:18:23.920 sympathize with Blue Mail's argument that it's already an unfair 0:18:23.960 --> 0:18:27.360 playing ground on iOS. I don't think anyone comes out 0:18:27.359 --> 0:18:30.800 a winner in this one. Now, to talk about TikTok 0:18:30.840 --> 0:18:35.840 a bit, the American Civil Liberties Union or ACLU, has 0:18:35.880 --> 0:18:41.840 issued a statement protesting US House Bill one one five three. Now, 0:18:41.880 --> 0:18:47.240 this proposed bill would, according to the ACLU quote, effectively 0:18:47.359 --> 0:18:51.240 ban TikTok in the US end quote. This isn't about 0:18:51.240 --> 0:18:57.399 removing TikTok from government devices. But according to the ACLU, 0:18:57.960 --> 0:19:04.119 banning TikTok outright and similar platforms. So the official description 0:19:04.160 --> 0:19:07.840 of the bill is quote to provide a clarification of 0:19:08.040 --> 0:19:14.040 non applicability for regulation and prohibition relating to sensitive personal 0:19:14.119 --> 0:19:19.919 data under International Emergency Economic Powers Act and for other purposes. Quote. 0:19:20.440 --> 0:19:22.959 I wish I could tell you more about the text, 0:19:23.240 --> 0:19:25.160 but when I went online to read it, it had 0:19:25.200 --> 0:19:28.280 not yet been uploaded to the database, so I haven't 0:19:28.320 --> 0:19:31.560 been able to actually read the bill. The ACLU says 0:19:31.600 --> 0:19:36.360 that the US Congress quote must not censor entire platforms 0:19:36.400 --> 0:19:40.000 and strip Americans of their constitutional right to freedom of 0:19:40.040 --> 0:19:43.960 speech and expression. Quote and yeah, the right to free 0:19:44.000 --> 0:19:46.919 speech is one of the fundamental core values of the 0:19:47.000 --> 0:19:51.080 United States, send the First Amendment to the Constitution. But 0:19:51.240 --> 0:19:54.520 this is a complicated issue because TikTok critics worry that 0:19:54.600 --> 0:19:57.920 the app is on the back end, essentially performing as 0:19:58.000 --> 0:20:02.200 a data siphon and pulling in information that the Chinese 0:20:02.240 --> 0:20:06.360 government can then use as intelligence. And this information includes 0:20:06.440 --> 0:20:12.400 personal information about users, things like employer information, government information, 0:20:12.960 --> 0:20:15.960 and more like. People are using TikTok all over the place, 0:20:16.520 --> 0:20:21.399 so potentially, if you are gathering intelligence, you could comb 0:20:21.440 --> 0:20:23.879 through TikTok and look for stuff that could give you 0:20:24.600 --> 0:20:27.760 an advantage in that arena. So generally speaking, I tend 0:20:27.800 --> 0:20:32.200 to side with the ACLU on most topics, but this 0:20:32.240 --> 0:20:35.200 one is a little tricky, and I'm not sure where 0:20:35.400 --> 0:20:39.280 I land on this. I do have concerns about data 0:20:39.320 --> 0:20:43.080 security with TikTok, but then again, as a lot of 0:20:43.160 --> 0:20:46.920 people have pointed out, TikTok's practices are really not all 0:20:46.920 --> 0:20:51.480 that different from other platforms like Meta, YouTube, etc. It's 0:20:51.520 --> 0:20:56.200 just that those companies aren't owned by a Chinese company, right, 0:20:56.720 --> 0:21:00.320 But they are gathering the same kinds of information and more, 0:21:00.520 --> 0:21:03.600 and they're definitely exploiting it. So you can make a 0:21:03.600 --> 0:21:06.960 strong argument that we've already decided that handing over information 0:21:06.960 --> 0:21:10.159 to platforms is fine, and therefore it would be unfair 0:21:10.200 --> 0:21:13.000 to single out TikTok just because its parent company happens 0:21:13.000 --> 0:21:17.000 to be based in China. Plus, obviously, freedom of speech 0:21:17.480 --> 0:21:23.200 is critically important. I'm not really sure if banning a 0:21:23.240 --> 0:21:28.480 platform falls into the bucket of restricting free speech, but 0:21:28.520 --> 0:21:32.400 then I'm no constitutional expert either. Also, there's nothing stopping 0:21:32.520 --> 0:21:35.640 someone else from making a similar app. In fact, we've 0:21:35.680 --> 0:21:39.720 seen that right Instagram YouTube, Snapchat, and others have all 0:21:39.760 --> 0:21:44.160 introduced features that are extremely similar to what TikTok does. 0:21:45.280 --> 0:21:47.280 I think it's fair to say some of these have 0:21:47.320 --> 0:21:51.360 outright tried to copy what TikTok does, to varying degrees 0:21:51.600 --> 0:21:56.280 of success. So I don't know that eliminating a platform 0:21:56.480 --> 0:22:00.439 amounts to the same thing as eliminating Americans free speech. 0:22:00.920 --> 0:22:04.600 But again, I am not an expert on the subject matter, 0:22:04.760 --> 0:22:07.639 so I don't I am genuinely conflicted. I do not 0:22:07.760 --> 0:22:12.280 know what to think about this particular topic. TikTok itself 0:22:12.400 --> 0:22:15.200 is introducing features that are meant to limit screen time 0:22:15.240 --> 0:22:19.000 for younger users. So all TikTok users who are under 0:22:19.040 --> 0:22:22.960 eighteen will get a message when they hit sixteen minutes 0:22:23.000 --> 0:22:25.560 of screen time in a day. Once this rolls out, 0:22:25.920 --> 0:22:28.400 and at that point, the user will see a prompt 0:22:28.440 --> 0:22:32.440 asking for a passcode before they can continue watching content 0:22:32.520 --> 0:22:37.080 on TikTok. However, they can also disable the feature entirely, 0:22:37.600 --> 0:22:40.160 but after one hundred minutes of screen time in a day, 0:22:40.200 --> 0:22:42.879 they will receive a prompt that requires them to create 0:22:42.920 --> 0:22:46.440 a new daily limit. Now I'm not sure how effective 0:22:46.560 --> 0:22:49.320 this will actually be on limiting screen time, because to me. 0:22:49.359 --> 0:22:52.360 It sounds mostly like something that the average user would 0:22:52.400 --> 0:22:54.920 just kind of roll their eyes at and then disable 0:22:55.040 --> 0:22:58.520 and then continue on unless parents set the passcode and 0:22:58.520 --> 0:23:00.639 they don't tell their kids what the pass code is. 0:23:01.040 --> 0:23:03.639 But then if the user can actually just disable the feature, 0:23:03.680 --> 0:23:06.119 I find it hard to believe that most folks will say, ah, 0:23:06.119 --> 0:23:09.639 thank you, TikTok, where did the time go? I shall 0:23:09.720 --> 0:23:12.320 now go outside to take in the fresh air and 0:23:12.400 --> 0:23:16.000 play at sport or something. I guess you could say. 0:23:16.160 --> 0:23:18.760 I'm skeptical that this is going to make much of 0:23:18.800 --> 0:23:21.719 a difference. Some of the other features potentially could help 0:23:21.800 --> 0:23:23.640 parents keep an eye on how much time their kids 0:23:23.680 --> 0:23:26.080 are spending on the app that at least allows for 0:23:26.200 --> 0:23:31.479 intervention if usage spirals out of control. I'm glad I 0:23:31.520 --> 0:23:34.520 don't have kids, because I don't know how I would 0:23:34.560 --> 0:23:39.000 approach this one either. I'm also glad that TikTok was 0:23:39.040 --> 0:23:40.520 not a thing when I was a kid, because I 0:23:40.560 --> 0:23:45.360 have a feeling I would have been a hardcore addict 0:23:45.400 --> 0:23:48.680 of TikTok if I had had the opportunity to access 0:23:48.680 --> 0:23:51.080 it back when I was a kid. In the UK, 0:23:51.600 --> 0:23:56.160 a man named Duncan McCann has lodged a formal complaint 0:23:56.240 --> 0:24:01.840 with the country's Information Commissioner's Office or ICO, accusing YouTube 0:24:01.920 --> 0:24:05.400 of collecting information about the videos that children are watching 0:24:05.440 --> 0:24:10.560 within the UK and this is against an ICO children's code. 0:24:11.200 --> 0:24:14.280 YouTube responded by saying that the platform has never been 0:24:14.320 --> 0:24:17.879 intended for children under the age of thirteen, that accounts 0:24:17.880 --> 0:24:22.120 that are registered to young users follow protocol. They don't 0:24:22.119 --> 0:24:26.000 collect data on young users if that's the account that's 0:24:26.000 --> 0:24:29.440 connected to YouTube, and that for the younger kids. There's 0:24:29.480 --> 0:24:33.000 also the YouTube Kids platform, which also does not track 0:24:33.040 --> 0:24:36.960 activity and collect personal information. But McCann's argument is that 0:24:37.000 --> 0:24:40.600 a lot of kids are accessing YouTube on family accounts 0:24:40.720 --> 0:24:43.720 or on family devices that are under a parent's account, 0:24:44.160 --> 0:24:47.280 and that these kids, as they use the app, have 0:24:47.560 --> 0:24:53.000 their data and activity tracked. And you might be thinking, well, yeah, 0:24:53.040 --> 0:24:56.199 if YouTube is being told an adult is in charge 0:24:56.200 --> 0:24:58.920 of the account, then YouTube is going to treat the 0:24:58.960 --> 0:25:01.640 activity on that account as if it were any adult 0:25:01.840 --> 0:25:04.960 using it. So obviously it's going to track all the information. 0:25:05.200 --> 0:25:08.439 That's the YouTube business model. And you might wonder what 0:25:08.680 --> 0:25:12.960 McCann's solution to this problem is, And essentially he says 0:25:12.960 --> 0:25:15.399 the ideal solution would be to create an opt in 0:25:15.720 --> 0:25:19.639 system in which only accounts that are registered to adults 0:25:19.720 --> 0:25:24.200 would have the option to agree to having their activity tracked, 0:25:24.720 --> 0:25:28.679 kind of similar to how Apple approaches app tracking. So 0:25:28.720 --> 0:25:31.560 it becomes an opt in system, and the can believes 0:25:31.600 --> 0:25:34.240 that only a minority of users would ever opt into 0:25:34.280 --> 0:25:37.400 such a system, and I'm pretty sure he's right. But 0:25:37.440 --> 0:25:41.359 I also bet that if you forced that change on YouTube, 0:25:41.440 --> 0:25:44.560 it would result in such a drastic impact to the 0:25:44.560 --> 0:25:48.560 company's revenue that they would have to make drastic changes 0:25:48.600 --> 0:25:51.119 to operations or else it would become too expensive to 0:25:51.200 --> 0:25:55.960 run the business. Keep in mind, they are hosting hundreds 0:25:56.119 --> 0:26:01.400 of new hours of content every single minute. So as 0:26:01.400 --> 0:26:04.280 it stands, this matter is going to test the ICO 0:26:04.400 --> 0:26:08.320 Children's Code. The UK only put that code into operation 0:26:08.400 --> 0:26:11.920 in twenty twenty, so it's a pretty young set of rules. 0:26:12.560 --> 0:26:17.520 And this, to me starts to raise larger questions because 0:26:18.400 --> 0:26:21.960 if you start with the premise that a child could 0:26:22.040 --> 0:26:27.280 possibly access a particular device or account that belongs to 0:26:27.320 --> 0:26:32.760 an adult, does that mean that all online services from 0:26:32.800 --> 0:26:35.240 here on out have to be designed in such a 0:26:35.280 --> 0:26:38.800 way to assume by default that a child could be 0:26:38.960 --> 0:26:42.399 accessing it, Like, do you have to start thinking, well, 0:26:42.960 --> 0:26:45.600 a child might have gotten hold of their parents' iPhone, 0:26:46.000 --> 0:26:49.080