WEBVTT - Tech News: Elon Musk Rants About Apple Intelligence

0:00:04.480 --> 0:00:12.319
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there,

0:00:12.360 --> 0:00:15.920
<v Speaker 1>and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland.

0:00:15.920 --> 0:00:19.240
<v Speaker 1>I'm an executive producer with iHeart Podcasts and How the

0:00:19.239 --> 0:00:21.680
<v Speaker 1>tech are you. It's time for the tech news for

0:00:21.720 --> 0:00:26.640
<v Speaker 1>the week ending Friday, June fourteenth, twenty twenty four. For

0:00:26.760 --> 0:00:30.560
<v Speaker 1>all you gamers out there, this past weekend and following

0:00:30.640 --> 0:00:34.560
<v Speaker 1>week was an absolute smorgas board of video game trailers

0:00:34.920 --> 0:00:38.440
<v Speaker 1>as well as commercials for like gaming hardware, though no

0:00:38.560 --> 0:00:41.640
<v Speaker 1>new consoles. I'm sad to say so. While E three

0:00:41.920 --> 0:00:46.920
<v Speaker 1>is really most sincerely dead, we had Jeff Keeley's Summer

0:00:47.040 --> 0:00:51.600
<v Speaker 1>Games Fest, we had the Ubisoft Forward Event, the PC

0:00:51.960 --> 0:00:56.240
<v Speaker 1>Gaming Show, and the Xbox Showcase, and I'm probably missing

0:00:56.240 --> 0:00:59.080
<v Speaker 1>a couple in there. Soon we're gonna have Nintendo Direct

0:00:59.360 --> 0:01:01.840
<v Speaker 1>that has not yet happened. In fact, last I checked,

0:01:01.840 --> 0:01:04.800
<v Speaker 1>they had not even mentioned what date that is going

0:01:04.800 --> 0:01:06.640
<v Speaker 1>to happen on, but most people are expecting it to

0:01:06.640 --> 0:01:10.520
<v Speaker 1>happen next week anyway. Tons of games have been announced,

0:01:10.640 --> 0:01:14.319
<v Speaker 1>though not very many in the category of Triple A titles,

0:01:14.360 --> 0:01:16.399
<v Speaker 1>apart from some of the Ubisoft stuff, like they had

0:01:16.440 --> 0:01:19.200
<v Speaker 1>an Assassin's Creed title that kind of thing. It's been

0:01:19.240 --> 0:01:23.120
<v Speaker 1>a rough few months for the games industry, largely because

0:01:23.240 --> 0:01:28.960
<v Speaker 1>of layoffs and shutdowns. I'm specifically looking at you, Microsoft,

0:01:29.160 --> 0:01:31.360
<v Speaker 1>But if you'd like to hear more about what was

0:01:31.520 --> 0:01:34.480
<v Speaker 1>announced over the last few days, well, there's like tons

0:01:34.520 --> 0:01:37.319
<v Speaker 1>of resources. You know. You could go to Polygon or

0:01:37.400 --> 0:01:39.679
<v Speaker 1>ign just go to YouTube and do a search on

0:01:39.720 --> 0:01:42.479
<v Speaker 1>these sorts of things, or you can listen to a

0:01:42.520 --> 0:01:45.440
<v Speaker 1>show like the Besties podcast. And I don't have any

0:01:45.480 --> 0:01:47.400
<v Speaker 1>connection with any of those things, by the way, I

0:01:47.400 --> 0:01:49.640
<v Speaker 1>don't work with them, and I don't know them. I

0:01:49.840 --> 0:01:52.560
<v Speaker 1>just I'm just a fan as well. So check those out.

0:01:52.680 --> 0:01:55.920
<v Speaker 1>But now let's get to some tech news. Apple held

0:01:56.040 --> 0:02:00.800
<v Speaker 1>its Worldwide Developers Conference or WWDC this week, and as

0:02:00.840 --> 0:02:05.400
<v Speaker 1>I'm sure everybody anticipated, AI was foremost on the menu.

0:02:05.440 --> 0:02:09.040
<v Speaker 1>When it came to keynotes and presentations. CEO Tim Cook

0:02:09.120 --> 0:02:12.120
<v Speaker 1>took the stage and showed off how an AI boosted

0:02:12.200 --> 0:02:17.280
<v Speaker 1>serie could do more complex tasks with features like emails, messages,

0:02:17.360 --> 0:02:21.000
<v Speaker 1>and even third party apps. Not everyone is happy with

0:02:21.240 --> 0:02:25.200
<v Speaker 1>Apple's recent decisions regarding AI. More on that in a second,

0:02:25.360 --> 0:02:28.880
<v Speaker 1>but investors they were happy as a clam Apple saw

0:02:28.880 --> 0:02:31.520
<v Speaker 1>its stock price go up enough to the point where

0:02:31.560 --> 0:02:34.919
<v Speaker 1>the company bumped Microsoft off the top of its most

0:02:35.040 --> 0:02:39.639
<v Speaker 1>Valuable Corporations list. Now Apple once again stands triumphant as

0:02:39.720 --> 0:02:43.080
<v Speaker 1>the most valuable company in the world with evaluation of

0:02:43.840 --> 0:02:47.760
<v Speaker 1>good golly like three point twenty nine trillion dollars. But

0:02:47.880 --> 0:02:51.560
<v Speaker 1>back to the WWDC, Apple's version of AI stands for,

0:02:51.919 --> 0:02:56.280
<v Speaker 1>of course, Apple Intelligence. Apple announced it was incorporating the

0:02:56.360 --> 0:03:00.760
<v Speaker 1>GPT four oh large language model into its products so

0:03:00.800 --> 0:03:04.520
<v Speaker 1>that the AI can help assist with specific user needs.

0:03:04.880 --> 0:03:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Now this means that Apple has entered into a sort

0:03:07.560 --> 0:03:10.440
<v Speaker 1>of partnership with open Ai, which you might recall is

0:03:10.480 --> 0:03:14.680
<v Speaker 1>also working very closely with Microsoft because Microsoft initiated a

0:03:14.800 --> 0:03:19.240
<v Speaker 1>ten billion dollar investment in open Ai. According to just

0:03:19.360 --> 0:03:22.880
<v Speaker 1>Weatherbed of The Verge, Apple isn't handing out bucket loads

0:03:22.880 --> 0:03:25.880
<v Speaker 1>of cash the same way Microsoft is, but rather, quote

0:03:26.000 --> 0:03:30.200
<v Speaker 1>believes the exposure it's giving chat GPT is payment enough

0:03:30.480 --> 0:03:32.760
<v Speaker 1>end quote. That's kind of funny. I've always said, you know,

0:03:32.800 --> 0:03:36.200
<v Speaker 1>you can't live off exposure, but you sure can die

0:03:36.240 --> 0:03:40.440
<v Speaker 1>from it anyway. Weatherbed says that Apple is reportedly in

0:03:40.480 --> 0:03:43.520
<v Speaker 1>talks with other companies that have AI models, and the

0:03:43.560 --> 0:03:46.200
<v Speaker 1>plan appears to be that Apple users will actually have

0:03:46.360 --> 0:03:51.080
<v Speaker 1>options when it comes to whichever AI overlord they want

0:03:51.120 --> 0:03:55.240
<v Speaker 1>to use, so those who prefer Google's Gemini AI could

0:03:55.320 --> 0:03:59.200
<v Speaker 1>use that instead, for example, assuming a deal between Apple

0:03:59.240 --> 0:04:03.240
<v Speaker 1>and Google through Apple set some expectations early with the

0:04:03.280 --> 0:04:06.480
<v Speaker 1>AI talk, saying that these enhanced features will only be

0:04:06.560 --> 0:04:11.360
<v Speaker 1>available on some hardware, mostly the newest and highest ended

0:04:11.400 --> 0:04:15.040
<v Speaker 1>stuff like the iPhone fifteen Pro and the iPhone fifteen

0:04:15.080 --> 0:04:18.840
<v Speaker 1>Pro Max models or Max and iPads that have at

0:04:18.920 --> 0:04:22.080
<v Speaker 1>least an M one or later chip in them. Also,

0:04:22.240 --> 0:04:25.320
<v Speaker 1>it will only work if the language on the device

0:04:25.400 --> 0:04:30.000
<v Speaker 1>is set to English. Apple's presentation largely focused on context

0:04:30.360 --> 0:04:33.320
<v Speaker 1>of use, meaning that let's say you launch an app

0:04:33.800 --> 0:04:36.960
<v Speaker 1>and that you then ask that some information that's on

0:04:37.080 --> 0:04:40.119
<v Speaker 1>a different app get incorporated into the one you're using.

0:04:40.560 --> 0:04:42.760
<v Speaker 1>The AI would then handle what you want. So let

0:04:42.760 --> 0:04:45.280
<v Speaker 1>me give you a hypothetical example. Let's say that I

0:04:45.320 --> 0:04:48.280
<v Speaker 1>open up a messenger app and I want to send

0:04:48.600 --> 0:04:52.400
<v Speaker 1>a link to a video that's in a different app, right, Like,

0:04:52.400 --> 0:04:54.919
<v Speaker 1>I've got YouTube open on a different in one of

0:04:54.920 --> 0:04:56.880
<v Speaker 1>the other apps, and I want to send a link

0:04:56.920 --> 0:04:58.560
<v Speaker 1>to the YouTube video I was just watching to a

0:04:58.560 --> 0:05:03.400
<v Speaker 1>friend of mine on message, and the AI would theoretically

0:05:03.400 --> 0:05:05.479
<v Speaker 1>be able to suss all that out and save me

0:05:05.560 --> 0:05:07.599
<v Speaker 1>the effort of figuring out how to do that myself,

0:05:07.680 --> 0:05:10.039
<v Speaker 1>like to go in through the share feature on YouTube

0:05:10.120 --> 0:05:12.599
<v Speaker 1>or whatever in order to pull the link and post

0:05:12.600 --> 0:05:13.920
<v Speaker 1>it to my friend. I could just do it very

0:05:13.960 --> 0:05:16.880
<v Speaker 1>quickly by asking the assistant to do it. Apple also

0:05:16.960 --> 0:05:20.920
<v Speaker 1>showed off an AI image generation feature called gen Moji,

0:05:21.160 --> 0:05:24.160
<v Speaker 1>and as that name suggests, it will let users generate

0:05:24.200 --> 0:05:27.200
<v Speaker 1>an emoji that otherwise does not exist, so that you

0:05:27.240 --> 0:05:30.720
<v Speaker 1>can suitably express whatever it is you're feeling without you know,

0:05:30.760 --> 0:05:32.760
<v Speaker 1>having to use words. I mean, you do have to

0:05:32.839 --> 0:05:35.119
<v Speaker 1>use words to generate the emoji in the first place,

0:05:35.160 --> 0:05:37.640
<v Speaker 1>but then you won't be using words for whomever is

0:05:37.680 --> 0:05:41.279
<v Speaker 1>on the receiving end of that, you know, custom made emoji.

0:05:41.640 --> 0:05:44.440
<v Speaker 1>I guess I don't actually understand any of this because

0:05:44.480 --> 0:05:47.000
<v Speaker 1>I was an English major. I still think writing actual

0:05:47.080 --> 0:05:50.680
<v Speaker 1>letters is cool. But anyway, Apple announced this and lots

0:05:50.720 --> 0:05:53.960
<v Speaker 1>more stuff at the WWDC this year, and it got

0:05:54.000 --> 0:05:58.520
<v Speaker 1>developers and investors really excited. But it's not all good

0:05:58.560 --> 0:06:02.240
<v Speaker 1>news for Apple. There's a growing anti trust lawsuit mounting

0:06:02.279 --> 0:06:04.640
<v Speaker 1>against the company here in the United States. It's led

0:06:04.680 --> 0:06:08.040
<v Speaker 1>by the US Department of Justice, and so far nineteen

0:06:08.160 --> 0:06:13.039
<v Speaker 1>states as well as the District of Columbia have joined. Nevada, Massachusetts, Washington,

0:06:13.080 --> 0:06:16.760
<v Speaker 1>and Indiana are the latest for states to get involved

0:06:16.760 --> 0:06:19.720
<v Speaker 1>in this lawsuit. And it pretty much follows an argument

0:06:19.760 --> 0:06:23.120
<v Speaker 1>that we have heard for years now in various variations.

0:06:23.360 --> 0:06:27.599
<v Speaker 1>So Apple maintains a tight ecosystem, largely in an effort

0:06:27.640 --> 0:06:31.200
<v Speaker 1>to maximize profits and to discourage competition. What's more, of

0:06:31.200 --> 0:06:34.200
<v Speaker 1>these lawsuits say that Apple pairs that strategy with a

0:06:34.279 --> 0:06:38.320
<v Speaker 1>decision to sell iPhones at higher prices, and this maximizes

0:06:38.360 --> 0:06:41.440
<v Speaker 1>their profit margins, all the while forcing partners to pay

0:06:41.440 --> 0:06:44.719
<v Speaker 1>hefty fees for the privilege of being allowed to play

0:06:44.920 --> 0:06:49.080
<v Speaker 1>within Apple's sandbox. Apple has responded by saying, uh uh no,

0:06:49.200 --> 0:06:51.200
<v Speaker 1>we don't. And plus, even if we did, that's not

0:06:51.240 --> 0:06:53.640
<v Speaker 1>the definition of anti trust because no court has ever

0:06:53.680 --> 0:06:57.200
<v Speaker 1>said that, so that could be a valid point. But

0:06:57.480 --> 0:06:59.400
<v Speaker 1>you know, the interesting thing about courts is that they

0:06:59.400 --> 0:07:02.520
<v Speaker 1>can make new interpretations of old laws. That's kind of

0:07:02.520 --> 0:07:04.839
<v Speaker 1>what they do. So we'll have to see how this

0:07:05.480 --> 0:07:10.000
<v Speaker 1>develops further. Meanwhile, in Japan, Apple will have to allow

0:07:10.240 --> 0:07:13.840
<v Speaker 1>third party app stores and payment providers on iOS devices

0:07:13.880 --> 0:07:16.120
<v Speaker 1>in order to comply with a new law passed by

0:07:16.200 --> 0:07:19.560
<v Speaker 1>Japan's parliament. Google will also have to obey this law

0:07:19.600 --> 0:07:23.040
<v Speaker 1>with its Android devices. And again, this follows a growing

0:07:23.120 --> 0:07:27.440
<v Speaker 1>trend of regulators and other government officials cracking down on

0:07:27.560 --> 0:07:31.800
<v Speaker 1>the walled garden approach that both Apple and Google have used.

0:07:32.160 --> 0:07:36.040
<v Speaker 1>The companies have long argued that their policies protect consumers

0:07:36.240 --> 0:07:40.480
<v Speaker 1>by preventing malicious actors from tricking people into downloading malware

0:07:40.720 --> 0:07:43.720
<v Speaker 1>or sharing personal information with the wrong party, a claim

0:07:44.080 --> 0:07:47.840
<v Speaker 1>that I think is only partly valid because both Google

0:07:47.880 --> 0:07:50.480
<v Speaker 1>and Apple have a history of allowing third party apps

0:07:50.520 --> 0:07:54.000
<v Speaker 1>that later turned out to be malicious. But we're seeing

0:07:54.040 --> 0:07:57.640
<v Speaker 1>more governments say I'm not buying it. You do this

0:07:57.720 --> 0:08:01.200
<v Speaker 1>so that you can maintain control over ecosystem and then

0:08:01.320 --> 0:08:03.760
<v Speaker 1>profit off of other people's work. So by that, I

0:08:03.800 --> 0:08:06.400
<v Speaker 1>mean Apple and Google both have a practice of collecting

0:08:06.880 --> 0:08:10.640
<v Speaker 1>a percentage of every in app transaction for most apps,

0:08:10.920 --> 0:08:13.360
<v Speaker 1>So regulators are saying this is kind of like the

0:08:13.400 --> 0:08:16.480
<v Speaker 1>mobs skimming off of profits of businesses that the mob

0:08:16.640 --> 0:08:20.680
<v Speaker 1>quote unquote protects. Now, I mentioned earlier that one person

0:08:20.840 --> 0:08:24.480
<v Speaker 1>in particular isn't happy about the Apple and open Ai

0:08:24.640 --> 0:08:29.400
<v Speaker 1>news and that happens to be our favorite Bunker's billionaire

0:08:29.600 --> 0:08:32.160
<v Speaker 1>Elon Musk. You know, there's some weeks that I managed

0:08:32.200 --> 0:08:35.280
<v Speaker 1>to do a whole news episode without talking about him

0:08:35.320 --> 0:08:37.840
<v Speaker 1>at all. But today we've got a few stories that

0:08:37.920 --> 0:08:40.520
<v Speaker 1>involve him, and I guess that's because I invoked his

0:08:40.640 --> 0:08:43.040
<v Speaker 1>name when I did an episode earlier this week about

0:08:43.080 --> 0:08:47.240
<v Speaker 1>the origins of Tesla. Anyway, Musk threatened to ban Apple

0:08:47.280 --> 0:08:51.400
<v Speaker 1>computers and Apple devices from his various companies in the

0:08:51.440 --> 0:08:54.760
<v Speaker 1>wake of the open Ai announcement. So if you recall,

0:08:55.120 --> 0:08:57.800
<v Speaker 1>once upon a time, Elon Musk was a co founding

0:08:57.880 --> 0:09:01.440
<v Speaker 1>member of the original incarnation of open ai, which at

0:09:01.440 --> 0:09:05.000
<v Speaker 1>that time was a non profit dedicated to developing responsible

0:09:05.160 --> 0:09:09.319
<v Speaker 1>and safe artificial intelligence. But then Musk stormed out of

0:09:09.360 --> 0:09:13.280
<v Speaker 1>that organization, or perhaps he was encouraged to leave, and

0:09:13.360 --> 0:09:15.680
<v Speaker 1>he says that his decision was due to open ai

0:09:15.880 --> 0:09:19.359
<v Speaker 1>turning to the dark side of the force and embracing

0:09:19.400 --> 0:09:23.200
<v Speaker 1>a for profit approach. More on that than just a bit. Anyway,

0:09:23.440 --> 0:09:26.760
<v Speaker 1>Musk has been in a pretty darn public tiff with

0:09:26.880 --> 0:09:30.320
<v Speaker 1>open ai ever since, and he's also building out his

0:09:30.400 --> 0:09:34.720
<v Speaker 1>own AI company, which of course is called Xai. Musk

0:09:35.200 --> 0:09:38.400
<v Speaker 1>has said that if Apple devices incorporate open AI into them,

0:09:38.440 --> 0:09:40.960
<v Speaker 1>which is what is now happening, then that would mean

0:09:41.080 --> 0:09:45.160
<v Speaker 1>the Apple devices would pose quote an unacceptable security violation

0:09:45.480 --> 0:09:48.080
<v Speaker 1>end quote. And yikes, that's got to be tough because,

0:09:48.080 --> 0:09:51.760
<v Speaker 1>of course, now Microsoft also has tight integration with open AI.

0:09:51.840 --> 0:09:55.960
<v Speaker 1>I mean, the company is launching the Copilot plus PC

0:09:56.280 --> 0:10:00.880
<v Speaker 1>line next week. So if Microsoft and Apple are both

0:10:00.920 --> 0:10:04.880
<v Speaker 1>working closely with open AI, and open ai cannot be trusted,

0:10:05.160 --> 0:10:08.720
<v Speaker 1>I guess that means everyone working for one of Musk's

0:10:08.760 --> 0:10:11.520
<v Speaker 1>companies is going to have to switch to a Google

0:10:11.600 --> 0:10:15.760
<v Speaker 1>Chrome computer or something. I mean, there's also Linux and such,

0:10:15.840 --> 0:10:19.160
<v Speaker 1>but you know, everyone switching I mean, I don't know.

0:10:19.640 --> 0:10:22.320
<v Speaker 1>I would imagine the boffins at SpaceX might need something

0:10:22.520 --> 0:10:25.600
<v Speaker 1>with a little bit more oomph than a Google Chrome computer. Anyway,

0:10:26.240 --> 0:10:29.280
<v Speaker 1>Will Musk actually put a ban on Apple devices in

0:10:29.360 --> 0:10:33.960
<v Speaker 1>place at Tesla and SpaceX and Eurolink and XAI and

0:10:34.559 --> 0:10:38.240
<v Speaker 1>x Perhaps I've given up predicting on what he will

0:10:38.320 --> 0:10:41.040
<v Speaker 1>and will not do. I imagine that if he does put

0:10:41.040 --> 0:10:44.439
<v Speaker 1>it in place, it won't apply to him. That seems

0:10:44.480 --> 0:10:46.520
<v Speaker 1>to be the way rules work in his world is

0:10:46.720 --> 0:10:50.360
<v Speaker 1>those are things for other people, Okay, We've got lots

0:10:50.400 --> 0:10:53.240
<v Speaker 1>more to cover, including some more Elon Musk news, But

0:10:53.240 --> 0:10:55.400
<v Speaker 1>before I get to all that, let's take a quick

0:10:55.400 --> 0:11:09.240
<v Speaker 1>break to think our sponsors. So related to Elon Musk say,

0:11:09.280 --> 0:11:13.400
<v Speaker 1>he had previously brought a lawsuit against open Ai. He

0:11:13.559 --> 0:11:16.920
<v Speaker 1>argued that open ai had violated the founding principles of

0:11:16.960 --> 0:11:20.760
<v Speaker 1>the original nonprofit and that the company was purposefully withholding

0:11:20.760 --> 0:11:24.800
<v Speaker 1>the most useful and advanced AI tools for high paying customers.

0:11:25.080 --> 0:11:26.880
<v Speaker 1>And that does seem to fly in the face of

0:11:26.960 --> 0:11:30.680
<v Speaker 1>the open part of open ai, right, Like, if you're

0:11:30.760 --> 0:11:34.080
<v Speaker 1>an open company, you're not withholding stuff for the folks

0:11:34.120 --> 0:11:36.760
<v Speaker 1>who just pay you more. But then open ai has

0:11:36.760 --> 0:11:39.640
<v Speaker 1>now published a blog post that included a bunch of

0:11:39.679 --> 0:11:43.600
<v Speaker 1>emails written by Elon Musk, and those emails indicated that

0:11:43.840 --> 0:11:46.560
<v Speaker 1>back when Musk was part of open ai, he not

0:11:46.600 --> 0:11:49.120
<v Speaker 1>only knew that open ai would need to generate an

0:11:49.360 --> 0:11:52.400
<v Speaker 1>enormous amount of money to pay for AI research and development,

0:11:52.679 --> 0:11:55.079
<v Speaker 1>but he also wanted to be the one to lead

0:11:55.320 --> 0:11:58.760
<v Speaker 1>those efforts. The emails show that Musk agreed that open

0:11:58.760 --> 0:12:01.839
<v Speaker 1>ai would not be able to just raise money from donations.

0:12:01.920 --> 0:12:04.280
<v Speaker 1>It would have to create a means of generating actual

0:12:04.320 --> 0:12:07.200
<v Speaker 1>revenue in order to survive. That's essentially what the for

0:12:07.400 --> 0:12:10.640
<v Speaker 1>profit arm of open Ai was founded on, although lots

0:12:10.679 --> 0:12:12.920
<v Speaker 1>of other folks have questioned as whether or not that

0:12:13.040 --> 0:12:16.040
<v Speaker 1>means the nonprofit arm is the prime beneficiary of all

0:12:16.080 --> 0:12:18.840
<v Speaker 1>that revenue. The blog post seems to say, Hey, Elon,

0:12:19.120 --> 0:12:21.840
<v Speaker 1>this thing you're complaining about, it's the same thing you

0:12:22.000 --> 0:12:25.280
<v Speaker 1>wanted to do. Whether that had any influence on the

0:12:25.320 --> 0:12:29.720
<v Speaker 1>decision or not, I can't say, but Elon Musk's lawyers

0:12:29.760 --> 0:12:32.720
<v Speaker 1>have now dropped the lawsuit not long after that blog

0:12:32.760 --> 0:12:36.200
<v Speaker 1>was published. Open Ai and Musk himself have remained fairly

0:12:36.320 --> 0:12:39.600
<v Speaker 1>quiet about all of that. Now, we're not done with

0:12:39.800 --> 0:12:44.000
<v Speaker 1>Musk just yet. Some former SpaceX workers have filed a

0:12:44.080 --> 0:12:48.360
<v Speaker 1>lawsuit against him for sexual harassment and retaliation. Gebby Delvall

0:12:48.640 --> 0:12:52.000
<v Speaker 1>of The Verge reports that eight former engineers are part

0:12:52.040 --> 0:12:54.880
<v Speaker 1>of this lawsuit, and they say that Musk quote knowingly

0:12:54.920 --> 0:12:58.560
<v Speaker 1>and purposefully created an unwelcome, hostile work environment based upon

0:12:58.600 --> 0:13:03.640
<v Speaker 1>his conduct of interge into the workplace, vile sexual photographs,

0:13:03.800 --> 0:13:08.440
<v Speaker 1>memes and commentary that demeaned women and or the LGBTQ

0:13:08.679 --> 0:13:11.880
<v Speaker 1>plus community, which is a big old yuck. The lawsuit

0:13:11.960 --> 0:13:14.800
<v Speaker 1>argues that Musk is responsible for creating and fostering a

0:13:14.800 --> 0:13:18.880
<v Speaker 1>hostile work environment at SpaceX one that encouraged a sexist

0:13:19.000 --> 0:13:21.800
<v Speaker 1>culture within the company. The lawsuit even claims that a

0:13:21.880 --> 0:13:26.720
<v Speaker 1>video featuring C suite executives appeared to mock situations involving

0:13:26.760 --> 0:13:29.600
<v Speaker 1>sexual misconduct, which is a big old' yikes. I mean, y'all.

0:13:29.720 --> 0:13:33.640
<v Speaker 1>One thing all iHeart employees have to do every year

0:13:33.880 --> 0:13:36.920
<v Speaker 1>is go through a training course about appropriate conduct. And

0:13:36.960 --> 0:13:40.040
<v Speaker 1>I cannot tell you how horrified I would be if,

0:13:40.080 --> 0:13:42.360
<v Speaker 1>in the course of that training we were to see

0:13:42.400 --> 0:13:46.200
<v Speaker 1>our company's executives acting out inappropriate scenarios while making jokes

0:13:46.240 --> 0:13:49.160
<v Speaker 1>about it. Of course, that does not happen here. It's

0:13:49.240 --> 0:13:52.559
<v Speaker 1>just unthinkable to me that it happens anywhere, let alone

0:13:52.600 --> 0:13:56.200
<v Speaker 1>it's SpaceX. Moving away from Elon, let's talk a little

0:13:56.200 --> 0:13:59.199
<v Speaker 1>bit more about Microsoft. The company has faced mounting criticism

0:13:59.240 --> 0:14:02.800
<v Speaker 1>regarding an unres least Windows eleven feature called Windows Recall

0:14:03.080 --> 0:14:07.280
<v Speaker 1>and If You Recall. This feature essentially takes snapshots of

0:14:07.280 --> 0:14:10.199
<v Speaker 1>what's going on on your PC and then keeps those

0:14:10.200 --> 0:14:14.240
<v Speaker 1>snapshots as a record. So hypothetically, if for some reason

0:14:14.280 --> 0:14:16.840
<v Speaker 1>you needed to know more about something you once did

0:14:16.840 --> 0:14:19.440
<v Speaker 1>on your PC in the past. You could search through

0:14:19.480 --> 0:14:22.760
<v Speaker 1>those snapshots for answers, but critics worried that the feature

0:14:22.800 --> 0:14:27.040
<v Speaker 1>would become a huge, juicy target for malicious actors. Microsoft

0:14:27.080 --> 0:14:30.000
<v Speaker 1>stress that all Windows Recall functions would just take place

0:14:30.000 --> 0:14:32.920
<v Speaker 1>on the native machines, meaning the information would not get

0:14:33.000 --> 0:14:35.440
<v Speaker 1>shared to the cloud or anything like that. But this

0:14:35.520 --> 0:14:39.080
<v Speaker 1>week the company also faced questioning from US Congress regarding

0:14:39.120 --> 0:14:43.360
<v Speaker 1>how Microsoft is handled, or rather failed to handle, various

0:14:43.440 --> 0:14:47.480
<v Speaker 1>security crises. So I'm guessing all of that convinced Microsoft

0:14:47.520 --> 0:14:50.160
<v Speaker 1>that maybe, just maybe, it would not be the best

0:14:50.200 --> 0:14:52.800
<v Speaker 1>time to release Windows Recall, even if the tool is

0:14:52.920 --> 0:14:56.680
<v Speaker 1>relatively secure, due to those concerns. So next week, on

0:14:56.760 --> 0:15:00.000
<v Speaker 1>June eighteenth, Microsoft still plans to launch its Copilot plus

0:15:00.120 --> 0:15:03.680
<v Speaker 1>PC program, in which new Windows PCs will have the

0:15:03.720 --> 0:15:07.400
<v Speaker 1>Copilot AI more tightly integrated into them, but the Windows

0:15:07.440 --> 0:15:10.360
<v Speaker 1>Recall feature will be absent. The company does say that

0:15:10.400 --> 0:15:13.240
<v Speaker 1>Windows Recall will get rolled out at some future date,

0:15:13.360 --> 0:15:15.400
<v Speaker 1>but did not give a timeline as to when that

0:15:15.440 --> 0:15:19.760
<v Speaker 1>will happen. Brandon viglia Rollo of The Register reports that

0:15:19.800 --> 0:15:22.760
<v Speaker 1>Weimo is responding to an incident that happened with one

0:15:22.760 --> 0:15:26.960
<v Speaker 1>of its driverless taxis back on May twenty first in Phoenix, Arizona.

0:15:27.200 --> 0:15:30.920
<v Speaker 1>So apparently that incident involved a Weimo vehicle driving into

0:15:30.960 --> 0:15:34.320
<v Speaker 1>a wooden telephone pole at around eight miles per hour. Now,

0:15:34.360 --> 0:15:38.360
<v Speaker 1>I'll remind you that wooden telephone poles are inanimate, and

0:15:38.400 --> 0:15:41.200
<v Speaker 1>they are stationary objects, and they're ones that you would

0:15:41.240 --> 0:15:44.720
<v Speaker 1>expect a driverless car to naturally avoid. Weimo claimed that

0:15:44.760 --> 0:15:48.520
<v Speaker 1>the problem came from quote a mapping and software issue

0:15:48.760 --> 0:15:51.560
<v Speaker 1>end quote. No one was harmed in the incident, so

0:15:51.640 --> 0:15:53.720
<v Speaker 1>that's good at least. But even though this was a

0:15:53.840 --> 0:15:56.480
<v Speaker 1>minor accident in the grand scheme of things, it comes

0:15:56.560 --> 0:16:00.400
<v Speaker 1>at a time when cities are scrutinizing driverless proms a

0:16:00.440 --> 0:16:03.280
<v Speaker 1>little bit more closely than they used to. Weaimo is

0:16:03.320 --> 0:16:06.080
<v Speaker 1>in the midst of a software recall on its automated

0:16:06.120 --> 0:16:09.640
<v Speaker 1>driver system, so we'll see whether or not this leads

0:16:09.640 --> 0:16:14.160
<v Speaker 1>to bigger headaches for driverless taxi efforts. In general, I

0:16:14.200 --> 0:16:19.040
<v Speaker 1>think there's a growing skepticism around those. Natalie Cratch of

0:16:19.040 --> 0:16:21.400
<v Speaker 1>The Wrap has an upsetting piece about the New York

0:16:21.440 --> 0:16:24.720
<v Speaker 1>Times as art department. So recently the newspaper reduced its

0:16:24.800 --> 0:16:28.840
<v Speaker 1>art production department by more than half, from sixteen positions

0:16:29.120 --> 0:16:32.040
<v Speaker 1>down to seven. The New York Times Guild alleges that

0:16:32.080 --> 0:16:34.480
<v Speaker 1>this move is in an effort to offload work that

0:16:34.720 --> 0:16:39.000
<v Speaker 1>would normally go to human artists to AI instead. This

0:16:39.040 --> 0:16:41.520
<v Speaker 1>is ryan line with the concerns many have expressed for

0:16:41.640 --> 0:16:44.760
<v Speaker 1>the creative industries as a whole that companies will favor

0:16:44.840 --> 0:16:49.240
<v Speaker 1>AI over human creatives. That's a huge problem for many reasons,

0:16:49.280 --> 0:16:51.320
<v Speaker 1>not the least of which is that it puts creatives

0:16:51.320 --> 0:16:53.880
<v Speaker 1>out of work. But also, you know, consider that the

0:16:53.960 --> 0:16:58.440
<v Speaker 1>training methods for image generating and image altering AI often

0:16:58.480 --> 0:17:02.440
<v Speaker 1>involved feeding countless exams samples of art and human created

0:17:02.480 --> 0:17:06.000
<v Speaker 1>work to the AI model. So it's entirely possible that

0:17:06.040 --> 0:17:09.080
<v Speaker 1>the stuff the AI does will at least in part,

0:17:09.119 --> 0:17:11.800
<v Speaker 1>be based off the work of the very human beings

0:17:11.840 --> 0:17:14.080
<v Speaker 1>who are laid off in the first place, which is

0:17:14.160 --> 0:17:16.600
<v Speaker 1>kind of like being fired and then replaced by a

0:17:16.640 --> 0:17:20.040
<v Speaker 1>really crappy copy of yourself. But a spokesperson for The

0:17:20.040 --> 0:17:23.320
<v Speaker 1>Times now has said that AI did not factor into

0:17:23.359 --> 0:17:26.000
<v Speaker 1>this decision at all, and that in fact, the employees

0:17:26.000 --> 0:17:29.160
<v Speaker 1>were offered a buyout and the whole decision to downsize

0:17:29.200 --> 0:17:32.080
<v Speaker 1>the department reflects a push to create a more efficient

0:17:32.200 --> 0:17:35.720
<v Speaker 1>process that doesn't need as many staff to do its work,

0:17:35.920 --> 0:17:38.920
<v Speaker 1>though some have said that that's because of the incorporation

0:17:39.080 --> 0:17:43.400
<v Speaker 1>of AI tools. So the story is still unfolding. And

0:17:43.400 --> 0:17:45.960
<v Speaker 1>then a story that makes me wonder how this actually works.

0:17:46.040 --> 0:17:49.520
<v Speaker 1>We have a piece by Takeshi Nhirabi of the Asian

0:17:49.680 --> 0:17:53.120
<v Speaker 1>Shimbun about a company using AI in order to protect

0:17:53.400 --> 0:17:57.040
<v Speaker 1>its customer service staff from angry customers. All right, so

0:17:57.119 --> 0:18:00.520
<v Speaker 1>the story goes that Soft Bank, which is a massive

0:18:00.600 --> 0:18:03.159
<v Speaker 1>conglomerate that's had a bit of a roller coaster of

0:18:03.200 --> 0:18:06.119
<v Speaker 1>a history in recent years, has rolled out an AI

0:18:06.240 --> 0:18:09.920
<v Speaker 1>tool that acts as a go between for staff and customers.

0:18:10.240 --> 0:18:12.800
<v Speaker 1>So the idea is that the AI receives the angry

0:18:12.800 --> 0:18:16.440
<v Speaker 1>calls of customers seeking a solution and turns them into

0:18:16.520 --> 0:18:19.840
<v Speaker 1>a calm and reasonable voice, or at least one that

0:18:20.000 --> 0:18:26.159
<v Speaker 1>doesn't turn into an intimidating, angry tirade. So you know,

0:18:26.160 --> 0:18:28.760
<v Speaker 1>a customer could be screaming, listen, you idiot, I'm telling

0:18:28.760 --> 0:18:31.160
<v Speaker 1>you that I need a solution, but the AI might

0:18:31.240 --> 0:18:34.000
<v Speaker 1>turn that into could you please help me resolve this issue?

0:18:34.160 --> 0:18:36.640
<v Speaker 1>Actually that's not true. According to the article, the AI

0:18:36.720 --> 0:18:39.639
<v Speaker 1>doesn't actually change the wording at all, So if someone

0:18:39.760 --> 0:18:42.760
<v Speaker 1>calls a staff an idiot, that idiot is still going

0:18:42.800 --> 0:18:45.360
<v Speaker 1>to get through in the message. But what it does

0:18:45.440 --> 0:18:48.199
<v Speaker 1>do is it changes the pitch and the tone of

0:18:48.240 --> 0:18:52.040
<v Speaker 1>the voice. So presumably the person on the other end

0:18:52.080 --> 0:18:54.760
<v Speaker 1>of the line, if they start getting no a bit heated,

0:18:55.119 --> 0:18:58.240
<v Speaker 1>the AI might start increasing the pitch of their voice

0:18:58.600 --> 0:19:01.000
<v Speaker 1>up to chipmunk levels, because you know, it's hard to

0:19:01.040 --> 0:19:04.600
<v Speaker 1>feel stressed out about a chipmunk being angry at you. Interestingly,

0:19:04.640 --> 0:19:07.200
<v Speaker 1>the developer said one of the challenges was figuring out

0:19:07.200 --> 0:19:10.760
<v Speaker 1>how much anger to leave in because obviously, if a

0:19:10.800 --> 0:19:13.239
<v Speaker 1>customer is getting angry, the staff member needs to know

0:19:13.280 --> 0:19:17.040
<v Speaker 1>about in order not to escalate matters further. And apparently

0:19:17.040 --> 0:19:19.280
<v Speaker 1>SoftBank hopes to make this tool a product it can

0:19:19.320 --> 0:19:22.639
<v Speaker 1>sell to other companies starting next year. Okay, some article

0:19:22.640 --> 0:19:25.520
<v Speaker 1>recommendations for y'all. First up is a piece by Kyle

0:19:25.680 --> 0:19:28.800
<v Speaker 1>Chaika in The New York Are titled is Google SEO

0:19:29.000 --> 0:19:32.240
<v Speaker 1>Gaslighting the Internet? So the article describes how some leaked

0:19:32.280 --> 0:19:35.320
<v Speaker 1>internal Google documents paint a very different picture of how

0:19:35.440 --> 0:19:39.159
<v Speaker 1>search works than what Google has said to the general public.

0:19:39.200 --> 0:19:42.280
<v Speaker 1>It's well worth a read. Next up is Ron Amadeo's

0:19:42.320 --> 0:19:45.400
<v Speaker 1>piece for Ours Technica titled the Google Pay App Is Dead,

0:19:45.440 --> 0:19:47.640
<v Speaker 1>which tells the story of how Google put to rest

0:19:47.760 --> 0:19:50.720
<v Speaker 1>yet another Google feature in favor of another one that

0:19:50.760 --> 0:19:52.480
<v Speaker 1>does pretty much the same thing. And this is like

0:19:52.560 --> 0:19:56.680
<v Speaker 1>the fourth time that's happened. And finally, Ashley Blanger has

0:19:56.760 --> 0:19:59.800
<v Speaker 1>another piece on Ours Technica. This one's titled Microsoft in

0:20:00.040 --> 0:20:03.879
<v Speaker 1>Damage Control Mode says it will prioritize security over AI.

0:20:04.280 --> 0:20:06.720
<v Speaker 1>Now I alluded to this earlier in the episode. Microsoft

0:20:06.800 --> 0:20:09.600
<v Speaker 1>has had to face questioning from Congress about some recent

0:20:09.640 --> 0:20:13.199
<v Speaker 1>security breaches that have affected thousands of government staff, and

0:20:13.280 --> 0:20:16.080
<v Speaker 1>the piece raises serious questions about whether the US government

0:20:16.080 --> 0:20:18.480
<v Speaker 1>has put too much faith and responsibility on the shoulders

0:20:18.480 --> 0:20:22.119
<v Speaker 1>of Microsoft, and whether Microsoft has behaved responsibly in the

0:20:22.119 --> 0:20:25.840
<v Speaker 1>wake of cybersecurity breaches. According to one whistleblower, Microsoft made

0:20:25.880 --> 0:20:30.080
<v Speaker 1>the conscious decision to not respond and to not reveal

0:20:30.359 --> 0:20:33.960
<v Speaker 1>certain attacks in an effort to avoid putting these lucrative

0:20:33.960 --> 0:20:37.720
<v Speaker 1>government contracts in jeopardy, which is a heck of an accusation,

0:20:38.040 --> 0:20:40.800
<v Speaker 1>so well worth a read. That's it. I hope you

0:20:40.960 --> 0:20:42.680
<v Speaker 1>had a great week. I hope you have an even

0:20:42.720 --> 0:20:46.040
<v Speaker 1>better weekend. And I'll talk to you again, really soon.

0:20:52.160 --> 0:20:56.840
<v Speaker 1>Tech Stuff is an iHeartRadio production. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio,

0:20:57.119 --> 0:21:00.960
<v Speaker 1>visit the iHeartRadio app Apple Podcasts, wherever you listen to

0:21:01.040 --> 0:21:01.959
<v Speaker 1>your favorite shows.