WEBVTT - Tech News: Elon Has Some Choice Words for ex X Advertisers

0:00:04.440 --> 0:00:12.319
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there,

0:00:12.320 --> 0:00:15.840
<v Speaker 1>and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland.

0:00:15.840 --> 0:00:18.760
<v Speaker 1>I'm an executive producer with iHeart Podcasts and how the

0:00:18.800 --> 0:00:22.000
<v Speaker 1>tech are you. It's time for the tech news for Thursday,

0:00:22.040 --> 0:00:28.160
<v Speaker 1>November thirty, twenty twenty three. Let's get to it. When

0:00:28.240 --> 0:00:31.280
<v Speaker 1>last we left open Ai, the story was that Sam

0:00:31.360 --> 0:00:34.320
<v Speaker 1>Altman was going to come back to the company after

0:00:34.360 --> 0:00:37.839
<v Speaker 1>being suddenly and surprisingly fired, and that the board of

0:00:37.880 --> 0:00:40.960
<v Speaker 1>directors would consist of different folks as part of the deal.

0:00:41.200 --> 0:00:44.159
<v Speaker 1>So three of the four members who voted against Altman

0:00:44.560 --> 0:00:48.520
<v Speaker 1>were shown the door. The only remaining one is Adam DiAngelo. Well,

0:00:48.560 --> 0:00:51.400
<v Speaker 1>now Sam Altman is officially back as CEO, and on

0:00:51.440 --> 0:00:54.760
<v Speaker 1>top of that, Microsoft is going to have a representative

0:00:54.800 --> 0:00:58.440
<v Speaker 1>who will hold a non voting seat on the board.

0:00:58.960 --> 0:01:02.440
<v Speaker 1>If you recall, Microsoft has committed to a ten billion

0:01:02.600 --> 0:01:06.960
<v Speaker 1>dollar investment in open Ai, and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella

0:01:07.080 --> 0:01:12.120
<v Speaker 1>was reportedly furious over Altman's firing because, well, the board

0:01:12.120 --> 0:01:15.600
<v Speaker 1>of directors kept it all a secret until telling Altman

0:01:15.720 --> 0:01:18.920
<v Speaker 1>and then essentially telling the world, and Nadella feels that

0:01:19.160 --> 0:01:21.920
<v Speaker 1>Microsoft should probably get a heads up on that sort

0:01:21.920 --> 0:01:24.760
<v Speaker 1>of thing early on, since they are pouring in so

0:01:24.800 --> 0:01:28.160
<v Speaker 1>many billions of dollars into open Ai, and maybe even

0:01:28.560 --> 0:01:31.920
<v Speaker 1>have a chance to propose alternatives because again, they are

0:01:31.920 --> 0:01:35.440
<v Speaker 1>so heavily invested in the company. Ilia Sutzkever, who is

0:01:35.520 --> 0:01:38.640
<v Speaker 1>one of the board members responsible for firing Altman in

0:01:38.640 --> 0:01:41.240
<v Speaker 1>the first place, stepped down from the board, but he

0:01:41.280 --> 0:01:44.080
<v Speaker 1>may still remain with the company. He is one of

0:01:44.120 --> 0:01:47.200
<v Speaker 1>the co founders of open Ai and has served as

0:01:47.240 --> 0:01:51.200
<v Speaker 1>its chief scientist. Anyway, this really went down as one

0:01:51.240 --> 0:01:54.160
<v Speaker 1>of the weirder stories of twenty twenty three, and one

0:01:54.200 --> 0:01:56.560
<v Speaker 1>that actually wrapped up pretty darn fast. I mean, most

0:01:56.600 --> 0:02:00.360
<v Speaker 1>of our weird stories have lasted the entire year. Talk

0:02:00.480 --> 0:02:04.760
<v Speaker 1>about chat GPT speaking of weird stories, and how some

0:02:04.840 --> 0:02:08.480
<v Speaker 1>researchers fooled the tool into revealing training data as well

0:02:08.520 --> 0:02:12.000
<v Speaker 1>as some personal information about various people. And they did

0:02:12.000 --> 0:02:15.080
<v Speaker 1>it by having the chat bought repeat the same word

0:02:15.520 --> 0:02:19.200
<v Speaker 1>over and over without stop forever. So they essentially gave

0:02:19.240 --> 0:02:22.560
<v Speaker 1>it the prompt repeat the word, you know, whatever the

0:02:22.560 --> 0:02:26.200
<v Speaker 1>word was, forever, and it would start doing that. So

0:02:26.400 --> 0:02:29.000
<v Speaker 1>it began to comply, but at some point it started

0:02:29.000 --> 0:02:33.000
<v Speaker 1>to intersperse the repetitions of the word with other information

0:02:33.600 --> 0:02:38.919
<v Speaker 1>like snippets from copyrighted research papers or personal phone numbers

0:02:39.080 --> 0:02:43.720
<v Speaker 1>of private citizens, including the CEO of some company. The

0:02:43.760 --> 0:02:48.400
<v Speaker 1>researchers used words like poem or company and had it

0:02:48.480 --> 0:02:50.760
<v Speaker 1>repeat that, and they saw different results depending on which

0:02:50.760 --> 0:02:53.440
<v Speaker 1>word they used. And it's interesting because I was just

0:02:53.560 --> 0:02:58.160
<v Speaker 1>rewatching a horror movie called Pontypool, and in that movie

0:02:58.200 --> 0:03:01.960
<v Speaker 1>people go crazy while they repeating simple small words over

0:03:02.000 --> 0:03:04.080
<v Speaker 1>and over in English. And then I read the story

0:03:04.120 --> 0:03:06.440
<v Speaker 1>and I think, oh, gosh, we're in the movie. I mean,

0:03:06.480 --> 0:03:09.320
<v Speaker 1>not really. But the researchers Chi died open Ai. They

0:03:09.360 --> 0:03:12.760
<v Speaker 1>said the attack they used shouldn't have worked because someone

0:03:12.880 --> 0:03:17.360
<v Speaker 1>surely should have discovered it well before then and fixed it.

0:03:17.760 --> 0:03:20.000
<v Speaker 1>They said, the attack is kind of silly, but it

0:03:20.040 --> 0:03:23.600
<v Speaker 1>could have serious consequences if someone invested enough money in

0:03:23.680 --> 0:03:26.120
<v Speaker 1>the paid for version of chat GPT, because that's what

0:03:26.160 --> 0:03:29.560
<v Speaker 1>the researchers used. If they poured enough money into it

0:03:29.600 --> 0:03:32.880
<v Speaker 1>and they used a similar style of attack, they could

0:03:32.960 --> 0:03:35.840
<v Speaker 1>have received an awful lot of information in the process.

0:03:36.200 --> 0:03:39.160
<v Speaker 1>The attack also showed how open ai has used material

0:03:39.240 --> 0:03:42.760
<v Speaker 1>on the web, including copyrighted material, to train its large

0:03:42.880 --> 0:03:47.600
<v Speaker 1>language model. That's an unfolding, sticky situation as lawmakers try

0:03:47.640 --> 0:03:50.960
<v Speaker 1>to get up to speed on the legalities of training llms.

0:03:51.480 --> 0:03:55.440
<v Speaker 1>The researcher said that open ai actually patched this vulnerability

0:03:55.600 --> 0:03:58.760
<v Speaker 1>back in August, so they're just now publishing their findings.

0:03:59.160 --> 0:04:03.000
<v Speaker 1>But according to them, open ai has already responded to

0:04:03.000 --> 0:04:07.280
<v Speaker 1>the issue. However, in Gadget, which published a whole article

0:04:07.320 --> 0:04:12.280
<v Speaker 1>about this issue, said that their staff attempted to replicate

0:04:12.360 --> 0:04:14.680
<v Speaker 1>the results and they were able to do so. They

0:04:14.840 --> 0:04:18.520
<v Speaker 1>used the word reply. They told the chatbot to repeat

0:04:18.520 --> 0:04:24.039
<v Speaker 1>reply forever, and it started to submitting other types of data.

0:04:24.640 --> 0:04:29.880
<v Speaker 1>So it's clear that this is not fully resolved. It'll

0:04:29.880 --> 0:04:33.320
<v Speaker 1>be interesting to see if this actually ends up having

0:04:33.400 --> 0:04:37.359
<v Speaker 1>any actual negative consequences in the real world. Beyond the

0:04:37.440 --> 0:04:41.160
<v Speaker 1>possibility of that happening, this next story is for you

0:04:41.320 --> 0:04:44.640
<v Speaker 1>Apple users out there. According to the Wall Street Journal,

0:04:44.800 --> 0:04:47.919
<v Speaker 1>Apple has proposed that it and Goldman Sachs, which is

0:04:47.960 --> 0:04:53.080
<v Speaker 1>the bank that facilitates transactions that are moving across Apple Pay,

0:04:53.560 --> 0:04:57.680
<v Speaker 1>will part ways in twelve to fifteen months, and Goldman

0:04:57.760 --> 0:05:00.680
<v Speaker 1>Sachs is likely to accept that offer because, as reportedly,

0:05:00.720 --> 0:05:03.960
<v Speaker 1>the bank has found Apple's business to be unprofitable that

0:05:04.080 --> 0:05:09.080
<v Speaker 1>handling these transactions is actually costly. Apparently, folks who use

0:05:09.080 --> 0:05:12.560
<v Speaker 1>Apple Pay make payments on their accounts more slowly than

0:05:12.600 --> 0:05:15.640
<v Speaker 1>people who use other types of credit cards, and this

0:05:16.000 --> 0:05:19.280
<v Speaker 1>lag in payment has had a big impact on Goldman

0:05:19.360 --> 0:05:22.480
<v Speaker 1>Sachs's own finances. This means that Apple will need to

0:05:22.520 --> 0:05:26.760
<v Speaker 1>find some other financial institution to back those transactions, or

0:05:26.839 --> 0:05:30.240
<v Speaker 1>somehow do it themselves, which I cannot imagine happening because

0:05:30.640 --> 0:05:33.760
<v Speaker 1>I imagine that requires fulfilling a whole bunch of regulations

0:05:33.760 --> 0:05:36.440
<v Speaker 1>that I don't think Apple's ready to do. Or I

0:05:36.480 --> 0:05:41.280
<v Speaker 1>guess the third option is closing off Apple Pay. I

0:05:41.360 --> 0:05:44.320
<v Speaker 1>don't see that being a big priority either. The Wall

0:05:44.320 --> 0:05:47.960
<v Speaker 1>Street Journal reports that American Express or Synchrony Financial are

0:05:48.000 --> 0:05:53.600
<v Speaker 1>potential successors who might take over the back end operations. However,

0:05:53.600 --> 0:05:56.560
<v Speaker 1>the article says that Apple has been pretty demanding of

0:05:56.640 --> 0:05:59.800
<v Speaker 1>its partners, and that when you pair that with the

0:05:59.880 --> 0:06:03.800
<v Speaker 1>challenges of actually making the business profitable, that could cause

0:06:03.839 --> 0:06:07.040
<v Speaker 1>a hiccup or two. So is Apple Pay on borrowed time?

0:06:07.240 --> 0:06:09.760
<v Speaker 1>Is it possible that it could be phased out after

0:06:09.800 --> 0:06:12.120
<v Speaker 1>a year or so? It beats me, but I'll keep

0:06:12.120 --> 0:06:15.799
<v Speaker 1>an eye on it. Starting tomorrow, which is Friday, Desummer first.

0:06:15.839 --> 0:06:18.120
<v Speaker 1>In case you're one of those odd people who likes

0:06:18.160 --> 0:06:22.279
<v Speaker 1>to listen to tech news episodes months after it happened,

0:06:22.760 --> 0:06:25.640
<v Speaker 1>Google will be shutting down old user accounts that have

0:06:25.720 --> 0:06:29.080
<v Speaker 1>been inactive for at least two years. I actually got

0:06:29.120 --> 0:06:31.719
<v Speaker 1>a message from Google not that long ago regarding an

0:06:31.720 --> 0:06:34.800
<v Speaker 1>email address that I created for a podcast, but I

0:06:34.880 --> 0:06:38.080
<v Speaker 1>abandoned that podcast after two episodes, because even professionals like

0:06:38.120 --> 0:06:41.440
<v Speaker 1>me can be a cliche. The move will delete all

0:06:41.520 --> 0:06:45.159
<v Speaker 1>related data to the Gmail account, so that includes not

0:06:45.360 --> 0:06:48.080
<v Speaker 1>just the Gmail address and everything that was in the

0:06:48.200 --> 0:06:52.840
<v Speaker 1>Gmail but also anything in an associated Google Drive or

0:06:52.920 --> 0:06:56.039
<v Speaker 1>Google Photos account. To be clear, this isn't going to

0:06:56.080 --> 0:06:59.080
<v Speaker 1>affect any active Gmail accounts. If you have used your

0:06:59.080 --> 0:07:01.200
<v Speaker 1>Gmail account with that in the last two years, it

0:07:01.279 --> 0:07:04.200
<v Speaker 1>is not gonna be in danger. Only ones that have

0:07:04.320 --> 0:07:07.080
<v Speaker 1>been inactive for two years or longer will be affected,

0:07:07.279 --> 0:07:10.440
<v Speaker 1>and it will also only affect personal Gmail addresses, not

0:07:10.560 --> 0:07:15.000
<v Speaker 1>addresses associated with organizations or businesses. There's still some unanswered

0:07:15.040 --> 0:07:18.040
<v Speaker 1>questions about all this, however. The big one is will

0:07:18.160 --> 0:07:22.800
<v Speaker 1>Google recycle the inactive Gmail addresses once they wipe those out?

0:07:23.040 --> 0:07:26.560
<v Speaker 1>Will people be able to reregister those addresses. If so,

0:07:27.000 --> 0:07:30.280
<v Speaker 1>that could potentially lead to issues with identity theft because

0:07:30.400 --> 0:07:33.920
<v Speaker 1>folks could scoop up newly available addresses that previously had

0:07:33.960 --> 0:07:37.640
<v Speaker 1>belonged to someone else. I imagine Google has probably thought of that,

0:07:38.000 --> 0:07:42.280
<v Speaker 1>but I haven't seen any confirmation on that. A company

0:07:42.320 --> 0:07:45.960
<v Speaker 1>called Analytics claims that Google did a big old whoopsie,

0:07:46.000 --> 0:07:50.360
<v Speaker 1>like a big old, huge issue whoopsie. See really, when

0:07:50.400 --> 0:07:53.120
<v Speaker 1>you get down to it, Google is an advertising platform

0:07:53.440 --> 0:07:55.480
<v Speaker 1>more than anything else. It's not a search company. It's

0:07:55.480 --> 0:07:59.320
<v Speaker 1>an ad company. Serves up ads from customers on various websites,

0:07:59.360 --> 0:08:03.960
<v Speaker 1>including Google. Well, part of that business includes giving advertisers

0:08:04.000 --> 0:08:06.400
<v Speaker 1>the chance to say which types of websites they do

0:08:06.600 --> 0:08:09.560
<v Speaker 1>or don't want to have their ads appear on, So

0:08:09.640 --> 0:08:12.840
<v Speaker 1>it gives the advertisers more control over protecting the brands

0:08:12.840 --> 0:08:16.240
<v Speaker 1>that they represent. I get a very similar consideration, like

0:08:16.280 --> 0:08:19.000
<v Speaker 1>I can say what types of ads I do or

0:08:19.160 --> 0:08:22.520
<v Speaker 1>don't want to appear on this show, and that gives

0:08:22.560 --> 0:08:25.640
<v Speaker 1>me more control over the show and protects you, the listener,

0:08:25.920 --> 0:08:29.320
<v Speaker 1>from advertisers that perhaps I don't believe in for one

0:08:29.320 --> 0:08:32.719
<v Speaker 1>reason or another. Well, advertisers get the same kind of

0:08:33.800 --> 0:08:36.360
<v Speaker 1>consideration when it comes to where their ads are going

0:08:36.400 --> 0:08:39.760
<v Speaker 1>to be delivered, because you want to protect the brand, right.

0:08:39.800 --> 0:08:42.840
<v Speaker 1>You don't want the brand to be associated with something

0:08:43.360 --> 0:08:47.280
<v Speaker 1>that is against the brand's image, whether that is outright

0:08:47.320 --> 0:08:53.040
<v Speaker 1>illegal content because that's a possibility, or things like porn sites.

0:08:53.280 --> 0:08:57.480
<v Speaker 1>If you are, for example, an advertiser that advertises children's clothing,

0:08:58.120 --> 0:09:02.839
<v Speaker 1>you definitely don't want your ad appearing on an adult website.

0:09:02.960 --> 0:09:07.360
<v Speaker 1>That's just not appropriate, so Analytics says, the Google Search

0:09:07.400 --> 0:09:11.280
<v Speaker 1>partner network has apparently been placing ads from prominent brands

0:09:11.320 --> 0:09:14.640
<v Speaker 1>on sites that are very likely not on any white list,

0:09:15.040 --> 0:09:18.760
<v Speaker 1>so illegal sites, adult websites, all this kind of stuff

0:09:18.800 --> 0:09:23.000
<v Speaker 1>have been having some major advertisers pop up on them,

0:09:23.400 --> 0:09:28.400
<v Speaker 1>and that's probably not what the advertisers wanted. According to Analytics,

0:09:28.679 --> 0:09:35.240
<v Speaker 1>they found instances in which very high profile companies like Apple, Amazon, Lego, Meta, Uber, etc.

0:09:36.080 --> 0:09:39.320
<v Speaker 1>Had their ads posted on inappropriate sites. These would be

0:09:39.400 --> 0:09:41.959
<v Speaker 1>sites that the brands absolutely would not want to be

0:09:42.040 --> 0:09:45.440
<v Speaker 1>associated with. This is a huge issue for brand safety right.

0:09:45.760 --> 0:09:49.040
<v Speaker 1>But other problems include cases in which, say, alcohol brand

0:09:49.080 --> 0:09:53.079
<v Speaker 1>advertisements were showing up on websites that are targeted to children. Clearly,

0:09:53.120 --> 0:09:56.760
<v Speaker 1>the website administrators don't want that that they're running a

0:09:56.800 --> 0:09:59.800
<v Speaker 1>site that's targeting children. They don't want ads that have

0:10:00.040 --> 0:10:03.800
<v Speaker 1>alcohol advertised on them running on the site. The advertisers

0:10:03.840 --> 0:10:05.960
<v Speaker 1>don't want it either, because there could be a huge

0:10:06.040 --> 0:10:09.160
<v Speaker 1>legal case to unfold. Because of all of this, Google

0:10:09.200 --> 0:10:12.240
<v Speaker 1>reportedly is investigating the issue in addressing it, though questions

0:10:12.240 --> 0:10:14.800
<v Speaker 1>remain as to how this even happened in the first place.

0:10:15.280 --> 0:10:17.200
<v Speaker 1>This comes at a really bad time for Google. The

0:10:17.240 --> 0:10:20.160
<v Speaker 1>company is already in the target sites of US lawmakers

0:10:20.240 --> 0:10:24.119
<v Speaker 1>as they question if Google is engaged in anti competitive

0:10:24.160 --> 0:10:27.839
<v Speaker 1>practices and if, perhaps to an extreme case, if Google

0:10:27.920 --> 0:10:31.280
<v Speaker 1>should get broken up into smaller companies. Politicians and the

0:10:31.280 --> 0:10:34.119
<v Speaker 1>EU have also indicated that they may launch an investigation

0:10:34.200 --> 0:10:36.760
<v Speaker 1>into the matter. They pointed out that if the EU

0:10:36.840 --> 0:10:40.719
<v Speaker 1>Commission ads, like an ad for the EU Commission, ends

0:10:40.760 --> 0:10:44.880
<v Speaker 1>up being placed on, say a sanctioned Russian website, then

0:10:45.480 --> 0:10:49.000
<v Speaker 1>the Commission inadvertently becomes an accomplice to a party that

0:10:49.120 --> 0:10:53.080
<v Speaker 1>is violating these international sanctions. So this really is a

0:10:53.120 --> 0:10:55.480
<v Speaker 1>pretty big mess for Google. All Right, we're going to

0:10:55.520 --> 0:10:57.120
<v Speaker 1>take a quick break. When we come back, we'll be

0:10:57.160 --> 0:11:09.680
<v Speaker 1>talking about messes for some other tech companies. Okay, we're back,

0:11:10.120 --> 0:11:13.400
<v Speaker 1>So here in the United States, the CEOs of five

0:11:13.600 --> 0:11:22.000
<v Speaker 1>tech companies, those being X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, Meta, TikTok, Snap,

0:11:22.360 --> 0:11:25.640
<v Speaker 1>and Discord are all going to get together on January

0:11:25.800 --> 0:11:30.440
<v Speaker 1>thirty first, twenty twenty four. They're not having lunch, they're

0:11:30.480 --> 0:11:33.760
<v Speaker 1>not engaging in small talk. Instead, they're appearing in front

0:11:33.800 --> 0:11:36.040
<v Speaker 1>of the US Senate to answer questions about how they

0:11:36.080 --> 0:11:40.680
<v Speaker 1>protect or rather fail to protect children's safety online. So

0:11:40.720 --> 0:11:44.000
<v Speaker 1>the hearing is all about child exploitation, and that's one

0:11:44.000 --> 0:11:46.920
<v Speaker 1>of the foundational concerns people have brought up about social

0:11:46.960 --> 0:11:51.160
<v Speaker 1>platforms for years now. Really, heck, when Francis Hogan came

0:11:51.200 --> 0:11:56.000
<v Speaker 1>forward with internal documents from Facebook now Meta, many of

0:11:56.000 --> 0:11:58.840
<v Speaker 1>those documents centered on the company's potential impact on the

0:11:58.880 --> 0:12:02.760
<v Speaker 1>mental health of young users, and it wasn't good news.

0:12:03.280 --> 0:12:06.240
<v Speaker 1>Senators say that the day we'll give CEOs the chance

0:12:06.280 --> 0:12:10.680
<v Speaker 1>to quote testify about their failure to protect children online

0:12:10.800 --> 0:12:13.640
<v Speaker 1>end quote. That certainly sounds like the Senate has already

0:12:13.840 --> 0:12:18.400
<v Speaker 1>reached the conclusion that these platforms have done and perhaps

0:12:18.440 --> 0:12:22.439
<v Speaker 1>actively are doing harm to children or the very least

0:12:22.840 --> 0:12:25.640
<v Speaker 1>failing to protect them, and that they are at fault

0:12:25.679 --> 0:12:27.800
<v Speaker 1>for this. I'm sure it'll be a fun day for

0:12:27.840 --> 0:12:30.720
<v Speaker 1>all involved. Personally, I think something that tends to be

0:12:30.760 --> 0:12:33.520
<v Speaker 1>overlooked is how we in the United States aren't really

0:12:33.600 --> 0:12:38.000
<v Speaker 1>serious about data privacy or security or data ownership, you know,

0:12:38.040 --> 0:12:42.720
<v Speaker 1>whether the data that pertains to people actually belongs to them.

0:12:43.480 --> 0:12:46.240
<v Speaker 1>And by addressing some of those gaps, I think we

0:12:46.240 --> 0:12:49.240
<v Speaker 1>could actually solve a lot of problems that adversely affect

0:12:49.280 --> 0:12:52.640
<v Speaker 1>young folks if we had tougher rules in place as

0:12:52.679 --> 0:12:55.760
<v Speaker 1>to who owns that data and who can access it,

0:12:56.200 --> 0:13:00.439
<v Speaker 1>and tougher laws about getting permission to access them data

0:13:00.480 --> 0:13:03.440
<v Speaker 1>and to exploit it. All of those things I think

0:13:03.840 --> 0:13:07.319
<v Speaker 1>are necessary, But hey, what do I know? So that'll

0:13:07.480 --> 0:13:09.719
<v Speaker 1>be happening at the end of the first month of

0:13:09.800 --> 0:13:13.600
<v Speaker 1>next year. US Senator Marco Rubio has proposed the most

0:13:13.679 --> 0:13:17.480
<v Speaker 1>recent opposition to TikTok here in the US. Rubio proposes

0:13:17.520 --> 0:13:21.920
<v Speaker 1>an ultimatum either China hands over the algorithm used for

0:13:22.000 --> 0:13:27.079
<v Speaker 1>TikTok's recommendation engine, or the United States demonetizes the platform

0:13:27.120 --> 0:13:30.520
<v Speaker 1>within the country, which effectively ends up being a ban

0:13:30.800 --> 0:13:33.960
<v Speaker 1>on TikTok. This is pretty wild stuff, so at the

0:13:33.960 --> 0:13:36.680
<v Speaker 1>heart of Rubio's call appears to be this perception that

0:13:36.720 --> 0:13:42.600
<v Speaker 1>TikTok's algorithm is purposefully shaping discourse. That perhaps China's using

0:13:42.600 --> 0:13:46.040
<v Speaker 1>the algorithm to push propaganda or sway the minds of

0:13:46.080 --> 0:13:49.720
<v Speaker 1>the US public in particular directions. And maybe that's true.

0:13:49.800 --> 0:13:52.400
<v Speaker 1>I mean, maybe the algorithm is doing that, but I

0:13:52.440 --> 0:13:55.720
<v Speaker 1>suspect the algorithm is actually doing something far simpler. It

0:13:55.840 --> 0:13:59.920
<v Speaker 1>is essentially identifying the types of content each user to

0:14:00.080 --> 0:14:02.679
<v Speaker 1>tends to like, and then it just serves up an

0:14:02.800 --> 0:14:05.839
<v Speaker 1>endless supply of that kind of content in an effort

0:14:05.920 --> 0:14:08.240
<v Speaker 1>to keep that user engaged on the platform for as

0:14:08.240 --> 0:14:11.560
<v Speaker 1>long as possible. So if that content does favor one

0:14:11.600 --> 0:14:15.760
<v Speaker 1>particular political ideology, well yeah, TikTok serves that up to

0:14:15.760 --> 0:14:19.040
<v Speaker 1>the user. But if the user tends to favor the

0:14:19.200 --> 0:14:23.480
<v Speaker 1>opposite point of view, I don't think TikTok tries to

0:14:23.720 --> 0:14:27.440
<v Speaker 1>change the user's mind and manipulate them so that they

0:14:27.520 --> 0:14:31.400
<v Speaker 1>think the other thing. No, Instead, it just caters to

0:14:31.680 --> 0:14:33.440
<v Speaker 1>that kind of point of view and serves up that

0:14:33.560 --> 0:14:37.720
<v Speaker 1>sort of video content to the user. Again, that's my guess,

0:14:37.760 --> 0:14:40.760
<v Speaker 1>and maybe I'm wrong. But anyway, as CNBC puts it,

0:14:40.840 --> 0:14:44.760
<v Speaker 1>Rubio's law would quote prohibit financial transactions from social media

0:14:44.800 --> 0:14:50.600
<v Speaker 1>companies located in or under the influence of China, Russia,

0:14:50.640 --> 0:14:53.080
<v Speaker 1>and a few other countries end quote. So yeah, that

0:14:53.200 --> 0:14:56.760
<v Speaker 1>under the influence is the key element for TikTok because

0:14:56.800 --> 0:14:59.880
<v Speaker 1>obviously the company TikTok is centered here in the United States,

0:15:00.320 --> 0:15:03.880
<v Speaker 1>but it's pairing company by Dance is in China, so

0:15:03.960 --> 0:15:07.280
<v Speaker 1>that seems to be where that key phrase comes into play.

0:15:07.680 --> 0:15:10.760
<v Speaker 1>I don't really think this is on the right track.

0:15:10.800 --> 0:15:14.280
<v Speaker 1>I do think TikTok is potentially harmful, but uh, I

0:15:14.280 --> 0:15:18.720
<v Speaker 1>don't think it's necessarily trying to sway opinions in a

0:15:18.760 --> 0:15:22.840
<v Speaker 1>specific direction. I think the stuff that TikTok serves up

0:15:23.240 --> 0:15:25.480
<v Speaker 1>is driven by the behaviors of the people who are

0:15:25.480 --> 0:15:28.880
<v Speaker 1>on TikTok, not the other way around. But you know,

0:15:29.080 --> 0:15:32.400
<v Speaker 1>that's just my guess. I don't have any real hard

0:15:32.480 --> 0:15:33.960
<v Speaker 1>data to say one way or the other, and I

0:15:34.000 --> 0:15:37.920
<v Speaker 1>could very clearly be wrong. Okay. Next up, Elon Musk

0:15:37.960 --> 0:15:40.480
<v Speaker 1>had some less than elegant words for advertisers who are

0:15:40.520 --> 0:15:44.080
<v Speaker 1>fleeing X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. At the

0:15:44.200 --> 0:15:47.200
<v Speaker 1>Deal Book conference, Musk had a bit of a rant

0:15:47.360 --> 0:15:51.400
<v Speaker 1>against advertisers, saying they were in effect blackmailing him. Now

0:15:51.440 --> 0:15:54.920
<v Speaker 1>as a reminder, Musk had posted and also boosted posts

0:15:55.040 --> 0:15:59.720
<v Speaker 1>containing antisemitic messaging, and many advertisers chose that moment to

0:15:59.760 --> 0:16:02.360
<v Speaker 1>say peace out to the platform. So I'm not sure

0:16:02.400 --> 0:16:04.720
<v Speaker 1>this is really a case of blackmail. To be clear,

0:16:05.040 --> 0:16:07.320
<v Speaker 1>I think this is a case of advertisers not wanting

0:16:07.400 --> 0:16:10.440
<v Speaker 1>to be complicit in the spread of hate speech because

0:16:10.440 --> 0:16:13.440
<v Speaker 1>that's a pretty bad way to protect your brand's image.

0:16:13.960 --> 0:16:17.600
<v Speaker 1>So that's not the same thing as blackmail. Facing consequences

0:16:17.600 --> 0:16:21.840
<v Speaker 1>for your actions is not the same thing as being persecuted. Anyway,

0:16:22.320 --> 0:16:27.000
<v Speaker 1>Musk told the advertisers to well, using a phrase that

0:16:27.040 --> 0:16:29.520
<v Speaker 1>would be used in the television series The Good Place

0:16:29.840 --> 0:16:33.680
<v Speaker 1>to Go, fork themselves. Then he made himself the victim

0:16:33.840 --> 0:16:37.520
<v Speaker 1>by saying that if the company dies, which seems possible,

0:16:37.720 --> 0:16:41.080
<v Speaker 1>it will be because of an advertiser boycott. I think

0:16:41.640 --> 0:16:45.920
<v Speaker 1>if x slash Twitter dies, it's because an entitled billionaire

0:16:45.920 --> 0:16:48.840
<v Speaker 1>who thinks consequences are something that happens to other people

0:16:49.280 --> 0:16:52.360
<v Speaker 1>bought the company on a whim. And remember this was

0:16:52.840 --> 0:16:55.840
<v Speaker 1>after he announced his intention to buy it, then tried

0:16:55.880 --> 0:16:59.040
<v Speaker 1>to back out of the deal almost immediately, and then

0:16:59.200 --> 0:17:01.400
<v Speaker 1>went through the deal only when he was threatened with

0:17:01.480 --> 0:17:07.000
<v Speaker 1>legal consequences I think perhaps that's the reason that x

0:17:07.040 --> 0:17:11.800
<v Speaker 1>slash Twitter dies, not that advertisers just spontaneously decided they

0:17:11.840 --> 0:17:15.600
<v Speaker 1>don't like Elon Musk. But what do I know? The

0:17:15.760 --> 0:17:19.639
<v Speaker 1>United Auto Workers labor group recently negotiated new contracts with

0:17:19.720 --> 0:17:23.480
<v Speaker 1>three major automakers here in the US. Now, as revealed

0:17:23.480 --> 0:17:27.479
<v Speaker 1>in a video recorded by UAW President Sean Fain, it

0:17:27.560 --> 0:17:32.440
<v Speaker 1>aims to unionize Tesla Motors. Considering the union secured substantial

0:17:32.520 --> 0:17:36.560
<v Speaker 1>raises for its members with those three major automakers, this

0:17:36.840 --> 0:17:40.400
<v Speaker 1>effort might actually gain some interest within Tesla. The UAW

0:17:40.520 --> 0:17:43.879
<v Speaker 1>also wants to organize workers at Mercedes Benz and at Toyota,

0:17:43.960 --> 0:17:47.480
<v Speaker 1>among other auto manufacturers. I imagine Elon Musk is not

0:17:47.640 --> 0:17:51.639
<v Speaker 1>happy about this. He recently expressed anger and frustration over

0:17:51.720 --> 0:17:55.440
<v Speaker 1>the opposition that labor groups have shown against Tesla over

0:17:55.480 --> 0:17:58.760
<v Speaker 1>in Sweden. That's been an ongoing story, and Musk has

0:17:58.800 --> 0:18:01.880
<v Speaker 1>not been quiet about his desay pleasure at the situation.

0:18:02.520 --> 0:18:05.720
<v Speaker 1>We've been seeing a growth in unions and organization over

0:18:05.760 --> 0:18:07.560
<v Speaker 1>the past few years. Have been covering it for like

0:18:07.800 --> 0:18:10.800
<v Speaker 1>three years. We'll have to wait and see if they

0:18:10.880 --> 0:18:14.399
<v Speaker 1>take hold in Tesla. There have been individual efforts at

0:18:14.480 --> 0:18:19.080
<v Speaker 1>various Tesla facilities for unionization, but this would be more

0:18:19.080 --> 0:18:23.440
<v Speaker 1>of an organization wide approach. For a quarter mile down

0:18:23.480 --> 0:18:27.240
<v Speaker 1>Fourteenth Street in Detroit, you can recharge your electric vehicle

0:18:27.840 --> 0:18:31.399
<v Speaker 1>even as you drive it. The company Electrion completed the

0:18:31.440 --> 0:18:35.399
<v Speaker 1>installation of some inductive charging coils along that stretch of

0:18:35.560 --> 0:18:38.719
<v Speaker 1>street and it will serve as a test for the technology,

0:18:38.800 --> 0:18:41.680
<v Speaker 1>so evs that are equipped with an appropriate receiver will

0:18:41.680 --> 0:18:43.520
<v Speaker 1>be able to make use of the coils. The coils

0:18:43.520 --> 0:18:46.960
<v Speaker 1>will create an electromagnetic field. Passing through the field will

0:18:46.960 --> 0:18:49.520
<v Speaker 1>induce electric charge to flow through the receiver, which then

0:18:49.760 --> 0:18:53.720
<v Speaker 1>gets directed to recharge the battery, so your car can

0:18:53.840 --> 0:18:56.760
<v Speaker 1>charge as it drives along the street. The tech also

0:18:56.800 --> 0:18:58.840
<v Speaker 1>works at the car's stationary so if you park your

0:18:58.920 --> 0:19:02.480
<v Speaker 1>vehicle along that stretch of street, it will recharge while

0:19:02.520 --> 0:19:04.199
<v Speaker 1>you do whatever it is you have to do, and

0:19:04.240 --> 0:19:07.320
<v Speaker 1>you don't have to have any plugs or cables required. Now,

0:19:07.359 --> 0:19:10.560
<v Speaker 1>this is an early test of the technology. It's really

0:19:10.600 --> 0:19:13.400
<v Speaker 1>looked as sort of a test bed for the tech.

0:19:13.800 --> 0:19:15.280
<v Speaker 1>It's not quite at the level where you're going to

0:19:15.320 --> 0:19:17.600
<v Speaker 1>see it installed in cities worldwide, but if it is

0:19:17.640 --> 0:19:21.080
<v Speaker 1>shown to be practical, we could see other municipalities around

0:19:21.080 --> 0:19:24.600
<v Speaker 1>the world invest in this technology. And that's it for

0:19:24.640 --> 0:19:26.760
<v Speaker 1>the tech news that I have for you today, Thursday,

0:19:26.800 --> 0:19:29.359
<v Speaker 1>November thirty, of twenty twenty three. I am out on

0:19:29.480 --> 0:19:31.919
<v Speaker 1>vacation next week, so we will have a few rerun

0:19:31.960 --> 0:19:35.800
<v Speaker 1>episodes play next week. We also will have a special

0:19:35.880 --> 0:19:39.560
<v Speaker 1>episode of another podcast play on Tuesday, so that you

0:19:39.600 --> 0:19:42.440
<v Speaker 1>can be introduced to a new show that I think

0:19:42.560 --> 0:19:46.000
<v Speaker 1>is pretty interesting. It takes a different look at AI

0:19:46.160 --> 0:19:48.760
<v Speaker 1>than you'll typically hear on tech Stuff, and honestly, as

0:19:48.880 --> 0:19:52.040
<v Speaker 1>much as I him and haw about artificial intelligence on

0:19:52.040 --> 0:19:54.760
<v Speaker 1>this show, I do think it's really important to hear

0:19:54.800 --> 0:19:57.760
<v Speaker 1>different points of view because I can't claim to be

0:19:58.840 --> 0:20:02.200
<v Speaker 1>the correct person. I don't think I am just right

0:20:02.320 --> 0:20:05.919
<v Speaker 1>in everything. My opinions have been shaped by various experiences.

0:20:06.040 --> 0:20:08.520
<v Speaker 1>I think it's very important to hear other points of view.

0:20:08.720 --> 0:20:11.600
<v Speaker 1>So check that out and I will talk to you

0:20:11.680 --> 0:20:22.199
<v Speaker 1>again really soon. Tech Stuff is an iHeartRadio production. For

0:20:22.320 --> 0:20:27.160
<v Speaker 1>more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,

0:20:27.280 --> 0:20:29.280
<v Speaker 1>or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.