WEBVTT - Tech News: Is the Honeymoon Over for AI?

0:00:04.480 --> 0:00:12.399
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there,

0:00:12.440 --> 0:00:16.120
<v Speaker 1>and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland.

0:00:16.160 --> 0:00:19.119
<v Speaker 1>I'm an executive producer with iHeart Podcasts and how the

0:00:19.120 --> 0:00:21.279
<v Speaker 1>tech are you. It's time for the tech news for

0:00:21.320 --> 0:00:25.920
<v Speaker 1>the week ending August second, twenty twenty four. Now, I'm

0:00:25.960 --> 0:00:29.200
<v Speaker 1>sure you all remember the CrowdStrike outage that happened back

0:00:29.280 --> 0:00:34.120
<v Speaker 1>on July nineteenth and subsequently caused chaos around the world

0:00:34.120 --> 0:00:39.040
<v Speaker 1>as various Windows based machines got caught in a reboot loop. Well,

0:00:39.040 --> 0:00:42.640
<v Speaker 1>we're still seeing the fallout of this classic goofum up,

0:00:42.840 --> 0:00:45.680
<v Speaker 1>because it turns out the problem was CrowdStrike had pushed

0:00:45.680 --> 0:00:49.239
<v Speaker 1>out an update that included ultimately a relatively simple but

0:00:49.479 --> 0:00:54.720
<v Speaker 1>catastrophic error in it a bug. Now, CrowdStrike shareholders are

0:00:54.760 --> 0:00:59.360
<v Speaker 1>angrily filing a massive class action lawsuit against the company,

0:00:59.520 --> 0:01:03.120
<v Speaker 1>claiming that it failed to disclose its testing process, and

0:01:03.200 --> 0:01:07.320
<v Speaker 1>the shareholders say that process was by all means inadequate.

0:01:07.560 --> 0:01:11.160
<v Speaker 1>The lawsuit says that CrowdStrike purposefully concealed the fact that

0:01:11.280 --> 0:01:14.759
<v Speaker 1>it had not put proper safety measures in place, and

0:01:14.959 --> 0:01:18.840
<v Speaker 1>as a result, this outage followed and then the company's

0:01:18.920 --> 0:01:22.560
<v Speaker 1>stock price tumbled by nearly a third over the course

0:01:22.600 --> 0:01:27.039
<v Speaker 1>of two weeks. That represented around twenty five billion with

0:01:27.160 --> 0:01:32.479
<v Speaker 1>a B dollars of market value. Yaoza and shareholders are

0:01:32.480 --> 0:01:36.039
<v Speaker 1>not the only ones considering a lawsuit against the company.

0:01:36.200 --> 0:01:40.480
<v Speaker 1>Delta Airlines is also apparently doing that, claiming that the

0:01:40.520 --> 0:01:43.760
<v Speaker 1>crowd strike outage led to Delta incurring an expense of

0:01:43.840 --> 0:01:48.600
<v Speaker 1>around half a billion dollars. Another Yaoza, Delta, like some

0:01:48.760 --> 0:01:52.600
<v Speaker 1>other airlines, had to postpone and cancel thousands of flights

0:01:52.760 --> 0:01:56.160
<v Speaker 1>and put travelers up in hotels and such in the

0:01:56.160 --> 0:01:59.240
<v Speaker 1>wake of this tech disaster. And in the interest of

0:01:59.280 --> 0:02:03.000
<v Speaker 1>full disclosure, my partner works for Delta. She was asked

0:02:03.040 --> 0:02:05.800
<v Speaker 1>to volunteer to work at the airport, a position she

0:02:05.920 --> 0:02:08.520
<v Speaker 1>had not held for more than twenty years, and she

0:02:08.600 --> 0:02:11.800
<v Speaker 1>did it because she's a rock star. But according to

0:02:11.880 --> 0:02:16.320
<v Speaker 1>Delta CEO ed Bastion, it workers had to manually reset

0:02:16.360 --> 0:02:20.519
<v Speaker 1>around forty thousand servers to get things back to normal

0:02:20.600 --> 0:02:24.600
<v Speaker 1>for the company, and they expect to receive some form

0:02:24.639 --> 0:02:28.800
<v Speaker 1>of compensation for the damages that they incurred as a

0:02:28.800 --> 0:02:31.840
<v Speaker 1>result of this outage. Metta has some good news for

0:02:31.960 --> 0:02:36.880
<v Speaker 1>its shareholders. The company posted impressive revenue growth thanks to

0:02:36.960 --> 0:02:40.920
<v Speaker 1>its advertising business. That revenue growth was enough to mollify

0:02:41.040 --> 0:02:45.800
<v Speaker 1>shareholders who continued to be skeptical over Meta's spending in

0:02:45.880 --> 0:02:50.160
<v Speaker 1>the metaverse and AI spaces. Zuckerberg told shareholders that the

0:02:50.160 --> 0:02:53.919
<v Speaker 1>company's spending in those areas had increased by seven percent

0:02:54.240 --> 0:02:56.839
<v Speaker 1>in the second quarter of twenty twenty four, but that

0:02:56.880 --> 0:02:59.080
<v Speaker 1>this was more than covered by the rise of the

0:02:59.120 --> 0:03:02.880
<v Speaker 1>company's operation rating margin, which hit thirty eight percent. Now

0:03:02.919 --> 0:03:06.560
<v Speaker 1>I have no magic ball where I can see what

0:03:06.680 --> 0:03:10.679
<v Speaker 1>shareholders are actually thinking, but I imagine more than a few

0:03:10.680 --> 0:03:13.440
<v Speaker 1>of them are still in the golly. I wish they'd

0:03:13.440 --> 0:03:16.320
<v Speaker 1>stop throwing money away, but I am thankful that the

0:03:16.360 --> 0:03:20.320
<v Speaker 1>digital ad business is going well again. They're in that camp.

0:03:20.840 --> 0:03:24.799
<v Speaker 1>I'm sure some shareholders remain excited about this metaverse concept

0:03:24.840 --> 0:03:28.160
<v Speaker 1>and where AI may be going. But more and more

0:03:28.200 --> 0:03:31.280
<v Speaker 1>I'm hearing folks get a little uncertain about the viability

0:03:31.320 --> 0:03:34.000
<v Speaker 1>of AI, or at least how far off we are

0:03:34.360 --> 0:03:39.400
<v Speaker 1>from AI making a real difference in in a revenue perspective.

0:03:39.640 --> 0:03:41.839
<v Speaker 1>I think a lot of people are starting to wake

0:03:41.960 --> 0:03:45.480
<v Speaker 1>up to the fact that AI does have enormous potential,

0:03:45.680 --> 0:03:48.600
<v Speaker 1>but that potential is going to take time to be realized,

0:03:48.680 --> 0:03:51.960
<v Speaker 1>and it isn't just a magic button where you press

0:03:51.960 --> 0:03:56.640
<v Speaker 1>it and money comes out. Speaking of AI disillusionment, Bloomberg's

0:03:56.720 --> 0:04:00.320
<v Speaker 1>Julia Love has an article titled big Tech fail to

0:04:00.360 --> 0:04:03.200
<v Speaker 1>convince Wall Street that AI is paying off And I

0:04:03.240 --> 0:04:06.840
<v Speaker 1>think that illustrates my point pretty darn well. She argues

0:04:06.880 --> 0:04:11.040
<v Speaker 1>that big companies like Amazon, Alphabet, and Microsoft have all

0:04:11.080 --> 0:04:14.080
<v Speaker 1>failed to prove the massive amount of money that they

0:04:14.120 --> 0:04:18.560
<v Speaker 1>have collectively poured into AI research and development has any

0:04:18.600 --> 0:04:21.000
<v Speaker 1>real chance of paying off in the near term. At

0:04:21.120 --> 0:04:24.479
<v Speaker 1>least they failed in the eyes of shareholders. Like it

0:04:24.560 --> 0:04:26.960
<v Speaker 1>might turn out that this isn't true, that it is

0:04:27.000 --> 0:04:30.799
<v Speaker 1>going to pay off, but shareholders are skeptical. These companies

0:04:30.839 --> 0:04:35.320
<v Speaker 1>saw their stock prices decline recently, so essentially, the upfront

0:04:35.360 --> 0:04:39.680
<v Speaker 1>costs of AIRE and D are enormous. The ongoing maintenance

0:04:39.800 --> 0:04:45.720
<v Speaker 1>costs to operate AI are also skyrocketing, particularly if you're

0:04:45.760 --> 0:04:48.880
<v Speaker 1>doing so at scale the way these big companies are

0:04:48.880 --> 0:04:52.279
<v Speaker 1>doing it, and the opportunities to actually generate revenue off

0:04:52.320 --> 0:04:55.640
<v Speaker 1>of that work are somewhat limited right now. But again,

0:04:55.680 --> 0:04:57.960
<v Speaker 1>that's not to say that's always going to be the case.

0:04:58.080 --> 0:05:00.640
<v Speaker 1>It may be that down the road this will look

0:05:00.760 --> 0:05:04.200
<v Speaker 1>absolutely critical. People will say, Wow, if you had gotten

0:05:04.279 --> 0:05:06.840
<v Speaker 1>in at that time, think of how much money you

0:05:06.880 --> 0:05:10.680
<v Speaker 1>would make. That's a possibility. However, for now, the attitude

0:05:10.680 --> 0:05:13.360
<v Speaker 1>appears to be more like, Ah, this is taking longer

0:05:13.400 --> 0:05:16.200
<v Speaker 1>than I thought it would, so I'm less excited now.

0:05:16.480 --> 0:05:19.720
<v Speaker 1>It's the good old hype cycle trend. Folks get super

0:05:19.760 --> 0:05:23.920
<v Speaker 1>excited about an emerging technology, but then that excitement starts

0:05:23.960 --> 0:05:27.320
<v Speaker 1>to drain away as they realize that the actual capabilities

0:05:27.360 --> 0:05:31.719
<v Speaker 1>of the tech aren't nearly as wild and impressive as

0:05:31.760 --> 0:05:34.839
<v Speaker 1>they had imagined. This does not mean that AI is

0:05:34.880 --> 0:05:37.360
<v Speaker 1>just going to fizzle out like some other stuff kind

0:05:37.360 --> 0:05:41.279
<v Speaker 1>of has. Arguably, NFTs have largely fizzled out. And yes,

0:05:41.320 --> 0:05:44.000
<v Speaker 1>I know NFTs are technically there's still a thing, but

0:05:44.080 --> 0:05:47.640
<v Speaker 1>they are a shadow of what they once were thanks

0:05:47.680 --> 0:05:50.960
<v Speaker 1>to the enormous collapse NFTs had a couple of years ago.

0:05:51.320 --> 0:05:53.359
<v Speaker 1>This might mean that companies will need to find some

0:05:53.480 --> 0:05:56.320
<v Speaker 1>creative ways to talk about AI investments in the future

0:05:56.360 --> 0:05:59.680
<v Speaker 1>if they do not want their shareholders getting antsy about

0:05:59.680 --> 0:06:02.520
<v Speaker 1>the whole thing. So, yeah, it's not just the tech,

0:06:02.960 --> 0:06:07.440
<v Speaker 1>it's always the money. Microsoft filed an annual report with

0:06:07.520 --> 0:06:10.920
<v Speaker 1>the SEC all publicly traded companies in the United States

0:06:10.920 --> 0:06:14.560
<v Speaker 1>have to do this. And in that report, Microsoft named

0:06:14.640 --> 0:06:18.680
<v Speaker 1>open Ai as a competitor. Now that's got a sting

0:06:19.040 --> 0:06:21.320
<v Speaker 1>for open Ai. It's kind of like hearing an ex

0:06:21.360 --> 0:06:25.920
<v Speaker 1>partner describe you as being okay. After all, Microsoft famously

0:06:25.960 --> 0:06:31.760
<v Speaker 1>pumped a thirteen billion dollar investment into open Ai. That's

0:06:32.000 --> 0:06:34.760
<v Speaker 1>a heck of a present, right, I mean, technically it's

0:06:34.800 --> 0:06:37.240
<v Speaker 1>not a president it's a business investment. But you know,

0:06:37.400 --> 0:06:41.920
<v Speaker 1>in one section of Microsoft's report, it reads, quote, our

0:06:42.160 --> 0:06:46.720
<v Speaker 1>AI offerings compete with AI products from hyperscalers such as

0:06:46.760 --> 0:06:51.520
<v Speaker 1>Amazon and Google, as well as products from other emerging competitors,

0:06:51.560 --> 0:06:57.400
<v Speaker 1>including Anthropic, open Ai, Meta and other open source offerings,

0:06:57.640 --> 0:07:01.839
<v Speaker 1>many of which are also current or putdential partners end quote.

0:07:01.960 --> 0:07:04.559
<v Speaker 1>I love that they put OpenAI second in that list.

0:07:04.600 --> 0:07:07.680
<v Speaker 1>I guess that's, you know, trying to couch things a

0:07:07.720 --> 0:07:10.720
<v Speaker 1>little bit. But obviously Microsoft is not saying that it

0:07:10.800 --> 0:07:13.520
<v Speaker 1>has declared war on open Ai. It's not that kind

0:07:13.560 --> 0:07:16.480
<v Speaker 1>of competitor. In fact, some suspect that this might be

0:07:16.520 --> 0:07:19.080
<v Speaker 1>the people at Microsoft trying to get ahead of any

0:07:19.280 --> 0:07:23.600
<v Speaker 1>regulatory issues that could follow in the future. Microsoft wouldn't

0:07:23.640 --> 0:07:26.840
<v Speaker 1>be considered anti competitive in the AI space, because look,

0:07:27.080 --> 0:07:31.320
<v Speaker 1>open ai is a competitor for Microsoft, not like a

0:07:31.720 --> 0:07:35.240
<v Speaker 1>best friend forever. Sure, for a while there, Microsoft had

0:07:35.240 --> 0:07:38.040
<v Speaker 1>secured a seat on open AI's board of directors. But

0:07:38.080 --> 0:07:40.640
<v Speaker 1>what does that mean? They don't have it anymore. They

0:07:40.760 --> 0:07:44.800
<v Speaker 1>dropped that seat. It's nothing you need to worry about, regulators, gerl.

0:07:45.000 --> 0:07:47.800
<v Speaker 1>We're all just you know, we're just er. We're competing

0:07:47.920 --> 0:07:51.680
<v Speaker 1>like crazy. Down here. Hey, look there's a three headed monkey.

0:07:51.920 --> 0:07:55.360
<v Speaker 1>On a semi related note, Windows Central reported late last

0:07:55.360 --> 0:07:57.960
<v Speaker 1>week that open ai could be facing a pretty grim

0:07:58.040 --> 0:08:02.120
<v Speaker 1>future unless it holds another round of massive funding. That

0:08:02.200 --> 0:08:06.400
<v Speaker 1>the company has a projected five billion dollar loss as

0:08:06.720 --> 0:08:10.960
<v Speaker 1>possibly in the books this year. The company reportedly spends

0:08:10.960 --> 0:08:14.960
<v Speaker 1>about eight point five billion dollars a year in operation

0:08:15.200 --> 0:08:19.320
<v Speaker 1>and staffing costs, but it only posts revenue of three

0:08:19.480 --> 0:08:21.880
<v Speaker 1>point five billion. So yeah, if you do the math,

0:08:21.920 --> 0:08:24.800
<v Speaker 1>that means the company is spending five billion dollars more

0:08:25.200 --> 0:08:28.760
<v Speaker 1>in twenty twenty four, then it's bringing in and without

0:08:28.800 --> 0:08:31.880
<v Speaker 1>an influx of more cash, the company could go bankrupt.

0:08:32.160 --> 0:08:36.040
<v Speaker 1>Open Ai has released updated large language models and tools

0:08:36.080 --> 0:08:39.640
<v Speaker 1>this year that in turn has led to increased revenue

0:08:39.640 --> 0:08:43.480
<v Speaker 1>for the company. But then running these updated models and

0:08:43.520 --> 0:08:46.960
<v Speaker 1>tools is really expensive, so some of that kind of

0:08:47.160 --> 0:08:51.600
<v Speaker 1>washes out. Could Open AI potentially innovate its way out

0:08:51.600 --> 0:08:56.960
<v Speaker 1>of business, or would its competitor Microsoft swoop in to

0:08:57.120 --> 0:08:59.679
<v Speaker 1>keep the ship afloat. I don't know. I guess I'm

0:08:59.679 --> 0:09:02.400
<v Speaker 1>gonna have I have to ask chat GPT what it thinks.

0:09:03.000 --> 0:09:06.360
<v Speaker 1>Sticking with Microsoft and AI for just a bit longer,

0:09:06.640 --> 0:09:10.120
<v Speaker 1>Four of four Media has a piece titled Microsoft and

0:09:10.160 --> 0:09:14.640
<v Speaker 1>Reddit are fighting about why Bing's crawler is blocked on Reddit?

0:09:15.080 --> 0:09:18.880
<v Speaker 1>All right, So Bing is Microsoft's search engine. It's one

0:09:18.920 --> 0:09:22.880
<v Speaker 1>that's most associated with the Edge web browser from Microsoft.

0:09:23.120 --> 0:09:27.320
<v Speaker 1>And search engines use web crawlers to index the web

0:09:27.600 --> 0:09:30.680
<v Speaker 1>so that the search engine can list pages in response

0:09:30.720 --> 0:09:35.000
<v Speaker 1>to queries. This is a fundamental function of search engines. However,

0:09:35.440 --> 0:09:39.160
<v Speaker 1>web builders they can actually put instructions inside a web

0:09:39.200 --> 0:09:42.960
<v Speaker 1>page that tell these crawlers to scram. Essentially, it's saying, hey,

0:09:43.080 --> 0:09:46.560
<v Speaker 1>don't index this web page for your search results. Why

0:09:46.559 --> 0:09:48.200
<v Speaker 1>would you do that? Well, you might want to do

0:09:48.240 --> 0:09:51.480
<v Speaker 1>it if you want a more controlled access to the

0:09:51.520 --> 0:09:56.080
<v Speaker 1>page in question. So essentially Reddit has done this across

0:09:56.160 --> 0:09:59.280
<v Speaker 1>its entire site. Because of how companies like Google and

0:09:59.360 --> 0:10:03.920
<v Speaker 1>Microsoft are now crawling websites not just for search purposes,

0:10:04.160 --> 0:10:08.400
<v Speaker 1>but also to train artificial intelligence large language models, and

0:10:08.559 --> 0:10:13.600
<v Speaker 1>Reddit doesn't want any company using content from its site

0:10:13.920 --> 0:10:18.440
<v Speaker 1>to train AI without first ponying up cash to do so.

0:10:19.080 --> 0:10:21.880
<v Speaker 1>Reddit doesn't object to AI learning from the stuff that

0:10:22.000 --> 0:10:25.760
<v Speaker 1>its users create and post to the site, but it

0:10:25.840 --> 0:10:28.480
<v Speaker 1>does not give that stuff away for free. Oh, it

0:10:28.520 --> 0:10:31.480
<v Speaker 1>also doesn't share any money with the users who actually

0:10:31.520 --> 0:10:34.120
<v Speaker 1>made the content in the first place. Reddit is like, no,

0:10:34.280 --> 0:10:36.720
<v Speaker 1>once you post it here, it belongs to us. It's

0:10:36.760 --> 0:10:40.800
<v Speaker 1>no longer yours, it's ours. But anyway, Reddit is essentially saying,

0:10:41.240 --> 0:10:45.040
<v Speaker 1>if you want to train your AI on our stuff,

0:10:45.440 --> 0:10:48.320
<v Speaker 1>you got to fork over the cash. And Microsoft is

0:10:48.400 --> 0:10:51.720
<v Speaker 1>essentially saying, bro, we're not training AI, We just want

0:10:51.760 --> 0:10:55.160
<v Speaker 1>to index Reddit for the purposes of search, so chill out.

0:10:55.559 --> 0:10:58.880
<v Speaker 1>Complicating matters is the fact that Google did pay Reddit

0:10:59.040 --> 0:11:03.800
<v Speaker 1>a cool sixty million dollars, and so Google, unlike other

0:11:03.880 --> 0:11:07.480
<v Speaker 1>search engines, is allowed to crawl an index and even

0:11:07.559 --> 0:11:11.640
<v Speaker 1>train AI on Reddit site. So some people are saying, huh,

0:11:11.679 --> 0:11:15.079
<v Speaker 1>this is starting to look a bit anti competitive. In fact,

0:11:15.200 --> 0:11:20.080
<v Speaker 1>Bing's head of search tweeted out quote Reddit has blocked

0:11:20.160 --> 0:11:24.720
<v Speaker 1>being from crawling their site for search, favoring another search engine,

0:11:24.800 --> 0:11:29.880
<v Speaker 1>and impacting competition from being and being powered engines. End quote.

0:11:30.080 --> 0:11:33.920
<v Speaker 1>Reddit reps told four h four Media that nah, nah,

0:11:33.920 --> 0:11:37.040
<v Speaker 1>that's not what's going on. This is totally because Microsoft

0:11:37.040 --> 0:11:39.480
<v Speaker 1>refuses to play by our rules, and that's all there

0:11:39.559 --> 0:11:44.199
<v Speaker 1>is to it. So this, I think is an illustration

0:11:44.440 --> 0:11:49.319
<v Speaker 1>of how AI, specifically generative AI, has started to really

0:11:49.440 --> 0:11:52.960
<v Speaker 1>impact the way that the Internet works. Typically, you wouldn't

0:11:53.000 --> 0:11:57.679
<v Speaker 1>see sites like Reddit put up a block on indexing

0:11:58.080 --> 0:12:01.840
<v Speaker 1>the page. Like indexing me that more people will go

0:12:01.920 --> 0:12:04.640
<v Speaker 1>to Reddit when they're searching for certain topics and there's

0:12:04.679 --> 0:12:07.800
<v Speaker 1>a Reddit thread all about that thing, so you want

0:12:07.840 --> 0:12:10.800
<v Speaker 1>more traffic to come in. But if it also means

0:12:10.840 --> 0:12:14.840
<v Speaker 1>that you know, people are exploiting that content and they're

0:12:14.960 --> 0:12:17.760
<v Speaker 1>profiting off of that, and Reddit's not getting a piece

0:12:17.800 --> 0:12:20.960
<v Speaker 1>of the action, that's where the problems come up. And

0:12:21.000 --> 0:12:23.800
<v Speaker 1>I think we're going to see more stuff like this

0:12:24.280 --> 0:12:28.400
<v Speaker 1>all the way across the Internet in various incarnations. Well,

0:12:29.000 --> 0:12:32.600
<v Speaker 1>speaking about ads and money, it's about that time for

0:12:32.679 --> 0:12:35.079
<v Speaker 1>us to take a quick break to thank our sponsors,

0:12:35.120 --> 0:12:37.800
<v Speaker 1>but we'll be back with more news right after this.

0:12:47.360 --> 0:12:51.920
<v Speaker 1>So we're back, and just this past Tuesday, Microsoft was

0:12:51.960 --> 0:12:55.560
<v Speaker 1>the target of a massive d DOS attack that hampered

0:12:55.720 --> 0:12:59.720
<v Speaker 1>Microsoft three sixty five and Azure services around the Globe

0:13:00.000 --> 0:13:04.280
<v Speaker 1>I measure if you aren't familiar, that's Microsoft's cloud based offerings.

0:13:04.880 --> 0:13:08.239
<v Speaker 1>And as a quick reminder, d DOOS stands for distributed

0:13:08.320 --> 0:13:12.480
<v Speaker 1>denial of service and typically this kind of attack involves

0:13:12.600 --> 0:13:17.600
<v Speaker 1>sending a gargantuan amount of Internet requests from an army

0:13:17.760 --> 0:13:23.280
<v Speaker 1>of compromised computers, often compromised through malware and hacking, and

0:13:23.880 --> 0:13:27.800
<v Speaker 1>directing all of that traffic to a specific target on

0:13:27.880 --> 0:13:31.400
<v Speaker 1>the web, and the target becomes overwhelmed trying to answer

0:13:31.440 --> 0:13:34.880
<v Speaker 1>all these requests and ultimately it can shut down as

0:13:34.880 --> 0:13:37.720
<v Speaker 1>a result. Now, there are actually a lot of mitigation

0:13:37.880 --> 0:13:41.040
<v Speaker 1>strategies that can help decrease the impact of these sorts

0:13:41.040 --> 0:13:44.760
<v Speaker 1>of attacks, like to have an early detection system to say, hey,

0:13:44.800 --> 0:13:49.679
<v Speaker 1>something's up. We need to raise defenses essentially raise shields

0:13:49.760 --> 0:13:52.360
<v Speaker 1>in star trek terms. But sometimes it can take a

0:13:52.400 --> 0:13:56.080
<v Speaker 1>little bit before these mitigation strategies can be employed, and

0:13:56.160 --> 0:13:58.400
<v Speaker 1>in the meantime you've got a crisis on your hands.

0:13:58.720 --> 0:14:02.760
<v Speaker 1>Microsoft has not yet identified the threat actor responsible for

0:14:02.800 --> 0:14:05.760
<v Speaker 1>this attack, but the company did admit that a mistake

0:14:05.960 --> 0:14:09.839
<v Speaker 1>in the mitigation deployment delayed a security response, which in

0:14:09.880 --> 0:14:12.320
<v Speaker 1>turn meant the attack had a greater effect than it

0:14:12.400 --> 0:14:15.840
<v Speaker 1>otherwise might have had. So this is, you know, not

0:14:15.920 --> 0:14:18.920
<v Speaker 1>to blame the victim. The hackers ultimately are the ones

0:14:18.960 --> 0:14:23.240
<v Speaker 1>responsible for the outages, but the error on Microsoft's part

0:14:23.360 --> 0:14:26.480
<v Speaker 1>did mean that it took a little longer to respond

0:14:26.560 --> 0:14:30.360
<v Speaker 1>to that than it otherwise would have. Most companies have

0:14:30.520 --> 0:14:34.120
<v Speaker 1>mitigation strategies or they work with a security company that

0:14:34.240 --> 0:14:37.160
<v Speaker 1>provides mitigation strategies for this kind of stuff, and a

0:14:37.240 --> 0:14:41.040
<v Speaker 1>lot of companies have seen pretty massive upticks in attack

0:14:41.280 --> 0:14:45.920
<v Speaker 1>attempts over more recent years. It's always been a bit

0:14:45.960 --> 0:14:48.880
<v Speaker 1>of an issue ever since d DOS attacks became kind

0:14:48.920 --> 0:14:52.040
<v Speaker 1>of a possibility, but they are becoming far more frequent

0:14:52.120 --> 0:14:55.600
<v Speaker 1>these days, as is pretty much every kind of hacker attack.

0:14:56.280 --> 0:15:00.680
<v Speaker 1>Israeli hackers claim responsibility for an attack that may have

0:15:00.760 --> 0:15:04.800
<v Speaker 1>disrupted massive amounts of Internet traffic in Iran. So this

0:15:04.880 --> 0:15:09.600
<v Speaker 1>happened in conjunction with military strikes that Israel reportedly was

0:15:09.600 --> 0:15:12.800
<v Speaker 1>carrying out against a Hamas target who was in Iran.

0:15:13.320 --> 0:15:16.480
<v Speaker 1>These strikes were originally reported as missile based attacks, but

0:15:16.560 --> 0:15:19.880
<v Speaker 1>The New York Times says, actually that local sources claim

0:15:20.280 --> 0:15:23.520
<v Speaker 1>it was an explosive device that was smuggled into where

0:15:23.720 --> 0:15:27.440
<v Speaker 1>the target was staying in Iran. But the hacker group,

0:15:27.560 --> 0:15:31.840
<v Speaker 1>which calls itself WE Read Evils or we Read Devils

0:15:31.880 --> 0:15:34.680
<v Speaker 1>if you prefer, that's not how the capitalization goes. But

0:15:34.760 --> 0:15:39.359
<v Speaker 1>they claimed to had taken down much of Iran's internet infrastructure,

0:15:39.720 --> 0:15:43.760
<v Speaker 1>like leading to a massive Wi Fi outage. However, Forbes

0:15:43.960 --> 0:15:47.240
<v Speaker 1>was unable to confirm the extent to which these attacks

0:15:47.280 --> 0:15:52.280
<v Speaker 1>disrupted communications within Iran. As journalist Zach Doffman points out,

0:15:52.440 --> 0:15:55.680
<v Speaker 1>the lines of communication in Iran aren't exactly dependable even

0:15:55.720 --> 0:15:57.920
<v Speaker 1>on a good day, so it's hard to say, like,

0:15:58.440 --> 0:16:01.720
<v Speaker 1>was this a devastating attack or did anyone even notice.

0:16:02.080 --> 0:16:05.960
<v Speaker 1>It's possible that people just figured it was another typical

0:16:06.040 --> 0:16:10.760
<v Speaker 1>day in Iran. Hard to say, but yeah, not surprising

0:16:10.920 --> 0:16:17.760
<v Speaker 1>to hear about hackers aligning with military operations. I don't

0:16:17.800 --> 0:16:21.440
<v Speaker 1>know if there's any evidence to show that We Read

0:16:21.520 --> 0:16:26.960
<v Speaker 1>Evils is state backed, Like if they receive support from

0:16:26.960 --> 0:16:30.040
<v Speaker 1>the Israeli government, that is possible they could be a

0:16:30.080 --> 0:16:33.720
<v Speaker 1>state backed hacker group. It's also possible they're acting independently

0:16:34.120 --> 0:16:38.200
<v Speaker 1>and have priorities that are in alignment with Israel's government.

0:16:38.240 --> 0:16:41.600
<v Speaker 1>It's hard to say. Net neutrality sure is having a

0:16:41.760 --> 0:16:44.360
<v Speaker 1>rough go of it in the United States. All right,

0:16:44.600 --> 0:16:47.120
<v Speaker 1>let's do a quick rundown on what this is. So.

0:16:47.200 --> 0:16:51.360
<v Speaker 1>Net neutrality essentially says you should be able to have

0:16:51.440 --> 0:16:54.640
<v Speaker 1>the same access to all the stuff on the Internet,

0:16:54.840 --> 0:16:57.880
<v Speaker 1>no matter where that stuff comes from, no matter what

0:16:58.120 --> 0:17:02.120
<v Speaker 1>isp you use, no matter what device you are using

0:17:02.240 --> 0:17:06.720
<v Speaker 1>to access it. And companies that provide Internet infrastructure should

0:17:06.760 --> 0:17:09.840
<v Speaker 1>not favor traffic from certain parts of the Internet, while

0:17:09.880 --> 0:17:13.800
<v Speaker 1>throttling traffic from other parts, nor should they deny service

0:17:13.800 --> 0:17:17.879
<v Speaker 1>to anyone just because that person isn't using that company's

0:17:17.960 --> 0:17:22.960
<v Speaker 1>own services or products. It should be neutral. During Barack

0:17:23.000 --> 0:17:28.120
<v Speaker 1>Obama's presidency, the FCC succeeded in passing some new rules

0:17:28.200 --> 0:17:31.960
<v Speaker 1>that would force service providers to play fair. Essentially, they

0:17:32.000 --> 0:17:35.040
<v Speaker 1>declared that the rules of common carriage would apply to

0:17:35.400 --> 0:17:40.240
<v Speaker 1>Internet traffic. During Trump's presidency, that version of the FCC

0:17:40.400 --> 0:17:44.920
<v Speaker 1>overturned those rules from the Obama administration, and now under

0:17:45.000 --> 0:17:49.600
<v Speaker 1>Joe Biden, the FCC reinstated those rules again, slightly different

0:17:49.680 --> 0:17:54.200
<v Speaker 1>versions but same idea. However, the Sixth Circuit US Court

0:17:54.240 --> 0:17:57.640
<v Speaker 1>of Appeals has now blocked those rules from going into effect,

0:17:57.800 --> 0:18:00.720
<v Speaker 1>saying that the FCC has failed to meet the high

0:18:00.760 --> 0:18:04.199
<v Speaker 1>standards of a legal argument justifying the rules in the

0:18:04.200 --> 0:18:06.879
<v Speaker 1>first place, and that those rules are not likely to

0:18:07.000 --> 0:18:10.639
<v Speaker 1>hold up to a legal challenge. So instead, the Court

0:18:10.680 --> 0:18:14.520
<v Speaker 1>has said that beginning either in late October or early November,

0:18:14.600 --> 0:18:17.480
<v Speaker 1>it will hear oral arguments on the matter before it

0:18:17.560 --> 0:18:21.439
<v Speaker 1>goes any further. Now, considering that US elections happen in

0:18:21.480 --> 0:18:24.320
<v Speaker 1>early November, and that net neutrality was one of those

0:18:24.440 --> 0:18:27.919
<v Speaker 1>tent pole achievements of the Biden administration, this is a

0:18:27.960 --> 0:18:31.679
<v Speaker 1>pretty tough political blow to Democrats. The safe assumption is

0:18:31.680 --> 0:18:34.480
<v Speaker 1>that Kamala Harris, who is on track to becoming the

0:18:34.560 --> 0:18:39.199
<v Speaker 1>official nominee of the Democrat Party, will also support net neutrality.

0:18:39.400 --> 0:18:42.080
<v Speaker 1>And we've already seen what a Trump administration thinks of

0:18:42.119 --> 0:18:45.439
<v Speaker 1>the matter, so largely the outcome of the election, I

0:18:45.440 --> 0:18:49.439
<v Speaker 1>think will determine the direction that this takes outside of

0:18:49.440 --> 0:18:52.120
<v Speaker 1>the courts, Like the court will ultimately get to decide

0:18:52.560 --> 0:18:57.760
<v Speaker 1>whether the matter meets legal standards. But you know, we've

0:18:57.800 --> 0:19:02.360
<v Speaker 1>already seen that with each administration. The FCC's makeup can

0:19:02.520 --> 0:19:06.800
<v Speaker 1>change dramatically, and that in turn changes the policy. Reuter's

0:19:06.840 --> 0:19:10.760
<v Speaker 1>reports that the US Department of Justice is investigating Nvidia

0:19:10.920 --> 0:19:16.000
<v Speaker 1>for anti competitive practices. Specifically, the DOJ is interested in

0:19:16.080 --> 0:19:19.920
<v Speaker 1>how Nvidia's AI chip business has kind of taken shape,

0:19:19.920 --> 0:19:22.800
<v Speaker 1>with concerns that the company has abused its position to

0:19:22.920 --> 0:19:26.560
<v Speaker 1>suppress competition in the space. It's not a crime to

0:19:26.600 --> 0:19:29.800
<v Speaker 1>be a successful business, but the DOJ is looking into

0:19:29.840 --> 0:19:33.639
<v Speaker 1>reports that Invidia wasn't just super good at selling chips

0:19:33.680 --> 0:19:37.240
<v Speaker 1>meant to power AI implementations, but also that the company

0:19:37.359 --> 0:19:41.800
<v Speaker 1>was pressuring customers to buy into packages of products. Further,

0:19:42.160 --> 0:19:46.280
<v Speaker 1>there were accusations that Nvidia would charge a lower price

0:19:46.400 --> 0:19:49.719
<v Speaker 1>if a customer opted to buy networking gear from Nvidia

0:19:49.760 --> 0:19:54.439
<v Speaker 1>while also electing to have Nvidia's own AI chips integrated

0:19:54.520 --> 0:19:56.560
<v Speaker 1>into that gear, but they would have to pay a

0:19:56.680 --> 0:19:59.840
<v Speaker 1>higher price if they wanted the gear from Nvidia, but

0:20:00.080 --> 0:20:04.320
<v Speaker 1>they wanted to use AI chips from one of Nvidia's competitors.

0:20:04.520 --> 0:20:08.000
<v Speaker 1>So this is just in the investigation phase at the moment.

0:20:08.240 --> 0:20:11.520
<v Speaker 1>There's no lawsuit or anything like that yet. It's possible

0:20:11.560 --> 0:20:14.080
<v Speaker 1>that nothing more will come of this, But with Nvidia

0:20:14.160 --> 0:20:17.000
<v Speaker 1>holding such a strong market position like they have like

0:20:17.200 --> 0:20:21.040
<v Speaker 1>eighty percent of the market share for AI powered chips.

0:20:21.280 --> 0:20:24.400
<v Speaker 1>I suspect that investigation is going to end up being

0:20:24.560 --> 0:20:29.280
<v Speaker 1>pretty darn thorough more in tech and politics, Yeah, I

0:20:29.280 --> 0:20:32.119
<v Speaker 1>love it too. This week, the US Senate passed a

0:20:32.160 --> 0:20:36.360
<v Speaker 1>bill called the Kids Online Safety Act or KOZA KOSA.

0:20:36.920 --> 0:20:40.760
<v Speaker 1>Many people had concerns about this legislation. They argued that

0:20:40.840 --> 0:20:44.080
<v Speaker 1>while it poses as a set of rules that are

0:20:44.119 --> 0:20:48.000
<v Speaker 1>meant to protect children from harmful content and practices online,

0:20:48.119 --> 0:20:53.240
<v Speaker 1>it was so vague in defining those quote unquote harmful

0:20:53.400 --> 0:20:57.280
<v Speaker 1>practices that it could be used to persecute folks like

0:20:57.320 --> 0:21:02.320
<v Speaker 1>those in say, the LGBTQ community. So understandably, there was

0:21:02.359 --> 0:21:04.880
<v Speaker 1>a lot of concern over the fact that it passed

0:21:05.320 --> 0:21:09.320
<v Speaker 1>in the Senate. However, the US House of Representatives is

0:21:09.440 --> 0:21:14.560
<v Speaker 1>not following suit. Yesterday, the GOP controlled House announced it

0:21:14.560 --> 0:21:17.639
<v Speaker 1>would not be bringing up COSA for a vote, citing

0:21:17.760 --> 0:21:22.600
<v Speaker 1>quote concerns across our conference end quote. So a bill

0:21:22.680 --> 0:21:25.960
<v Speaker 1>has to pass both the Senate and the House before

0:21:25.960 --> 0:21:29.679
<v Speaker 1>it could be signed into law, So KOSA is effectively

0:21:29.880 --> 0:21:32.480
<v Speaker 1>dead in the water. Now, this is actually great news,

0:21:32.600 --> 0:21:34.679
<v Speaker 1>which I'm sure some of y'all will be surprised to

0:21:34.720 --> 0:21:37.080
<v Speaker 1>hear me say, because I think it's pretty clear that

0:21:37.240 --> 0:21:41.520
<v Speaker 1>I do not often align with the GOP. But bills

0:21:41.600 --> 0:21:45.920
<v Speaker 1>like KOSA, which often use the pretense of protecting vulnerable

0:21:45.960 --> 0:21:49.199
<v Speaker 1>populations such as children, often end up serving as a

0:21:49.280 --> 0:21:54.400
<v Speaker 1>means to attack other vulnerable populations while restricting freedoms online.

0:21:54.640 --> 0:21:58.480
<v Speaker 1>These bills might originally be framed with the best of intentions,

0:21:58.840 --> 0:22:01.639
<v Speaker 1>or maybe they're fraimed from the get go as a

0:22:01.640 --> 0:22:04.359
<v Speaker 1>potential weapon, but in either case, they tend to be

0:22:04.480 --> 0:22:08.040
<v Speaker 1>bad news when they're implemented. So it is good news

0:22:08.080 --> 0:22:11.800
<v Speaker 1>that this particular bill is fizzling out. Senator Ran Paul

0:22:11.920 --> 0:22:14.560
<v Speaker 1>spoke out against this bill in a letter that laid

0:22:14.560 --> 0:22:18.080
<v Speaker 1>out his logic opposing the legislation, and it appears that

0:22:18.080 --> 0:22:21.399
<v Speaker 1>that went a long way in the House of Representatives.

0:22:21.880 --> 0:22:24.840
<v Speaker 1>Intel is facing a really tough future, and a lot

0:22:24.880 --> 0:22:27.000
<v Speaker 1>of folks at the company won't be there to be

0:22:27.080 --> 0:22:30.199
<v Speaker 1>a part of that future. Intel told The Verge that

0:22:30.400 --> 0:22:34.680
<v Speaker 1>it will downsize by around fifteen percent, which means more

0:22:34.720 --> 0:22:38.480
<v Speaker 1>than fifteen thousand people, perhaps as many as nineteen thousand

0:22:38.720 --> 0:22:41.680
<v Speaker 1>could be laid off from the company. This is all

0:22:41.720 --> 0:22:45.639
<v Speaker 1>part of an effort to cut ten billion dollars from costs.

0:22:46.080 --> 0:22:48.560
<v Speaker 1>Intel is also cutting back on the amount it's going

0:22:48.600 --> 0:22:50.600
<v Speaker 1>to spend on R and D, and it plans to

0:22:50.760 --> 0:22:55.040
<v Speaker 1>quote stop non essential work end quote. So I imagine

0:22:55.040 --> 0:22:56.639
<v Speaker 1>that means a lot of departments are going to be

0:22:56.680 --> 0:22:59.160
<v Speaker 1>scrambling to figure out if they can present their work

0:22:59.200 --> 0:23:02.360
<v Speaker 1>in a way that makes it seem as though it's essential.

0:23:02.640 --> 0:23:06.080
<v Speaker 1>WEO that's going to be rough. Pad Gelsinger, who is

0:23:06.200 --> 0:23:10.760
<v Speaker 1>Intel's CEO, revealed that the one point six billion dollar

0:23:11.000 --> 0:23:14.359
<v Speaker 1>loss Intel experienced in the second quarter of twenty twenty

0:23:14.359 --> 0:23:18.960
<v Speaker 1>four was quote unquote disappointing. I think that's putting it lightly.

0:23:19.200 --> 0:23:22.520
<v Speaker 1>He also stated that Intel has quote yet to fully

0:23:22.560 --> 0:23:26.639
<v Speaker 1>benefit from powerful trends like AI end quote. That seems

0:23:26.640 --> 0:23:30.320
<v Speaker 1>to align what I've covered already in today's episode talking

0:23:30.359 --> 0:23:34.679
<v Speaker 1>about the disillusionment that's growing around artificial intelligence. But another

0:23:34.760 --> 0:23:39.520
<v Speaker 1>issue is that Intel has been investing heavily in semiconductor manufacturing.

0:23:39.920 --> 0:23:43.840
<v Speaker 1>This is an incredibly expensive business to get into. You

0:23:43.920 --> 0:23:46.119
<v Speaker 1>have to build all the facilities to be able to

0:23:46.240 --> 0:23:51.280
<v Speaker 1>make these semiconductor chips. Typically, Intel would design the chips,

0:23:51.480 --> 0:23:55.920
<v Speaker 1>but then would partner with other companies overseas to fabricate

0:23:56.240 --> 0:23:59.600
<v Speaker 1>those chips. However, out of concerns of national security and

0:23:59.640 --> 0:24:02.840
<v Speaker 1>support life chain challenges, there's been a shift to invest

0:24:02.880 --> 0:24:06.320
<v Speaker 1>heavily in domestic chip fabrication here in the United States.

0:24:06.520 --> 0:24:09.440
<v Speaker 1>So part of Intel's challenges relate to the fact that

0:24:09.520 --> 0:24:12.560
<v Speaker 1>the company has been investing billions into that effort and

0:24:12.600 --> 0:24:15.440
<v Speaker 1>it's going to take time to realize the benefits. It's

0:24:15.480 --> 0:24:19.320
<v Speaker 1>a long term solution in a world that typically focuses

0:24:19.359 --> 0:24:23.960
<v Speaker 1>on short term results. Intel also faces increased competition from

0:24:24.000 --> 0:24:28.840
<v Speaker 1>companies ranging from Qualcom, AMD, Google, and Apple. I just

0:24:28.880 --> 0:24:30.959
<v Speaker 1>want to say to anyone out there who ends up

0:24:30.960 --> 0:24:34.440
<v Speaker 1>being affected by these layoffs, I wish you the absolute best.

0:24:34.480 --> 0:24:39.320
<v Speaker 1>I can't imagine how stressful that is, and it really stinks. Okay,

0:24:39.760 --> 0:24:42.399
<v Speaker 1>I have several more stories to get through. This was

0:24:42.440 --> 0:24:45.720
<v Speaker 1>a pretty heavy week as far as tech news goes.

0:24:45.880 --> 0:24:48.000
<v Speaker 1>So let's take another quick break and we'll be right

0:24:48.040 --> 0:25:02.120
<v Speaker 1>back with more news. We're back the watchdog group Global Witness.

0:25:02.359 --> 0:25:05.680
<v Speaker 1>I've talked about them many times before. They have kind

0:25:05.680 --> 0:25:10.280
<v Speaker 1>of raked Twitter slash X over the coals multiple times. Well,

0:25:10.359 --> 0:25:12.880
<v Speaker 1>they're ready to do it again. They report that there

0:25:12.920 --> 0:25:16.280
<v Speaker 1>are forty five accounts on X, the platform formally known

0:25:16.320 --> 0:25:19.720
<v Speaker 1>as Twitter that both appear to be bots and are

0:25:19.760 --> 0:25:25.000
<v Speaker 1>also responsible for promoting content that contains disinformation, racist and

0:25:25.119 --> 0:25:29.960
<v Speaker 1>sexist attacks, and tons of conspiracy. Theories that these posts

0:25:30.000 --> 0:25:33.760
<v Speaker 1>from these forty five bot controlled accounts have accumulated more

0:25:33.800 --> 0:25:38.520
<v Speaker 1>than four billion views. Between May twenty second and July

0:25:38.680 --> 0:25:42.800
<v Speaker 1>twenty second this year. The accounts posted in I watering

0:25:43.160 --> 0:25:48.760
<v Speaker 1>six hundred ten thousand times in that span. Now that's collectively,

0:25:49.280 --> 0:25:51.520
<v Speaker 1>but if even if we were to just average it out,

0:25:51.760 --> 0:25:55.560
<v Speaker 1>that would mean that each account on average posted more

0:25:55.600 --> 0:25:59.880
<v Speaker 1>than thirteen thousand, five hundred times in three months. That's

0:26:00.000 --> 0:26:02.800
<v Speaker 1>more prolific than I ever was back when I was

0:26:02.840 --> 0:26:06.359
<v Speaker 1>still on Twitter. The bots were particularly active leading up

0:26:06.400 --> 0:26:09.320
<v Speaker 1>to elections in the UK, in which the Labor Party

0:26:09.640 --> 0:26:13.159
<v Speaker 1>ultimately won more seats than the Conservative Party, though Global

0:26:13.200 --> 0:26:17.199
<v Speaker 1>Witness says it found no evidence linking either political party

0:26:17.240 --> 0:26:21.080
<v Speaker 1>to the bots themselves. So is it possible that one

0:26:21.359 --> 0:26:24.360
<v Speaker 1>or both of those parties, or an organization working on

0:26:24.480 --> 0:26:28.439
<v Speaker 1>behalf of one of those parties, hired bots to flood

0:26:28.640 --> 0:26:32.680
<v Speaker 1>x with messages supporting their side. Yeah, that is possible.

0:26:32.800 --> 0:26:36.359
<v Speaker 1>It's also possible this was all being controlled by some

0:26:36.560 --> 0:26:40.359
<v Speaker 1>outside source with no direct interest in either party, but

0:26:40.480 --> 0:26:43.760
<v Speaker 1>a direct interest in outcomes. We just don't know. But

0:26:43.840 --> 0:26:46.720
<v Speaker 1>those accounts did go on to spread conspiracy theories and

0:26:46.760 --> 0:26:51.000
<v Speaker 1>misinformation about everything from the attempted assassination of Donald Trump

0:26:51.160 --> 0:26:54.440
<v Speaker 1>to disinformation about climate change, so it has gone well

0:26:54.480 --> 0:26:58.480
<v Speaker 1>beyond UK elections since then. Global Witness says it has

0:26:58.560 --> 0:27:02.240
<v Speaker 1>reached out to x for comment on why the platform

0:27:02.320 --> 0:27:05.280
<v Speaker 1>is allowing this sort of activity and has, to the

0:27:05.320 --> 0:27:09.119
<v Speaker 1>surprise of no one, received no response so far. I

0:27:09.200 --> 0:27:12.040
<v Speaker 1>seem to recall something about Elon Musk saying he was

0:27:12.080 --> 0:27:14.639
<v Speaker 1>going to get rid of bots on Twitter before he

0:27:14.760 --> 0:27:18.159
<v Speaker 1>acquired It seems like that that just kind of slipped

0:27:18.160 --> 0:27:22.280
<v Speaker 1>through the cracks. Huh, because forty five, just forty five

0:27:22.680 --> 0:27:26.240
<v Speaker 1>accounts posting six hundred and ten thousand times in three

0:27:26.400 --> 0:27:29.920
<v Speaker 1>months and spreading this kind of stuff to widespread view

0:27:30.200 --> 0:27:32.560
<v Speaker 1>seems like it's something that you would pick up on

0:27:32.840 --> 0:27:35.679
<v Speaker 1>and it wouldn't just be flying under the radar. But

0:27:35.720 --> 0:27:39.480
<v Speaker 1>what do I know. Here's another AI related news item,

0:27:39.520 --> 0:27:43.400
<v Speaker 1>but this one involves motion capture performers and voice actors

0:27:43.480 --> 0:27:47.280
<v Speaker 1>in the video game industry. So these actors and performers

0:27:47.320 --> 0:27:52.080
<v Speaker 1>belong to the union sag AFTRA. That's an actor's and

0:27:52.240 --> 0:27:56.200
<v Speaker 1>performers union mostly known for folks who are in the

0:27:56.800 --> 0:28:00.240
<v Speaker 1>film and television industries, but it also applies to people

0:28:00.240 --> 0:28:03.439
<v Speaker 1>who work in video games. So this branch of sag

0:28:03.520 --> 0:28:09.040
<v Speaker 1>AFTRA authorized a strike earlier this month, and now they're

0:28:09.080 --> 0:28:12.680
<v Speaker 1>actually on strike. They are refusing to work while demanding

0:28:12.680 --> 0:28:17.119
<v Speaker 1>that video game companies create solid policies that protect actor

0:28:17.200 --> 0:28:22.119
<v Speaker 1>and performer jobs from generative AI, among other demands. But

0:28:22.200 --> 0:28:25.520
<v Speaker 1>this is a big part of the conversation. So actors

0:28:25.520 --> 0:28:27.879
<v Speaker 1>have said that video game companies are using AI to

0:28:27.960 --> 0:28:32.200
<v Speaker 1>train on actor voices, potentially so that the companies can

0:28:32.280 --> 0:28:35.800
<v Speaker 1>recreate those actor voices without actually having to hire the

0:28:35.840 --> 0:28:40.160
<v Speaker 1>actors themselves, which does seem pretty darn underhanded and it's

0:28:40.160 --> 0:28:44.239
<v Speaker 1>certainly not outside the realm of possibility. Sag AFTRA is

0:28:44.400 --> 0:28:48.040
<v Speaker 1>demanding that companies pledge to not make use of AI

0:28:48.200 --> 0:28:50.440
<v Speaker 1>in a way that would put real performers out of

0:28:50.480 --> 0:28:55.240
<v Speaker 1>a job, particularly without first negotiating a comprehensive agreement with

0:28:55.360 --> 0:28:58.720
<v Speaker 1>the performers themselves. I mean, if you're gonna use my

0:28:59.000 --> 0:29:02.000
<v Speaker 1>voice or likeness, you really should get my permission first

0:29:02.000 --> 0:29:06.240
<v Speaker 1>and pay me. Gosh, darn it. Kyle Orland at Ours

0:29:06.280 --> 0:29:10.640
<v Speaker 1>Technica has an article titled Xbox console sales continue to

0:29:10.720 --> 0:29:15.400
<v Speaker 1>crater with massive forty two percent revenue drop. Yikes. That's

0:29:15.800 --> 0:29:18.680
<v Speaker 1>that's year over year sales figures for Q two. By

0:29:18.680 --> 0:29:21.480
<v Speaker 1>the way, that Q two twenty twenty four shows a

0:29:21.560 --> 0:29:25.040
<v Speaker 1>forty two percent revenue drop from Q two twenty twenty three.

0:29:25.280 --> 0:29:28.680
<v Speaker 1>The company doesn't share detailed breakdowns of how many units

0:29:28.720 --> 0:29:33.040
<v Speaker 1>were produced or sold, but industry analysts estimate that Microsoft

0:29:33.040 --> 0:29:35.680
<v Speaker 1>sold fewer than one million units in the first quarter

0:29:35.800 --> 0:29:38.560
<v Speaker 1>of this year, whereas Sony posted four and a half

0:29:38.720 --> 0:29:43.560
<v Speaker 1>million BS five sales at that same time. However, Microsoft

0:29:43.720 --> 0:29:47.760
<v Speaker 1>is raking in the dough through its Game Pass subscription service.

0:29:47.960 --> 0:29:51.960
<v Speaker 1>So while hardware sales are tanking, I mean, there's no

0:29:52.000 --> 0:29:56.040
<v Speaker 1>other word for it, the ongoing subscription services are generating

0:29:56.240 --> 0:30:00.680
<v Speaker 1>bukous of buckos, particularly since Microsoft recently hiked up the

0:30:00.720 --> 0:30:05.160
<v Speaker 1>monthly price. Orland hypothesizes that Microsoft might get out of

0:30:05.200 --> 0:30:08.880
<v Speaker 1>the hardware game entirely in the future and focus solely

0:30:08.960 --> 0:30:12.880
<v Speaker 1>on the software side. That honestly wouldn't surprise me. In fact,

0:30:13.000 --> 0:30:15.720
<v Speaker 1>I expect that I figured that Microsoft was looking for

0:30:15.760 --> 0:30:18.720
<v Speaker 1>an off ramp from hardware hoping to launch a quote

0:30:18.760 --> 0:30:23.520
<v Speaker 1>unquote final console that would rely upon ongoing subscription content

0:30:23.760 --> 0:30:27.160
<v Speaker 1>to keep it going. So it is possible that the

0:30:27.440 --> 0:30:32.680
<v Speaker 1>last Xbox hardware update is the last Xbox hardware update.

0:30:32.960 --> 0:30:34.920
<v Speaker 1>That would not surprise me if that were the case.

0:30:34.960 --> 0:30:37.400
<v Speaker 1>It also wouldn't surprise me if we got one more

0:30:37.480 --> 0:30:42.160
<v Speaker 1>generation before that happened. Either one I think is entirely possible. Heck,

0:30:42.200 --> 0:30:44.640
<v Speaker 1>it's even possible that Microsoft doesn't get out entirely and

0:30:44.760 --> 0:30:48.600
<v Speaker 1>we just keep getting generations. But the improvements we see

0:30:48.640 --> 0:30:53.000
<v Speaker 1>from generation to generation, those performance improvements, I think you

0:30:53.000 --> 0:30:54.960
<v Speaker 1>can make an argument that we're starting to get to

0:30:55.000 --> 0:30:57.920
<v Speaker 1>a point of diminishing returns. Now, I'm never gonna say

0:30:57.960 --> 0:31:00.920
<v Speaker 1>that consoles are as good as they'll ever be, and

0:31:00.960 --> 0:31:03.520
<v Speaker 1>they'll never be able to make a better one with

0:31:03.640 --> 0:31:06.520
<v Speaker 1>you know, better graphic fidelity and all that kind of stuff,

0:31:06.560 --> 0:31:11.280
<v Speaker 1>because goodness knows, every generation of consoles brings surprises and

0:31:11.320 --> 0:31:15.280
<v Speaker 1>improvements with it. But it might be that consoles are

0:31:15.320 --> 0:31:19.880
<v Speaker 1>as good as they need to be, right Like, you

0:31:19.920 --> 0:31:23.120
<v Speaker 1>don't need to go harder than that that even if

0:31:23.120 --> 0:31:27.240
<v Speaker 1>you could, there's no market demand for it, So why

0:31:27.280 --> 0:31:29.840
<v Speaker 1>not back off of that? Part of the business entirely

0:31:29.920 --> 0:31:33.160
<v Speaker 1>and focus on the software side. Rob thubrun over at

0:31:33.240 --> 0:31:36.640
<v Speaker 1>tech Spot has a whammy of a piece titled Bungee

0:31:36.840 --> 0:31:41.080
<v Speaker 1>ceo faces backlash after announcing two hundred and twenty employees

0:31:41.120 --> 0:31:44.440
<v Speaker 1>will be laid off. So Bungi is the video game

0:31:44.440 --> 0:31:48.000
<v Speaker 1>developer behind titles like Halo, although that is now developed

0:31:48.040 --> 0:31:52.840
<v Speaker 1>under Microsoft, as well as the Destiny series. And yeah,

0:31:52.880 --> 0:31:55.680
<v Speaker 1>Bunge recently said it will lay off more than two

0:31:55.760 --> 0:31:59.920
<v Speaker 1>hundred employees and that stinks. But we're already seeing layoffs

0:32:00.080 --> 0:32:03.240
<v Speaker 1>across the video game industry, so you could argue that

0:32:03.360 --> 0:32:06.640
<v Speaker 1>this isn't that shocking. So why are people up in

0:32:06.760 --> 0:32:10.960
<v Speaker 1>arms against CEO Pete Parsons. Well, that might be because

0:32:11.000 --> 0:32:14.760
<v Speaker 1>of his spending habits. As Thuberan points out, Parsons has

0:32:14.840 --> 0:32:19.040
<v Speaker 1>dropped more than two million dollars on collecting classic cars

0:32:19.200 --> 0:32:22.560
<v Speaker 1>since Sony acquired Bungee back in the summer of twenty

0:32:22.680 --> 0:32:26.320
<v Speaker 1>twenty two. So if you're a Bungee employee who is

0:32:26.360 --> 0:32:29.360
<v Speaker 1>in danger of losing your job, you might also harbor

0:32:29.440 --> 0:32:32.400
<v Speaker 1>some pretty strong opinions regarding the fact that your boss

0:32:32.520 --> 0:32:35.400
<v Speaker 1>is dropping mountains of cash on cars that he might

0:32:35.480 --> 0:32:40.280
<v Speaker 1>not actually ever, drive, particularly when Parsons says the reason

0:32:40.360 --> 0:32:43.880
<v Speaker 1>for the layoffs is due to quote unquote financial challenges.

0:32:44.480 --> 0:32:47.600
<v Speaker 1>So maybe that financial challenges. He needs a bit extra

0:32:47.680 --> 0:32:50.600
<v Speaker 1>to buy that toyota urcell. He's had his ion. By

0:32:50.600 --> 0:32:52.760
<v Speaker 1>the way, that was a That was a sardonic joke.

0:32:52.840 --> 0:32:56.680
<v Speaker 1>That was not an actual accusation. When Butch Wilmore and

0:32:56.760 --> 0:33:00.440
<v Speaker 1>Sunny Williams first boarded the International Space Station, the plan

0:33:00.520 --> 0:33:02.640
<v Speaker 1>at that time was for them to return to Earth

0:33:02.680 --> 0:33:06.600
<v Speaker 1>as early as eight days later. Now that would have

0:33:06.720 --> 0:33:10.240
<v Speaker 1>been on June fourteenth. But now it's August and the

0:33:10.320 --> 0:33:15.200
<v Speaker 1>astronauts are still aboard the ISS. Why well, the spacecraft

0:33:15.200 --> 0:33:18.520
<v Speaker 1>that brought them to the ISS was the Boeing star Liner,

0:33:18.760 --> 0:33:22.600
<v Speaker 1>and that spacecraft experienced some technical issues on its way

0:33:22.720 --> 0:33:26.240
<v Speaker 1>to space. Now, initially, the thought was that these problems,

0:33:26.280 --> 0:33:30.480
<v Speaker 1>while needing to be solved, would not pose a significant

0:33:30.600 --> 0:33:35.200
<v Speaker 1>risk to the mission. However, upon further investigation, concerns have

0:33:35.280 --> 0:33:38.480
<v Speaker 1>been growing that some of the thruster systems are not

0:33:38.720 --> 0:33:42.320
<v Speaker 1>operating properly, and that they would be needed in order

0:33:42.360 --> 0:33:44.840
<v Speaker 1>to orient and guide the spacecraft so that it could

0:33:44.840 --> 0:33:48.520
<v Speaker 1>re enter Earth's atmosphere safely, which is a pretty darn

0:33:48.680 --> 0:33:52.440
<v Speaker 1>significant risk to the mission. There is, however, a huge

0:33:52.600 --> 0:33:56.320
<v Speaker 1>amount of pressure to use the star Liner as the

0:33:56.400 --> 0:33:59.840
<v Speaker 1>return vehicle for the mission. NASA has wanted to diversify

0:33:59.880 --> 0:34:02.320
<v Speaker 1>the companies that it works with in order to launch

0:34:02.480 --> 0:34:07.560
<v Speaker 1>vehicles and spacecraft and astronauts into space and not be

0:34:07.680 --> 0:34:11.800
<v Speaker 1>beholden to a single entity like SpaceX. So the story

0:34:11.800 --> 0:34:15.640
<v Speaker 1>out of NASA was that, yes, the star Liner has problems,

0:34:15.880 --> 0:34:19.400
<v Speaker 1>but they have their top scientists and engineers working on

0:34:19.480 --> 0:34:23.680
<v Speaker 1>fixing those problems. However, according to Eric Berger over at

0:34:23.719 --> 0:34:27.200
<v Speaker 1>Ours Technica, the discussion could be shifting toward relying on

0:34:27.239 --> 0:34:31.960
<v Speaker 1>SpaceX's Crew Dragon spacecraft as a potential return vehicle for

0:34:32.040 --> 0:34:35.640
<v Speaker 1>the astronauts instead of the star Liner. Now, I say

0:34:36.080 --> 0:34:40.080
<v Speaker 1>maybe shifting because NASA is being really quiet about all this.

0:34:40.480 --> 0:34:43.480
<v Speaker 1>It would look really bad for Boeing, which I don't

0:34:43.480 --> 0:34:45.759
<v Speaker 1>know if you know this, it's already facing issues in

0:34:45.800 --> 0:34:48.520
<v Speaker 1>another part of its aerospace business. But it would look

0:34:48.520 --> 0:34:51.200
<v Speaker 1>really bad for Boeing if the astronauts had to abandon

0:34:51.239 --> 0:34:53.839
<v Speaker 1>plans to return in the star Liner and instead rely

0:34:54.000 --> 0:34:56.960
<v Speaker 1>on a competing company's spacecraft in order to get back

0:34:56.960 --> 0:35:00.720
<v Speaker 1>home safely. But then again, it would look really really

0:35:01.239 --> 0:35:04.840
<v Speaker 1>really bad if those astronauts lives were put in danger

0:35:05.120 --> 0:35:08.200
<v Speaker 1>just to preserve the optics of the star Liner. I

0:35:08.280 --> 0:35:11.680
<v Speaker 1>recommend reading Berger's entire article for the full story. It's

0:35:11.719 --> 0:35:15.359
<v Speaker 1>an excellent piece. Again, it's titled NASA says it is

0:35:15.520 --> 0:35:19.439
<v Speaker 1>evaluating all options for the safe return of Starliner crew.

0:35:19.680 --> 0:35:22.960
<v Speaker 1>And that is on ours Tetnika. Okay. I've got a

0:35:23.000 --> 0:35:26.879
<v Speaker 1>couple of recommended articles for y'all to check out. One

0:35:27.000 --> 0:35:30.320
<v Speaker 1>is by Ben Quinn and Dan Milmo of The Guardian.

0:35:30.640 --> 0:35:34.160
<v Speaker 1>It is titled how TikTok bots and AI have powered

0:35:34.200 --> 0:35:37.719
<v Speaker 1>a resurgence in UK far right violence. It's one of

0:35:37.760 --> 0:35:41.080
<v Speaker 1>those stories that seems to confirm many fears that some

0:35:41.160 --> 0:35:44.120
<v Speaker 1>folks have about the rise of AI and how AI

0:35:44.280 --> 0:35:48.400
<v Speaker 1>can pour gasoline on a fire. So, just to be clear,

0:35:48.600 --> 0:35:52.160
<v Speaker 1>the underlying social issues are already there. AI is not

0:35:52.719 --> 0:35:56.320
<v Speaker 1>creating these social issues. They exist already and those issues

0:35:56.480 --> 0:36:00.840
<v Speaker 1>need to be addressed. This isn't just an AI problem. However,

0:36:01.120 --> 0:36:03.840
<v Speaker 1>the use of AI to make things worse is also

0:36:04.080 --> 0:36:08.400
<v Speaker 1>a problem. It's an additional problem. Then there's another piece

0:36:08.440 --> 0:36:11.400
<v Speaker 1>that's by Anthony Grayling and Brian Ball and it's on

0:36:11.480 --> 0:36:15.880
<v Speaker 1>the Conversation It is titled Philosophy is Crucial in the

0:36:15.920 --> 0:36:18.960
<v Speaker 1>Age of AI. Now, y'all, I tend to be a

0:36:19.080 --> 0:36:22.160
<v Speaker 1>pretty pragmatic person. I have the sort of brain that

0:36:22.239 --> 0:36:28.000
<v Speaker 1>finds a lot of philosophy tedious and ultimately questionably useful. However,

0:36:28.600 --> 0:36:32.839
<v Speaker 1>I admit this is a bias I have. I do

0:36:32.840 --> 0:36:36.480
<v Speaker 1>not pretend like my view is the correct one, or

0:36:36.520 --> 0:36:40.680
<v Speaker 1>even partly correct. Maybe I'm just dense. Not maybe I

0:36:40.719 --> 0:36:44.319
<v Speaker 1>am just dense, but maybe that's the problem. Anyway, this

0:36:44.400 --> 0:36:48.720
<v Speaker 1>particular piece traces how philosophy has been a part of

0:36:49.000 --> 0:36:53.000
<v Speaker 1>AI's evolution and development for decades, and how some deep

0:36:53.120 --> 0:36:57.719
<v Speaker 1>questions in AI are absolutely grounded in philosophy. It is

0:36:57.800 --> 0:37:01.400
<v Speaker 1>well worth a read, even if, like me, you often

0:37:01.440 --> 0:37:04.920
<v Speaker 1>find philosophy to be a little on the impractical side.

0:37:05.000 --> 0:37:08.279
<v Speaker 1>And that's it for today's tech News episode. It was

0:37:08.280 --> 0:37:10.120
<v Speaker 1>a long one, but like I said, a lot happened.

0:37:10.160 --> 0:37:13.240
<v Speaker 1>I even cut some stories from this because goodness gracious,

0:37:13.239 --> 0:37:15.839
<v Speaker 1>it was running along. I hope all of you out

0:37:15.880 --> 0:37:18.160
<v Speaker 1>there are doing well, and I will talk to you

0:37:18.200 --> 0:37:28.960
<v Speaker 1>again really soon. Tech Stuff is an iHeartRadio production. For

0:37:29.040 --> 0:37:33.879
<v Speaker 1>more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app Apple podcasts,

0:37:34.000 --> 0:37:39.560
<v Speaker 1>or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.