1
00:00:04,480 --> 00:00:12,360
Speaker 1: Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. He there,

2
00:00:12,400 --> 00:00:16,160
Speaker 1: and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland.

3
00:00:16,200 --> 00:00:19,759
Speaker 1: I'm an executive producer with iHeart Podcasts and how the

4
00:00:19,800 --> 00:00:22,599
Speaker 1: tech are you. It's time for the tech news though,

5
00:00:22,600 --> 00:00:25,479
Speaker 1: for the week that ends on Friday, October twenty fifth,

6
00:00:25,520 --> 00:00:28,800
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four, and there are quite a few pieces

7
00:00:28,880 --> 00:00:33,080
Speaker 1: this week about open AI. Kylie Robison of The Verge

8
00:00:33,120 --> 00:00:37,480
Speaker 1: has an informative article titled Departing Open AI. Leader says

9
00:00:37,560 --> 00:00:41,520
Speaker 1: no company is ready for AGI, and that's a really

10
00:00:41,520 --> 00:00:45,280
Speaker 1: good start for our open AI discussion. So, first of all,

11
00:00:45,400 --> 00:00:51,000
Speaker 1: AGI stands for artificial general intelligence. So it's an example

12
00:00:51,000 --> 00:00:54,280
Speaker 1: of a term that on the surface sounds like it's

13
00:00:54,320 --> 00:00:57,600
Speaker 1: fairly straightforward, but when you start to get into the weeds,

14
00:00:57,640 --> 00:01:00,680
Speaker 1: you find out it's actually really vague and bor defined.

15
00:01:00,720 --> 00:01:06,080
Speaker 1: So generally AGI references a computer system that's capable of

16
00:01:06,160 --> 00:01:09,720
Speaker 1: processing information in a way that's similar to how we

17
00:01:09,840 --> 00:01:14,320
Speaker 1: humans think. That's the most vague way of defining it. Now.

18
00:01:14,400 --> 00:01:19,600
Speaker 1: AGI does not necessarily mean superhuman intelligence, though that's typically

19
00:01:19,640 --> 00:01:24,240
Speaker 1: where the conversation ends up going. An AGI system could

20
00:01:24,319 --> 00:01:28,000
Speaker 1: theoretically be pretty darn stupid in fact, but still process

21
00:01:28,080 --> 00:01:32,920
Speaker 1: information in a way that mimics how we humans do it. Anyway,

22
00:01:33,160 --> 00:01:36,440
Speaker 1: It's hard to define AGI because it's hard to justifine

23
00:01:36,480 --> 00:01:39,960
Speaker 1: regular old intelligence, like how do you do that before

24
00:01:40,000 --> 00:01:44,800
Speaker 1: you even get into artificial intelligence. But recently OpenAI dissolved

25
00:01:44,880 --> 00:01:49,640
Speaker 1: its AGI readiness team, and that in turn follows a

26
00:01:49,720 --> 00:01:52,840
Speaker 1: decision that the company had made earlier this year to

27
00:01:53,160 --> 00:01:57,240
Speaker 1: nix its super alignment team. And both of these teams

28
00:01:57,280 --> 00:02:01,600
Speaker 1: focused on ways to develop AI recis responsibly and to

29
00:02:02,360 --> 00:02:07,880
Speaker 1: identify and mitigate potential risks relating to AI. Turns out

30
00:02:08,360 --> 00:02:12,160
Speaker 1: that's not necessarily a revenue driver, right. Putting limitations on

31
00:02:12,200 --> 00:02:15,040
Speaker 1: your development process can be a real drag. Sure, I

32
00:02:15,040 --> 00:02:18,079
Speaker 1: mean those limitations might be there in order to prevent

33
00:02:18,200 --> 00:02:22,000
Speaker 1: AI implementations from doing really bad stuff, But come on,

34
00:02:22,639 --> 00:02:25,520
Speaker 1: what are the odds that's going to happen? Oh, we

35
00:02:25,680 --> 00:02:28,880
Speaker 1: don't know the odds. We actually we actually don't know

36
00:02:29,400 --> 00:02:33,519
Speaker 1: how likely it is that AI could mess things up. Well,

37
00:02:33,560 --> 00:02:35,959
Speaker 1: then that's just as good as knowing there's no chance

38
00:02:36,040 --> 00:02:38,760
Speaker 1: that things can go wrong? Am I right? Just a note,

39
00:02:38,800 --> 00:02:42,760
Speaker 1: I am not right anyway, snark aside. This move is

40
00:02:42,840 --> 00:02:45,960
Speaker 1: yet another nail in the coffin of the original mission

41
00:02:46,120 --> 00:02:49,519
Speaker 1: for open ai. Now, you might recall that way back

42
00:02:49,560 --> 00:02:53,480
Speaker 1: when it was first founded, open ai was just a simple, humble,

43
00:02:53,520 --> 00:02:57,120
Speaker 1: little country non profit company with the mission to conduct

44
00:02:57,200 --> 00:03:00,000
Speaker 1: AI research in a way that stood to benefit human

45
00:03:00,040 --> 00:03:04,600
Speaker 1: humanity the most with the least likely potential for bad consequences.

46
00:03:04,840 --> 00:03:06,440
Speaker 1: I don't know why I decided to go to simple

47
00:03:06,480 --> 00:03:10,000
Speaker 1: country lawyer mode for that, but anyway, later on, open

48
00:03:10,040 --> 00:03:14,720
Speaker 1: ai spun off a so called capped for profit company,

49
00:03:15,240 --> 00:03:18,480
Speaker 1: and this company would in turn still be governed by

50
00:03:18,520 --> 00:03:22,640
Speaker 1: the larger nonprofit organization. It's just that the for profit

51
00:03:22,720 --> 00:03:27,880
Speaker 1: company would be operated for profit to help fund the research.

52
00:03:28,200 --> 00:03:30,800
Speaker 1: And it didn't take very long for the for profit

53
00:03:30,919 --> 00:03:35,520
Speaker 1: arm to eclipse the nonprofit side, and the for profit

54
00:03:35,680 --> 00:03:42,120
Speaker 1: side essentially shed itself of the shackles of restrictions and caution. Why. Well,

55
00:03:42,120 --> 00:03:44,480
Speaker 1: the big reason is that AI, as I have said

56
00:03:44,720 --> 00:03:49,640
Speaker 1: many times, is wicked expensive. Open ai churns through money

57
00:03:49,680 --> 00:03:53,360
Speaker 1: at a rate that is hard for me to conceive.

58
00:03:53,480 --> 00:03:58,240
Speaker 1: We're talking billions of dollars per year spent just to

59
00:03:58,360 --> 00:04:02,600
Speaker 1: run operations, and I think they were on track to

60
00:04:02,680 --> 00:04:06,200
Speaker 1: lose like five billion dollars this year before they ended

61
00:04:06,280 --> 00:04:12,040
Speaker 1: up having a massive fundraising round. Nonprofits are just incapable

62
00:04:12,120 --> 00:04:15,760
Speaker 1: of raising enough money fast enough to meet that kind

63
00:04:15,800 --> 00:04:19,560
Speaker 1: of demand, Like, no one's going to pour money into

64
00:04:19,839 --> 00:04:24,040
Speaker 1: a drain like that over and over, you know, perpetually,

65
00:04:24,200 --> 00:04:27,680
Speaker 1: so again and again. Open Ai has chosen the pathways

66
00:04:27,680 --> 00:04:30,440
Speaker 1: that are most likely to lead to heaps of cash

67
00:04:30,480 --> 00:04:34,320
Speaker 1: while downplaying the concerns of people within and outside the

68
00:04:34,360 --> 00:04:38,760
Speaker 1: company about the potential dangerous decisions being made. In Robison's

69
00:04:38,760 --> 00:04:41,760
Speaker 1: Peace in the Verge, she covers how the former senior

70
00:04:41,839 --> 00:04:47,440
Speaker 1: advisor for AGI Readiness, Miles Brundage, warns that no company

71
00:04:47,560 --> 00:04:53,520
Speaker 1: in the world, including open Ai, is prepared for AGI. Further,

72
00:04:54,040 --> 00:04:57,479
Speaker 1: he warned that governments around the world really need access

73
00:04:57,560 --> 00:05:01,080
Speaker 1: to unbiased experts who are in the field of AI

74
00:05:01,600 --> 00:05:05,720
Speaker 1: while they are actually formulating policies and regulations, because as

75
00:05:05,720 --> 00:05:10,560
Speaker 1: it stands, the people who are extremely passionate about guiding

76
00:05:10,640 --> 00:05:15,080
Speaker 1: policy tend to be folks like Sam Altman, the CEO

77
00:05:15,360 --> 00:05:18,640
Speaker 1: of open Ai, and as you might imagine, these people

78
00:05:18,680 --> 00:05:22,480
Speaker 1: are not unbiased. It really creates a conflict of interest, right,

79
00:05:22,520 --> 00:05:25,760
Speaker 1: It seems like a pretty safe bet that Altman's guidance

80
00:05:25,839 --> 00:05:29,320
Speaker 1: to leaders around the world will focus on policies that

81
00:05:29,400 --> 00:05:33,400
Speaker 1: will help or at the very least not hinder open

82
00:05:33,440 --> 00:05:38,120
Speaker 1: Ai while potentially having a larger impact on the company's competition.

83
00:05:38,680 --> 00:05:42,200
Speaker 1: So Brundage is essentially saying like, the fact that open

84
00:05:42,200 --> 00:05:46,080
Speaker 1: ai is making these decisions should cause some concern, and

85
00:05:46,200 --> 00:05:50,240
Speaker 1: leaders around the world need to be savvy when they

86
00:05:50,360 --> 00:05:54,400
Speaker 1: are consulting with various experts and making sure that the

87
00:05:54,480 --> 00:05:59,240
Speaker 1: advice they receive isn't being guided by self interest. Another

88
00:05:59,360 --> 00:06:03,880
Speaker 1: good read is an opinion piece from John Herman of Intelligencer.

89
00:06:04,320 --> 00:06:06,160
Speaker 1: I guess you could argue that it's not really an

90
00:06:06,200 --> 00:06:08,280
Speaker 1: opinion piece, but I feel like Herman injects a lot

91
00:06:08,320 --> 00:06:11,320
Speaker 1: of his own opinions in it, and I am pretty

92
00:06:11,360 --> 00:06:13,960
Speaker 1: much on the same page as Herman. Well, anyway, the

93
00:06:14,040 --> 00:06:18,159
Speaker 1: article is titled Microsoft has an open Ai problem. Now.

94
00:06:18,240 --> 00:06:21,080
Speaker 1: I mentioned in an earlier tech Stuff News episode that

95
00:06:21,240 --> 00:06:26,040
Speaker 1: Microsoft has seemed to have kind of a rethink when

96
00:06:26,120 --> 00:06:29,680
Speaker 1: it comes to its relationship with open AI. In Facebook terms,

97
00:06:29,960 --> 00:06:32,920
Speaker 1: I think we would say that the current relationship status

98
00:06:33,000 --> 00:06:38,120
Speaker 1: would be at it's complicated. So Microsoft has invested billions

99
00:06:38,160 --> 00:06:42,520
Speaker 1: of dollars, like nearly fourteen billion bucks in open Ai

100
00:06:42,600 --> 00:06:46,119
Speaker 1: so far, and Herman points out that the agreements between

101
00:06:46,200 --> 00:06:50,320
Speaker 1: the two companies happened relatively quickly and without a whole

102
00:06:50,360 --> 00:06:53,839
Speaker 1: lot of thought as to how that process of funding

103
00:06:53,880 --> 00:06:58,080
Speaker 1: would actually work, which seems like pretty loosey goosey to me.

104
00:06:58,480 --> 00:07:02,560
Speaker 1: And now Microsoft and o AI's partnership hinges on if

105
00:07:02,680 --> 00:07:07,800
Speaker 1: open ai develops AGI. So essentially the agreement is that

106
00:07:07,960 --> 00:07:11,600
Speaker 1: this partnership between the two companies will dissolve if open

107
00:07:11,640 --> 00:07:16,680
Speaker 1: Ai creates an AGI product of some sort, allegedly because

108
00:07:16,720 --> 00:07:19,680
Speaker 1: open ai has a real, deep concern that a company

109
00:07:19,720 --> 00:07:25,040
Speaker 1: like Microsoft might misuse such a powerful and potentially destructive

110
00:07:25,120 --> 00:07:29,480
Speaker 1: tool as artificial general intelligence. And sure, I think that's possible,

111
00:07:29,880 --> 00:07:33,920
Speaker 1: Like I think if Microsoft had access to AGI, there

112
00:07:33,960 --> 00:07:36,760
Speaker 1: could be some pretty negative consequences. But it's not like

113
00:07:36,800 --> 00:07:39,840
Speaker 1: I have an enormous amount of faith in open Ai either.

114
00:07:41,240 --> 00:07:43,120
Speaker 1: It's not like I look at them and think, oh no,

115
00:07:43,240 --> 00:07:47,200
Speaker 1: I want them to have the keys. I don't want

116
00:07:47,200 --> 00:07:48,640
Speaker 1: anyone to have the keys. I don't want it to

117
00:07:48,640 --> 00:07:50,800
Speaker 1: be a thing. But I guess that's not an option.

118
00:07:51,200 --> 00:07:54,280
Speaker 1: But anyway, when you're talking about a company like open ai,

119
00:07:54,440 --> 00:07:57,960
Speaker 1: which has actively been dismantling the systems. But in place

120
00:07:58,000 --> 00:08:02,720
Speaker 1: to ensure safe development or artificial intelligence, you can't really

121
00:08:02,760 --> 00:08:06,400
Speaker 1: be advocating that they're the ones who should be, you know,

122
00:08:06,440 --> 00:08:10,680
Speaker 1: the stewards of AGI. Herman cites a Times article that

123
00:08:10,720 --> 00:08:13,440
Speaker 1: points out that open AI's board of directors actually has

124
00:08:13,440 --> 00:08:17,760
Speaker 1: the authority to determine what AGI is and when, if ever,

125
00:08:17,920 --> 00:08:22,200
Speaker 1: open Ai achieves it. So, at least hypothetically, even if

126
00:08:22,200 --> 00:08:26,040
Speaker 1: outside parties would disagree with the definition that open AI's

127
00:08:26,200 --> 00:08:30,240
Speaker 1: board comes up with, that wouldn't matter. If open Ai said, oh,

128
00:08:30,320 --> 00:08:33,640
Speaker 1: we did it, we created AGI, and if literally no

129
00:08:33,720 --> 00:08:36,920
Speaker 1: one else in the world said that's definitely AGI, it

130
00:08:36,960 --> 00:08:39,480
Speaker 1: would be enough for open ai to sever its relationship

131
00:08:39,520 --> 00:08:43,160
Speaker 1: with Microsoft. Now, the implication here is that this isn't

132
00:08:43,280 --> 00:08:46,839
Speaker 1: really some sort of protection for open ai to make

133
00:08:46,880 --> 00:08:49,360
Speaker 1: sure that AGI is not unleashed upon a world and

134
00:08:49,520 --> 00:08:52,840
Speaker 1: like the next build of Windows or something. It's really

135
00:08:52,880 --> 00:08:56,160
Speaker 1: more about creating kind of a switch, a kill switch,

136
00:08:56,200 --> 00:08:59,400
Speaker 1: a bargaining tool with Microsoft, so that when it comes

137
00:08:59,480 --> 00:09:04,040
Speaker 1: to renegotiating with Microsoft, open Ai is able to essentially say, hey,

138
00:09:04,440 --> 00:09:06,520
Speaker 1: if you don't give us more money, we'll say we

139
00:09:06,600 --> 00:09:10,240
Speaker 1: made AGI, and then that's it. We walk and you

140
00:09:10,280 --> 00:09:13,120
Speaker 1: can't do anything about it. So that's a possibility. I

141
00:09:13,160 --> 00:09:16,719
Speaker 1: don't know if it's a reality, but it's possible. It's

142
00:09:16,720 --> 00:09:19,400
Speaker 1: almost enough to make one jaded, isn't it. Anyway? The

143
00:09:19,480 --> 00:09:22,640
Speaker 1: article's well worth a read again. It's Microsoft has an

144
00:09:22,720 --> 00:09:27,840
Speaker 1: open AI problem, and it's an intelligencer by John Herman. Okay,

145
00:09:28,080 --> 00:09:30,160
Speaker 1: I got a lot more news to go through, but first,

146
00:09:30,360 --> 00:09:42,600
Speaker 1: let's take a quick break to thank our sponsors. All Right,

147
00:09:42,679 --> 00:09:45,720
Speaker 1: we're back, and David E. Sanger of The New York

148
00:09:45,760 --> 00:09:50,520
Speaker 1: Times has a piece titled Biden Administration outlines government guardrails

149
00:09:50,520 --> 00:09:52,880
Speaker 1: for AI tools, and that brings us back around to

150
00:09:52,880 --> 00:09:56,679
Speaker 1: those government backed policies relating to the development and deployment

151
00:09:56,679 --> 00:10:00,720
Speaker 1: of artificial intelligence. So essentially, these guardrails lay out the

152
00:10:00,760 --> 00:10:04,280
Speaker 1: scenarios in which using AI would be appropriate and allowed,

153
00:10:04,559 --> 00:10:07,480
Speaker 1: and the scenarios in which it really absolutely should not

154
00:10:07,559 --> 00:10:11,080
Speaker 1: be allowed. So, for example, using AI to detect and

155
00:10:11,200 --> 00:10:16,040
Speaker 1: deter cybersecurity threats, that's pretty okay. Using AI to develop

156
00:10:16,080 --> 00:10:20,080
Speaker 1: a new generation of fully autonomous weaponry, that one falls

157
00:10:20,120 --> 00:10:23,040
Speaker 1: into the no no category. So the guardrails put up

158
00:10:23,040 --> 00:10:26,480
Speaker 1: a lot of responsibility on individual departments and agencies to

159
00:10:26,480 --> 00:10:30,080
Speaker 1: conduct their own reviews and determine in which use cases

160
00:10:30,120 --> 00:10:32,680
Speaker 1: AI might be appropriate and in which ones it would

161
00:10:32,720 --> 00:10:35,080
Speaker 1: not be. There's a lot more to the guardrails. There's

162
00:10:35,120 --> 00:10:39,080
Speaker 1: like thirty eight pages of material that's available for the

163
00:10:39,120 --> 00:10:41,600
Speaker 1: public to read. It includes a call to have the

164
00:10:41,679 --> 00:10:45,000
Speaker 1: US attract more AI experts to the United States rather

165
00:10:45,040 --> 00:10:47,520
Speaker 1: than have them work for a rival nation like China

166
00:10:47,640 --> 00:10:51,840
Speaker 1: or Russia. But at least some of the information about

167
00:10:51,840 --> 00:10:55,280
Speaker 1: these guardrails is classified, so I have no idea what

168
00:10:55,320 --> 00:10:58,040
Speaker 1: could be in those Also, as Anger points out, the

169
00:10:58,120 --> 00:11:01,920
Speaker 1: efficacy of these decisions is somewhat unknown since the United

170
00:11:01,920 --> 00:11:04,560
Speaker 1: States is currently in an election year and the next

171
00:11:04,640 --> 00:11:08,600
Speaker 1: president might just make all these guardrails go away, so

172
00:11:08,679 --> 00:11:10,720
Speaker 1: we don't really know if this is going to matter

173
00:11:10,800 --> 00:11:13,840
Speaker 1: at all in the long run. Fun times. The Attorney

174
00:11:13,920 --> 00:11:16,320
Speaker 1: General for the state of Montana has filed a new

175
00:11:16,400 --> 00:11:19,480
Speaker 1: lawsuit against TikTok. It's a new lawsuit, but it's an

176
00:11:19,480 --> 00:11:23,720
Speaker 1: old tune. They're accusing the company of purposefully promoting addictive

177
00:11:23,720 --> 00:11:28,560
Speaker 1: and harmful content to young users through the recommendation algorithm.

178
00:11:28,679 --> 00:11:32,080
Speaker 1: The Attorney General alleges that TikTok essentially has lied about

179
00:11:32,120 --> 00:11:35,720
Speaker 1: the nature of promoted content in violation of the Montana

180
00:11:35,800 --> 00:11:39,200
Speaker 1: Consumer Protection Act. So essentially, the attorney general says that

181
00:11:39,280 --> 00:11:44,320
Speaker 1: TikTok knew that users, including young users, would encounter content

182
00:11:44,400 --> 00:11:47,120
Speaker 1: that's just unsuitable for people who could be as young

183
00:11:47,120 --> 00:11:51,439
Speaker 1: as thirteen years old, but pretended that it has safeguards

184
00:11:51,440 --> 00:11:55,320
Speaker 1: in place to prevent such young users from encountering, you know,

185
00:11:55,400 --> 00:11:59,880
Speaker 1: mature or disturbing content. An unnamed spokesperson for TikTok disputes

186
00:11:59,880 --> 00:12:04,240
Speaker 1: the allegations and says they are quote inaccurate and misleading.

187
00:12:04,320 --> 00:12:06,720
Speaker 1: In the quote, you might recall that previously, the state

188
00:12:06,760 --> 00:12:10,240
Speaker 1: of Montana actually banned TikTok entirely, but then a judge

189
00:12:10,320 --> 00:12:13,319
Speaker 1: later overturned that ban on the grounds that it violated

190
00:12:13,400 --> 00:12:16,560
Speaker 1: the First Amendment, that's the right to free speech. Several

191
00:12:16,600 --> 00:12:21,880
Speaker 1: other states have similarly filed charges against TikTok with similar accusations. Essentially,

192
00:12:21,880 --> 00:12:25,360
Speaker 1: it boils down to TikTok's algorithm promoting inappropriate and sometimes

193
00:12:25,360 --> 00:12:29,920
Speaker 1: outright dangerous content to impressionable young users. Meanwhile, of course,

194
00:12:29,960 --> 00:12:32,880
Speaker 1: TikTok is facing down a well a ticking clock situation

195
00:12:32,960 --> 00:12:35,360
Speaker 1: here in the United States. Currently, the app faces the

196
00:12:35,400 --> 00:12:38,959
Speaker 1: possibility of a nationwide ban unless its Chinese parent company

197
00:12:39,040 --> 00:12:43,400
Speaker 1: Bite Dance, divests itself of TikTok. So it might be

198
00:12:43,520 --> 00:12:46,440
Speaker 1: that by this time next year, lawsuits against TikTok, at

199
00:12:46,520 --> 00:12:48,800
Speaker 1: least here in the United States, will no longer really

200
00:12:48,840 --> 00:12:52,040
Speaker 1: be relevant, or at least not as straightforward. Speaking of

201
00:12:52,120 --> 00:12:55,320
Speaker 1: bans and social media, Norway is increasing the minimum age

202
00:12:55,400 --> 00:12:58,760
Speaker 1: allowed for folks to use social media. So previously the

203
00:12:58,760 --> 00:13:01,360
Speaker 1: minimum age in Norway was thirteen, but now it's going

204
00:13:01,400 --> 00:13:04,280
Speaker 1: to be increased to fifteen years old out of a

205
00:13:04,320 --> 00:13:08,000
Speaker 1: concern that social media can have a harmful impact on

206
00:13:08,200 --> 00:13:11,680
Speaker 1: young users. Of course, making that law is one thing,

207
00:13:11,800 --> 00:13:15,280
Speaker 1: but enforcing it is entirely something else. I mean, as

208
00:13:15,320 --> 00:13:19,360
Speaker 1: Miranda Bryant of The Guardian reports, the Norwegian Media Authority

209
00:13:19,480 --> 00:13:21,880
Speaker 1: found that more than half of nine year olds in

210
00:13:21,960 --> 00:13:25,320
Speaker 1: Norway are already on social media, and as you go

211
00:13:25,520 --> 00:13:29,200
Speaker 1: up and age the percentage increases, so already there are

212
00:13:29,360 --> 00:13:33,400
Speaker 1: tons of kids in Norway who are actually using social

213
00:13:33,480 --> 00:13:37,480
Speaker 1: media when they're underage, like they're below the age of thirteen,

214
00:13:37,800 --> 00:13:40,120
Speaker 1: even though the law says they ain't supposed to. So

215
00:13:40,200 --> 00:13:42,200
Speaker 1: apparently part of the plan is to change the way

216
00:13:42,240 --> 00:13:46,200
Speaker 1: that social media companies verify the age of users in Norway,

217
00:13:46,480 --> 00:13:49,360
Speaker 1: so that it's not a trivial task. Just fib about

218
00:13:49,360 --> 00:13:52,320
Speaker 1: one's own age admidly, that's a pretty low bar. I mean,

219
00:13:52,400 --> 00:13:54,079
Speaker 1: if I were a kid, then I was trying to

220
00:13:54,120 --> 00:13:57,080
Speaker 1: make an account on a social media platform and the

221
00:13:57,200 --> 00:14:00,920
Speaker 1: age verification was just asking me, Hey, when when's your birthday?

222
00:14:01,240 --> 00:14:04,640
Speaker 1: I could probably do some pretty quick math and fudge

223
00:14:04,679 --> 00:14:07,280
Speaker 1: that date enough so that it would let me in. Anyway,

224
00:14:07,360 --> 00:14:09,480
Speaker 1: while I have my doubts about how effective this new

225
00:14:09,520 --> 00:14:12,320
Speaker 1: policy is going to be, I absolutely do feel empathy

226
00:14:12,360 --> 00:14:15,440
Speaker 1: for those who want to shield kids from the ravages

227
00:14:15,559 --> 00:14:19,040
Speaker 1: of the algorithm, because there are days when the various

228
00:14:19,040 --> 00:14:22,600
Speaker 1: recommendation algorithms that I encounter make me want to go

229
00:14:22,640 --> 00:14:26,720
Speaker 1: and hide in the woods, possibly in Norway. Alison Morrow

230
00:14:26,760 --> 00:14:29,480
Speaker 1: of CNN has a piece titled almost anything goes on

231
00:14:29,520 --> 00:14:32,920
Speaker 1: social media as long as it doesn't make billionaires feel

232
00:14:32,960 --> 00:14:36,600
Speaker 1: even a little bit unsafe, And yeah, billionaires live by

233
00:14:36,680 --> 00:14:40,240
Speaker 1: different rules than everybody else. In fact, they often are

234
00:14:40,280 --> 00:14:44,040
Speaker 1: the ones who decide what the rules are. So while

235
00:14:44,080 --> 00:14:48,120
Speaker 1: people like Elon Musk are extremely vocal about the importance

236
00:14:48,160 --> 00:14:51,440
Speaker 1: and sanctity of free speech, they're also quick to say no,

237
00:14:51,560 --> 00:14:54,480
Speaker 1: not like that if the free speech includes stuff that

238
00:14:54,920 --> 00:14:59,280
Speaker 1: is potentially harmful to them. So the case Morrow is

239
00:14:59,280 --> 00:15:02,760
Speaker 1: focusing on that of Jack Sweeney. He's a college student

240
00:15:02,800 --> 00:15:06,960
Speaker 1: who has created numerous social media profiles on different platforms

241
00:15:07,200 --> 00:15:12,560
Speaker 1: that are dedicated to tracking specific billionaire private jet routes, which,

242
00:15:12,600 --> 00:15:16,440
Speaker 1: by the way, is publicly available data. Sweeney is not

243
00:15:16,800 --> 00:15:19,920
Speaker 1: hacking into the mainframe or anything like that. All he's

244
00:15:19,920 --> 00:15:23,360
Speaker 1: doing is just scraping data from public sources and posting

245
00:15:23,360 --> 00:15:27,760
Speaker 1: it to social Anyone could do this, but various platforms

246
00:15:27,800 --> 00:15:32,640
Speaker 1: have removed Sweeney's accounts, often without giving him any forewarning

247
00:15:32,880 --> 00:15:36,160
Speaker 1: or explanation, and when asked, they usually give a pretty

248
00:15:36,200 --> 00:15:40,160
Speaker 1: hand wavy explanation that the information poses a risk to

249
00:15:40,320 --> 00:15:43,080
Speaker 1: certain individuals. But I mean, if you happen to know

250
00:15:43,160 --> 00:15:45,880
Speaker 1: that Elon Musk flew into your town, you might track

251
00:15:45,960 --> 00:15:48,000
Speaker 1: him down an assault him or something, or maybe you know,

252
00:15:48,160 --> 00:15:50,760
Speaker 1: just yell at him because your cyber truck don't go no,

253
00:15:50,880 --> 00:15:53,560
Speaker 1: mo I guess that's the fear, Like, how do you

254
00:15:53,760 --> 00:15:56,200
Speaker 1: know where the person specifically is? Who just know where

255
00:15:56,200 --> 00:15:59,800
Speaker 1: they're jet landed? Anyway, Marrow points out that the various

256
00:16:00,240 --> 00:16:03,200
Speaker 1: platforms seem to have very little problem with hosting stuff

257
00:16:03,200 --> 00:16:05,680
Speaker 1: that could be extremely harmful to the rest of us,

258
00:16:05,920 --> 00:16:10,080
Speaker 1: whether that's misinformation or hate speech or whatever. That stuff, well,

259
00:16:10,120 --> 00:16:12,920
Speaker 1: that stuff's not likely to touch the billionaires, so there's

260
00:16:12,920 --> 00:16:15,160
Speaker 1: no reason to worry about it. Let that stay up

261
00:16:15,200 --> 00:16:18,800
Speaker 1: on those profiles. We all just have to fend for ourselves.

262
00:16:18,840 --> 00:16:23,040
Speaker 1: But publicly available information about billionaires, now you're talking about

263
00:16:23,120 --> 00:16:26,560
Speaker 1: dangerous information. Anyway, read the article. You already can tell

264
00:16:26,560 --> 00:16:29,440
Speaker 1: what my opinion is about all this. I'll just Quotemorrow

265
00:16:29,520 --> 00:16:33,240
Speaker 1: directly for this little bit, because you know we're aligned

266
00:16:33,280 --> 00:16:36,680
Speaker 1: on this quote. It's just not clear that Meta cares

267
00:16:36,680 --> 00:16:39,280
Speaker 1: as much about its users' privacy and well being as

268
00:16:39,280 --> 00:16:45,160
Speaker 1: it does about Zuckerberg's end quote Preachmorrow. The US Federal

269
00:16:45,200 --> 00:16:48,040
Speaker 1: Trade Commission created new rules this past summer that gives

270
00:16:48,080 --> 00:16:51,000
Speaker 1: the agency the power to find people who post, buy,

271
00:16:51,200 --> 00:16:54,160
Speaker 1: or sell fake reviews online. I'm sure you're aware that

272
00:16:54,200 --> 00:16:57,160
Speaker 1: fake reviews are a real problem. Once upon a time,

273
00:16:57,200 --> 00:16:59,280
Speaker 1: I think the average person could go to an online

274
00:16:59,320 --> 00:17:03,320
Speaker 1: marketplace like Amazon and lean on user reviews when making

275
00:17:03,400 --> 00:17:06,320
Speaker 1: purchasing decisions. But over time, companies have found ways to

276
00:17:06,440 --> 00:17:10,520
Speaker 1: incentivize folks to write good reviews. Sometimes it's fairly innocent.

277
00:17:10,680 --> 00:17:12,959
Speaker 1: You know, you might have a little card in the

278
00:17:13,000 --> 00:17:15,280
Speaker 1: box that your product came in saying something like, hey,

279
00:17:15,320 --> 00:17:18,359
Speaker 1: if you like this, please consider writing a review. That

280
00:17:18,440 --> 00:17:22,360
Speaker 1: seems pretty innocuous, but it can quickly get more murky,

281
00:17:22,560 --> 00:17:24,359
Speaker 1: like you might get one that says, hey, hey, if

282
00:17:24,400 --> 00:17:26,720
Speaker 1: you write a five star review, we'll give you a

283
00:17:26,760 --> 00:17:29,960
Speaker 1: coupon for some other product or service. And sometimes it

284
00:17:30,080 --> 00:17:34,840
Speaker 1: just gets downright overtly wrong, like write a positive review

285
00:17:34,920 --> 00:17:37,800
Speaker 1: for this thing that you might not even use or own,

286
00:17:38,200 --> 00:17:41,159
Speaker 1: and we will pay you money. Well, the new rules

287
00:17:41,160 --> 00:17:43,840
Speaker 1: that the FTC passed are now in effect, and essentially,

288
00:17:43,960 --> 00:17:46,680
Speaker 1: if you are caught trading in fake reviews, you could

289
00:17:46,720 --> 00:17:49,480
Speaker 1: face a fine of up to fifty one, seven hundred

290
00:17:49,480 --> 00:17:53,240
Speaker 1: and forty four bucks, and that includes AI generated reviews.

291
00:17:53,280 --> 00:17:55,680
Speaker 1: If they find that you've been doing that, you could

292
00:17:55,680 --> 00:17:59,480
Speaker 1: be paying some pretty hefty cash. Now, on top of that,

293
00:17:59,520 --> 00:18:03,160
Speaker 1: companies are not allowed to suppress negative reviews. They're also

294
00:18:03,240 --> 00:18:07,320
Speaker 1: not allowed to promote positive reviews that they suspect are fake. Now,

295
00:18:07,480 --> 00:18:10,560
Speaker 1: how the FTC plans to go about proving that a

296
00:18:10,600 --> 00:18:13,280
Speaker 1: company was aware that a review was fake, I'm sure

297
00:18:13,280 --> 00:18:15,840
Speaker 1: that'll be challenging. On a case by case basis. But

298
00:18:15,960 --> 00:18:18,320
Speaker 1: the rule is a hefty piece of writing. It is

299
00:18:18,320 --> 00:18:21,119
Speaker 1: one hundred and sixty three pages long, and no, I

300
00:18:21,320 --> 00:18:24,000
Speaker 1: have not read the whole thing, so I'm not prepared

301
00:18:24,040 --> 00:18:26,159
Speaker 1: to give my full opinion as to whether or not

302
00:18:26,240 --> 00:18:28,679
Speaker 1: this is a good idea or a bad idea, or

303
00:18:28,720 --> 00:18:32,080
Speaker 1: a good response or an ineffective response. I need to

304
00:18:32,119 --> 00:18:33,840
Speaker 1: be able to read the whole thing before I come

305
00:18:33,920 --> 00:18:35,399
Speaker 1: up with that. So it looks like I've got my

306
00:18:35,480 --> 00:18:39,840
Speaker 1: reading material for my upcoming flights. Yay, okay. I got

307
00:18:39,880 --> 00:18:41,960
Speaker 1: a couple of articles I want to recommend for your

308
00:18:42,040 --> 00:18:46,439
Speaker 1: reading pleasure. One is a John Broadcin article on Ours

309
00:18:46,520 --> 00:18:50,920
Speaker 1: Technica and it's titled Cable companies ask Fifth Circuit to

310
00:18:51,000 --> 00:18:54,359
Speaker 1: block FTC's click to cancel rule. I think that's the

311
00:18:54,440 --> 00:18:58,719
Speaker 1: least surprising headline I've ever read. Obviously, cable companies don't

312
00:18:58,760 --> 00:19:01,520
Speaker 1: want there to be a straight forward click to cancel

313
00:19:01,960 --> 00:19:04,480
Speaker 1: route for users. But yeah, read the article because it

314
00:19:04,720 --> 00:19:07,800
Speaker 1: kind of explains what the situation is and how the

315
00:19:08,000 --> 00:19:12,199
Speaker 1: specific courts that were chosen could end up having a

316
00:19:12,280 --> 00:19:16,880
Speaker 1: massive impact on this potential rule. And finally, I have

317
00:19:16,960 --> 00:19:20,240
Speaker 1: one other reading recommendation. It's an article by John Walker

318
00:19:20,359 --> 00:19:25,720
Speaker 1: of Kotaku. It is titled Roadblocks's new child safety changes

319
00:19:25,800 --> 00:19:29,560
Speaker 1: reveal how dangerous it's been for years. So it's an

320
00:19:29,560 --> 00:19:33,280
Speaker 1: eye opening piece that applauds these safety changes, but it

321
00:19:33,320 --> 00:19:36,719
Speaker 1: does ask, hey, how is it that this wasn't already

322
00:19:36,800 --> 00:19:40,399
Speaker 1: a thing? So check that out as well. I hope

323
00:19:40,520 --> 00:19:43,560
Speaker 1: all you out there are doing well, and I will

324
00:19:43,560 --> 00:19:52,920
Speaker 1: talk to you again really soon. Tech Stuff is an

325
00:19:52,960 --> 00:19:58,119
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio production. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio

326
00:19:58,200 --> 00:20:01,760
Speaker 1: app Apple Podcasts, where whoever you listen to your favorite shows.

327
00:20:05,920 --> 00:20:05,960
Speaker 1: M