WEBVTT - Departing OpenAI Leaders Warn about AGI

0:00:04.480 --> 0:00:12.360
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. He there,

0:00:12.400 --> 0:00:16.160
<v Speaker 1>and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland.

0:00:16.200 --> 0:00:19.759
<v Speaker 1>I'm an executive producer with iHeart Podcasts and how the

0:00:19.800 --> 0:00:22.599
<v Speaker 1>tech are you. It's time for the tech news though,

0:00:22.600 --> 0:00:25.479
<v Speaker 1>for the week that ends on Friday, October twenty fifth,

0:00:25.520 --> 0:00:28.800
<v Speaker 1>twenty twenty four, and there are quite a few pieces

0:00:28.880 --> 0:00:33.080
<v Speaker 1>this week about open AI. Kylie Robison of The Verge

0:00:33.120 --> 0:00:37.480
<v Speaker 1>has an informative article titled Departing Open AI. Leader says

0:00:37.560 --> 0:00:41.520
<v Speaker 1>no company is ready for AGI, and that's a really

0:00:41.520 --> 0:00:45.280
<v Speaker 1>good start for our open AI discussion. So, first of all,

0:00:45.400 --> 0:00:51.000
<v Speaker 1>AGI stands for artificial general intelligence. So it's an example

0:00:51.000 --> 0:00:54.280
<v Speaker 1>of a term that on the surface sounds like it's

0:00:54.320 --> 0:00:57.600
<v Speaker 1>fairly straightforward, but when you start to get into the weeds,

0:00:57.640 --> 0:01:00.680
<v Speaker 1>you find out it's actually really vague and bor defined.

0:01:00.720 --> 0:01:06.080
<v Speaker 1>So generally AGI references a computer system that's capable of

0:01:06.160 --> 0:01:09.720
<v Speaker 1>processing information in a way that's similar to how we

0:01:09.840 --> 0:01:14.320
<v Speaker 1>humans think. That's the most vague way of defining it. Now.

0:01:14.400 --> 0:01:19.600
<v Speaker 1>AGI does not necessarily mean superhuman intelligence, though that's typically

0:01:19.640 --> 0:01:24.240
<v Speaker 1>where the conversation ends up going. An AGI system could

0:01:24.319 --> 0:01:28.000
<v Speaker 1>theoretically be pretty darn stupid in fact, but still process

0:01:28.080 --> 0:01:32.920
<v Speaker 1>information in a way that mimics how we humans do it. Anyway,

0:01:33.160 --> 0:01:36.440
<v Speaker 1>It's hard to define AGI because it's hard to justifine

0:01:36.480 --> 0:01:39.960
<v Speaker 1>regular old intelligence, like how do you do that before

0:01:40.000 --> 0:01:44.800
<v Speaker 1>you even get into artificial intelligence. But recently OpenAI dissolved

0:01:44.880 --> 0:01:49.640
<v Speaker 1>its AGI readiness team, and that in turn follows a

0:01:49.720 --> 0:01:52.840
<v Speaker 1>decision that the company had made earlier this year to

0:01:53.160 --> 0:01:57.240
<v Speaker 1>nix its super alignment team. And both of these teams

0:01:57.280 --> 0:02:01.600
<v Speaker 1>focused on ways to develop AI recis responsibly and to

0:02:02.360 --> 0:02:07.880
<v Speaker 1>identify and mitigate potential risks relating to AI. Turns out

0:02:08.360 --> 0:02:12.160
<v Speaker 1>that's not necessarily a revenue driver, right. Putting limitations on

0:02:12.200 --> 0:02:15.040
<v Speaker 1>your development process can be a real drag. Sure, I

0:02:15.040 --> 0:02:18.079
<v Speaker 1>mean those limitations might be there in order to prevent

0:02:18.200 --> 0:02:22.000
<v Speaker 1>AI implementations from doing really bad stuff, But come on,

0:02:22.639 --> 0:02:25.520
<v Speaker 1>what are the odds that's going to happen? Oh, we

0:02:25.680 --> 0:02:28.880
<v Speaker 1>don't know the odds. We actually we actually don't know

0:02:29.400 --> 0:02:33.519
<v Speaker 1>how likely it is that AI could mess things up. Well,

0:02:33.560 --> 0:02:35.959
<v Speaker 1>then that's just as good as knowing there's no chance

0:02:36.040 --> 0:02:38.760
<v Speaker 1>that things can go wrong? Am I right? Just a note,

0:02:38.800 --> 0:02:42.760
<v Speaker 1>I am not right anyway, snark aside. This move is

0:02:42.840 --> 0:02:45.960
<v Speaker 1>yet another nail in the coffin of the original mission

0:02:46.120 --> 0:02:49.519
<v Speaker 1>for open ai. Now, you might recall that way back

0:02:49.560 --> 0:02:53.480
<v Speaker 1>when it was first founded, open ai was just a simple, humble,

0:02:53.520 --> 0:02:57.120
<v Speaker 1>little country non profit company with the mission to conduct

0:02:57.200 --> 0:03:00.000
<v Speaker 1>AI research in a way that stood to benefit human

0:03:00.040 --> 0:03:04.600
<v Speaker 1>humanity the most with the least likely potential for bad consequences.

0:03:04.840 --> 0:03:06.440
<v Speaker 1>I don't know why I decided to go to simple

0:03:06.480 --> 0:03:10.000
<v Speaker 1>country lawyer mode for that, but anyway, later on, open

0:03:10.040 --> 0:03:14.720
<v Speaker 1>ai spun off a so called capped for profit company,

0:03:15.240 --> 0:03:18.480
<v Speaker 1>and this company would in turn still be governed by

0:03:18.520 --> 0:03:22.640
<v Speaker 1>the larger nonprofit organization. It's just that the for profit

0:03:22.720 --> 0:03:27.880
<v Speaker 1>company would be operated for profit to help fund the research.

0:03:28.200 --> 0:03:30.800
<v Speaker 1>And it didn't take very long for the for profit

0:03:30.919 --> 0:03:35.520
<v Speaker 1>arm to eclipse the nonprofit side, and the for profit

0:03:35.680 --> 0:03:42.120
<v Speaker 1>side essentially shed itself of the shackles of restrictions and caution. Why. Well,

0:03:42.120 --> 0:03:44.480
<v Speaker 1>the big reason is that AI, as I have said

0:03:44.720 --> 0:03:49.640
<v Speaker 1>many times, is wicked expensive. Open ai churns through money

0:03:49.680 --> 0:03:53.360
<v Speaker 1>at a rate that is hard for me to conceive.

0:03:53.480 --> 0:03:58.240
<v Speaker 1>We're talking billions of dollars per year spent just to

0:03:58.360 --> 0:04:02.600
<v Speaker 1>run operations, and I think they were on track to

0:04:02.680 --> 0:04:06.200
<v Speaker 1>lose like five billion dollars this year before they ended

0:04:06.280 --> 0:04:12.040
<v Speaker 1>up having a massive fundraising round. Nonprofits are just incapable

0:04:12.120 --> 0:04:15.760
<v Speaker 1>of raising enough money fast enough to meet that kind

0:04:15.800 --> 0:04:19.560
<v Speaker 1>of demand, Like, no one's going to pour money into

0:04:19.839 --> 0:04:24.040
<v Speaker 1>a drain like that over and over, you know, perpetually,

0:04:24.200 --> 0:04:27.680
<v Speaker 1>so again and again. Open Ai has chosen the pathways

0:04:27.680 --> 0:04:30.440
<v Speaker 1>that are most likely to lead to heaps of cash

0:04:30.480 --> 0:04:34.320
<v Speaker 1>while downplaying the concerns of people within and outside the

0:04:34.360 --> 0:04:38.760
<v Speaker 1>company about the potential dangerous decisions being made. In Robison's

0:04:38.760 --> 0:04:41.760
<v Speaker 1>Peace in the Verge, she covers how the former senior

0:04:41.839 --> 0:04:47.440
<v Speaker 1>advisor for AGI Readiness, Miles Brundage, warns that no company

0:04:47.560 --> 0:04:53.520
<v Speaker 1>in the world, including open Ai, is prepared for AGI. Further,

0:04:54.040 --> 0:04:57.479
<v Speaker 1>he warned that governments around the world really need access

0:04:57.560 --> 0:05:01.080
<v Speaker 1>to unbiased experts who are in the field of AI

0:05:01.600 --> 0:05:05.720
<v Speaker 1>while they are actually formulating policies and regulations, because as

0:05:05.720 --> 0:05:10.560
<v Speaker 1>it stands, the people who are extremely passionate about guiding

0:05:10.640 --> 0:05:15.080
<v Speaker 1>policy tend to be folks like Sam Altman, the CEO

0:05:15.360 --> 0:05:18.640
<v Speaker 1>of open Ai, and as you might imagine, these people

0:05:18.680 --> 0:05:22.480
<v Speaker 1>are not unbiased. It really creates a conflict of interest, right,

0:05:22.520 --> 0:05:25.760
<v Speaker 1>It seems like a pretty safe bet that Altman's guidance

0:05:25.839 --> 0:05:29.320
<v Speaker 1>to leaders around the world will focus on policies that

0:05:29.400 --> 0:05:33.400
<v Speaker 1>will help or at the very least not hinder open

0:05:33.440 --> 0:05:38.120
<v Speaker 1>Ai while potentially having a larger impact on the company's competition.

0:05:38.680 --> 0:05:42.200
<v Speaker 1>So Brundage is essentially saying like, the fact that open

0:05:42.200 --> 0:05:46.080
<v Speaker 1>ai is making these decisions should cause some concern, and

0:05:46.200 --> 0:05:50.240
<v Speaker 1>leaders around the world need to be savvy when they

0:05:50.360 --> 0:05:54.400
<v Speaker 1>are consulting with various experts and making sure that the

0:05:54.480 --> 0:05:59.240
<v Speaker 1>advice they receive isn't being guided by self interest. Another

0:05:59.360 --> 0:06:03.880
<v Speaker 1>good read is an opinion piece from John Herman of Intelligencer.

0:06:04.320 --> 0:06:06.160
<v Speaker 1>I guess you could argue that it's not really an

0:06:06.200 --> 0:06:08.280
<v Speaker 1>opinion piece, but I feel like Herman injects a lot

0:06:08.320 --> 0:06:11.320
<v Speaker 1>of his own opinions in it, and I am pretty

0:06:11.360 --> 0:06:13.960
<v Speaker 1>much on the same page as Herman. Well, anyway, the

0:06:14.040 --> 0:06:18.159
<v Speaker 1>article is titled Microsoft has an open Ai problem. Now.

0:06:18.240 --> 0:06:21.080
<v Speaker 1>I mentioned in an earlier tech Stuff News episode that

0:06:21.240 --> 0:06:26.040
<v Speaker 1>Microsoft has seemed to have kind of a rethink when

0:06:26.120 --> 0:06:29.680
<v Speaker 1>it comes to its relationship with open AI. In Facebook terms,

0:06:29.960 --> 0:06:32.920
<v Speaker 1>I think we would say that the current relationship status

0:06:33.000 --> 0:06:38.120
<v Speaker 1>would be at it's complicated. So Microsoft has invested billions

0:06:38.160 --> 0:06:42.520
<v Speaker 1>of dollars, like nearly fourteen billion bucks in open Ai

0:06:42.600 --> 0:06:46.119
<v Speaker 1>so far, and Herman points out that the agreements between

0:06:46.200 --> 0:06:50.320
<v Speaker 1>the two companies happened relatively quickly and without a whole

0:06:50.360 --> 0:06:53.839
<v Speaker 1>lot of thought as to how that process of funding

0:06:53.880 --> 0:06:58.080
<v Speaker 1>would actually work, which seems like pretty loosey goosey to me.

0:06:58.480 --> 0:07:02.560
<v Speaker 1>And now Microsoft and o AI's partnership hinges on if

0:07:02.680 --> 0:07:07.800
<v Speaker 1>open ai develops AGI. So essentially the agreement is that

0:07:07.960 --> 0:07:11.600
<v Speaker 1>this partnership between the two companies will dissolve if open

0:07:11.640 --> 0:07:16.680
<v Speaker 1>Ai creates an AGI product of some sort, allegedly because

0:07:16.720 --> 0:07:19.680
<v Speaker 1>open ai has a real, deep concern that a company

0:07:19.720 --> 0:07:25.040
<v Speaker 1>like Microsoft might misuse such a powerful and potentially destructive

0:07:25.120 --> 0:07:29.480
<v Speaker 1>tool as artificial general intelligence. And sure, I think that's possible,

0:07:29.880 --> 0:07:33.920
<v Speaker 1>Like I think if Microsoft had access to AGI, there

0:07:33.960 --> 0:07:36.760
<v Speaker 1>could be some pretty negative consequences. But it's not like

0:07:36.800 --> 0:07:39.840
<v Speaker 1>I have an enormous amount of faith in open Ai either.

0:07:41.240 --> 0:07:43.120
<v Speaker 1>It's not like I look at them and think, oh no,

0:07:43.240 --> 0:07:47.200
<v Speaker 1>I want them to have the keys. I don't want

0:07:47.200 --> 0:07:48.640
<v Speaker 1>anyone to have the keys. I don't want it to

0:07:48.640 --> 0:07:50.800
<v Speaker 1>be a thing. But I guess that's not an option.

0:07:51.200 --> 0:07:54.280
<v Speaker 1>But anyway, when you're talking about a company like open ai,

0:07:54.440 --> 0:07:57.960
<v Speaker 1>which has actively been dismantling the systems. But in place

0:07:58.000 --> 0:08:02.720
<v Speaker 1>to ensure safe development or artificial intelligence, you can't really

0:08:02.760 --> 0:08:06.400
<v Speaker 1>be advocating that they're the ones who should be, you know,

0:08:06.440 --> 0:08:10.680
<v Speaker 1>the stewards of AGI. Herman cites a Times article that

0:08:10.720 --> 0:08:13.440
<v Speaker 1>points out that open AI's board of directors actually has

0:08:13.440 --> 0:08:17.760
<v Speaker 1>the authority to determine what AGI is and when, if ever,

0:08:17.920 --> 0:08:22.200
<v Speaker 1>open Ai achieves it. So, at least hypothetically, even if

0:08:22.200 --> 0:08:26.040
<v Speaker 1>outside parties would disagree with the definition that open AI's

0:08:26.200 --> 0:08:30.240
<v Speaker 1>board comes up with, that wouldn't matter. If open Ai said, oh,

0:08:30.320 --> 0:08:33.640
<v Speaker 1>we did it, we created AGI, and if literally no

0:08:33.720 --> 0:08:36.920
<v Speaker 1>one else in the world said that's definitely AGI, it

0:08:36.960 --> 0:08:39.480
<v Speaker 1>would be enough for open ai to sever its relationship

0:08:39.520 --> 0:08:43.160
<v Speaker 1>with Microsoft. Now, the implication here is that this isn't

0:08:43.280 --> 0:08:46.839
<v Speaker 1>really some sort of protection for open ai to make

0:08:46.880 --> 0:08:49.360
<v Speaker 1>sure that AGI is not unleashed upon a world and

0:08:49.520 --> 0:08:52.840
<v Speaker 1>like the next build of Windows or something. It's really

0:08:52.880 --> 0:08:56.160
<v Speaker 1>more about creating kind of a switch, a kill switch,

0:08:56.200 --> 0:08:59.400
<v Speaker 1>a bargaining tool with Microsoft, so that when it comes

0:08:59.480 --> 0:09:04.040
<v Speaker 1>to renegotiating with Microsoft, open Ai is able to essentially say, hey,

0:09:04.440 --> 0:09:06.520
<v Speaker 1>if you don't give us more money, we'll say we

0:09:06.600 --> 0:09:10.240
<v Speaker 1>made AGI, and then that's it. We walk and you

0:09:10.280 --> 0:09:13.120
<v Speaker 1>can't do anything about it. So that's a possibility. I

0:09:13.160 --> 0:09:16.719
<v Speaker 1>don't know if it's a reality, but it's possible. It's

0:09:16.720 --> 0:09:19.400
<v Speaker 1>almost enough to make one jaded, isn't it. Anyway? The

0:09:19.480 --> 0:09:22.640
<v Speaker 1>article's well worth a read again. It's Microsoft has an

0:09:22.720 --> 0:09:27.840
<v Speaker 1>open AI problem, and it's an intelligencer by John Herman. Okay,

0:09:28.080 --> 0:09:30.160
<v Speaker 1>I got a lot more news to go through, but first,

0:09:30.360 --> 0:09:42.600
<v Speaker 1>let's take a quick break to thank our sponsors. All Right,

0:09:42.679 --> 0:09:45.720
<v Speaker 1>we're back, and David E. Sanger of The New York

0:09:45.760 --> 0:09:50.520
<v Speaker 1>Times has a piece titled Biden Administration outlines government guardrails

0:09:50.520 --> 0:09:52.880
<v Speaker 1>for AI tools, and that brings us back around to

0:09:52.880 --> 0:09:56.679
<v Speaker 1>those government backed policies relating to the development and deployment

0:09:56.679 --> 0:10:00.720
<v Speaker 1>of artificial intelligence. So essentially, these guardrails lay out the

0:10:00.760 --> 0:10:04.280
<v Speaker 1>scenarios in which using AI would be appropriate and allowed,

0:10:04.559 --> 0:10:07.480
<v Speaker 1>and the scenarios in which it really absolutely should not

0:10:07.559 --> 0:10:11.080
<v Speaker 1>be allowed. So, for example, using AI to detect and

0:10:11.200 --> 0:10:16.040
<v Speaker 1>deter cybersecurity threats, that's pretty okay. Using AI to develop

0:10:16.080 --> 0:10:20.080
<v Speaker 1>a new generation of fully autonomous weaponry, that one falls

0:10:20.120 --> 0:10:23.040
<v Speaker 1>into the no no category. So the guardrails put up

0:10:23.040 --> 0:10:26.480
<v Speaker 1>a lot of responsibility on individual departments and agencies to

0:10:26.480 --> 0:10:30.080
<v Speaker 1>conduct their own reviews and determine in which use cases

0:10:30.120 --> 0:10:32.680
<v Speaker 1>AI might be appropriate and in which ones it would

0:10:32.720 --> 0:10:35.080
<v Speaker 1>not be. There's a lot more to the guardrails. There's

0:10:35.120 --> 0:10:39.080
<v Speaker 1>like thirty eight pages of material that's available for the

0:10:39.120 --> 0:10:41.600
<v Speaker 1>public to read. It includes a call to have the

0:10:41.679 --> 0:10:45.000
<v Speaker 1>US attract more AI experts to the United States rather

0:10:45.040 --> 0:10:47.520
<v Speaker 1>than have them work for a rival nation like China

0:10:47.640 --> 0:10:51.840
<v Speaker 1>or Russia. But at least some of the information about

0:10:51.840 --> 0:10:55.280
<v Speaker 1>these guardrails is classified, so I have no idea what

0:10:55.320 --> 0:10:58.040
<v Speaker 1>could be in those Also, as Anger points out, the

0:10:58.120 --> 0:11:01.920
<v Speaker 1>efficacy of these decisions is somewhat unknown since the United

0:11:01.920 --> 0:11:04.560
<v Speaker 1>States is currently in an election year and the next

0:11:04.640 --> 0:11:08.600
<v Speaker 1>president might just make all these guardrails go away, so

0:11:08.679 --> 0:11:10.720
<v Speaker 1>we don't really know if this is going to matter

0:11:10.800 --> 0:11:13.840
<v Speaker 1>at all in the long run. Fun times. The Attorney

0:11:13.920 --> 0:11:16.320
<v Speaker 1>General for the state of Montana has filed a new

0:11:16.400 --> 0:11:19.480
<v Speaker 1>lawsuit against TikTok. It's a new lawsuit, but it's an

0:11:19.480 --> 0:11:23.720
<v Speaker 1>old tune. They're accusing the company of purposefully promoting addictive

0:11:23.720 --> 0:11:28.560
<v Speaker 1>and harmful content to young users through the recommendation algorithm.

0:11:28.679 --> 0:11:32.080
<v Speaker 1>The Attorney General alleges that TikTok essentially has lied about

0:11:32.120 --> 0:11:35.720
<v Speaker 1>the nature of promoted content in violation of the Montana

0:11:35.800 --> 0:11:39.200
<v Speaker 1>Consumer Protection Act. So essentially, the attorney general says that

0:11:39.280 --> 0:11:44.320
<v Speaker 1>TikTok knew that users, including young users, would encounter content

0:11:44.400 --> 0:11:47.120
<v Speaker 1>that's just unsuitable for people who could be as young

0:11:47.120 --> 0:11:51.439
<v Speaker 1>as thirteen years old, but pretended that it has safeguards

0:11:51.440 --> 0:11:55.320
<v Speaker 1>in place to prevent such young users from encountering, you know,

0:11:55.400 --> 0:11:59.880
<v Speaker 1>mature or disturbing content. An unnamed spokesperson for TikTok disputes

0:11:59.880 --> 0:12:04.240
<v Speaker 1>the allegations and says they are quote inaccurate and misleading.

0:12:04.320 --> 0:12:06.720
<v Speaker 1>In the quote, you might recall that previously, the state

0:12:06.760 --> 0:12:10.240
<v Speaker 1>of Montana actually banned TikTok entirely, but then a judge

0:12:10.320 --> 0:12:13.319
<v Speaker 1>later overturned that ban on the grounds that it violated

0:12:13.400 --> 0:12:16.560
<v Speaker 1>the First Amendment, that's the right to free speech. Several

0:12:16.600 --> 0:12:21.880
<v Speaker 1>other states have similarly filed charges against TikTok with similar accusations. Essentially,

0:12:21.880 --> 0:12:25.360
<v Speaker 1>it boils down to TikTok's algorithm promoting inappropriate and sometimes

0:12:25.360 --> 0:12:29.920
<v Speaker 1>outright dangerous content to impressionable young users. Meanwhile, of course,

0:12:29.960 --> 0:12:32.880
<v Speaker 1>TikTok is facing down a well a ticking clock situation

0:12:32.960 --> 0:12:35.360
<v Speaker 1>here in the United States. Currently, the app faces the

0:12:35.400 --> 0:12:38.959
<v Speaker 1>possibility of a nationwide ban unless its Chinese parent company

0:12:39.040 --> 0:12:43.400
<v Speaker 1>Bite Dance, divests itself of TikTok. So it might be

0:12:43.520 --> 0:12:46.440
<v Speaker 1>that by this time next year, lawsuits against TikTok, at

0:12:46.520 --> 0:12:48.800
<v Speaker 1>least here in the United States, will no longer really

0:12:48.840 --> 0:12:52.040
<v Speaker 1>be relevant, or at least not as straightforward. Speaking of

0:12:52.120 --> 0:12:55.320
<v Speaker 1>bans and social media, Norway is increasing the minimum age

0:12:55.400 --> 0:12:58.760
<v Speaker 1>allowed for folks to use social media. So previously the

0:12:58.760 --> 0:13:01.360
<v Speaker 1>minimum age in Norway was thirteen, but now it's going

0:13:01.400 --> 0:13:04.280
<v Speaker 1>to be increased to fifteen years old out of a

0:13:04.320 --> 0:13:08.000
<v Speaker 1>concern that social media can have a harmful impact on

0:13:08.200 --> 0:13:11.680
<v Speaker 1>young users. Of course, making that law is one thing,

0:13:11.800 --> 0:13:15.280
<v Speaker 1>but enforcing it is entirely something else. I mean, as

0:13:15.320 --> 0:13:19.360
<v Speaker 1>Miranda Bryant of The Guardian reports, the Norwegian Media Authority

0:13:19.480 --> 0:13:21.880
<v Speaker 1>found that more than half of nine year olds in

0:13:21.960 --> 0:13:25.320
<v Speaker 1>Norway are already on social media, and as you go

0:13:25.520 --> 0:13:29.200
<v Speaker 1>up and age the percentage increases, so already there are

0:13:29.360 --> 0:13:33.400
<v Speaker 1>tons of kids in Norway who are actually using social

0:13:33.480 --> 0:13:37.480
<v Speaker 1>media when they're underage, like they're below the age of thirteen,

0:13:37.800 --> 0:13:40.120
<v Speaker 1>even though the law says they ain't supposed to. So

0:13:40.200 --> 0:13:42.200
<v Speaker 1>apparently part of the plan is to change the way

0:13:42.240 --> 0:13:46.200
<v Speaker 1>that social media companies verify the age of users in Norway,

0:13:46.480 --> 0:13:49.360
<v Speaker 1>so that it's not a trivial task. Just fib about

0:13:49.360 --> 0:13:52.320
<v Speaker 1>one's own age admidly, that's a pretty low bar. I mean,

0:13:52.400 --> 0:13:54.079
<v Speaker 1>if I were a kid, then I was trying to

0:13:54.120 --> 0:13:57.080
<v Speaker 1>make an account on a social media platform and the

0:13:57.200 --> 0:14:00.920
<v Speaker 1>age verification was just asking me, Hey, when when's your birthday?

0:14:01.240 --> 0:14:04.640
<v Speaker 1>I could probably do some pretty quick math and fudge

0:14:04.679 --> 0:14:07.280
<v Speaker 1>that date enough so that it would let me in. Anyway,

0:14:07.360 --> 0:14:09.480
<v Speaker 1>while I have my doubts about how effective this new

0:14:09.520 --> 0:14:12.320
<v Speaker 1>policy is going to be, I absolutely do feel empathy

0:14:12.360 --> 0:14:15.440
<v Speaker 1>for those who want to shield kids from the ravages

0:14:15.559 --> 0:14:19.040
<v Speaker 1>of the algorithm, because there are days when the various

0:14:19.040 --> 0:14:22.600
<v Speaker 1>recommendation algorithms that I encounter make me want to go

0:14:22.640 --> 0:14:26.720
<v Speaker 1>and hide in the woods, possibly in Norway. Alison Morrow

0:14:26.760 --> 0:14:29.480
<v Speaker 1>of CNN has a piece titled almost anything goes on

0:14:29.520 --> 0:14:32.920
<v Speaker 1>social media as long as it doesn't make billionaires feel

0:14:32.960 --> 0:14:36.600
<v Speaker 1>even a little bit unsafe, And yeah, billionaires live by

0:14:36.680 --> 0:14:40.240
<v Speaker 1>different rules than everybody else. In fact, they often are

0:14:40.280 --> 0:14:44.040
<v Speaker 1>the ones who decide what the rules are. So while

0:14:44.080 --> 0:14:48.120
<v Speaker 1>people like Elon Musk are extremely vocal about the importance

0:14:48.160 --> 0:14:51.440
<v Speaker 1>and sanctity of free speech, they're also quick to say no,

0:14:51.560 --> 0:14:54.480
<v Speaker 1>not like that if the free speech includes stuff that

0:14:54.920 --> 0:14:59.280
<v Speaker 1>is potentially harmful to them. So the case Morrow is

0:14:59.280 --> 0:15:02.760
<v Speaker 1>focusing on that of Jack Sweeney. He's a college student

0:15:02.800 --> 0:15:06.960
<v Speaker 1>who has created numerous social media profiles on different platforms

0:15:07.200 --> 0:15:12.560
<v Speaker 1>that are dedicated to tracking specific billionaire private jet routes, which,

0:15:12.600 --> 0:15:16.440
<v Speaker 1>by the way, is publicly available data. Sweeney is not

0:15:16.800 --> 0:15:19.920
<v Speaker 1>hacking into the mainframe or anything like that. All he's

0:15:19.920 --> 0:15:23.360
<v Speaker 1>doing is just scraping data from public sources and posting

0:15:23.360 --> 0:15:27.760
<v Speaker 1>it to social Anyone could do this, but various platforms

0:15:27.800 --> 0:15:32.640
<v Speaker 1>have removed Sweeney's accounts, often without giving him any forewarning

0:15:32.880 --> 0:15:36.160
<v Speaker 1>or explanation, and when asked, they usually give a pretty

0:15:36.200 --> 0:15:40.160
<v Speaker 1>hand wavy explanation that the information poses a risk to

0:15:40.320 --> 0:15:43.080
<v Speaker 1>certain individuals. But I mean, if you happen to know

0:15:43.160 --> 0:15:45.880
<v Speaker 1>that Elon Musk flew into your town, you might track

0:15:45.960 --> 0:15:48.000
<v Speaker 1>him down an assault him or something, or maybe you know,

0:15:48.160 --> 0:15:50.760
<v Speaker 1>just yell at him because your cyber truck don't go no,

0:15:50.880 --> 0:15:53.560
<v Speaker 1>mo I guess that's the fear, Like, how do you

0:15:53.760 --> 0:15:56.200
<v Speaker 1>know where the person specifically is? Who just know where

0:15:56.200 --> 0:15:59.800
<v Speaker 1>they're jet landed? Anyway, Marrow points out that the various

0:16:00.240 --> 0:16:03.200
<v Speaker 1>platforms seem to have very little problem with hosting stuff

0:16:03.200 --> 0:16:05.680
<v Speaker 1>that could be extremely harmful to the rest of us,

0:16:05.920 --> 0:16:10.080
<v Speaker 1>whether that's misinformation or hate speech or whatever. That stuff, well,

0:16:10.120 --> 0:16:12.920
<v Speaker 1>that stuff's not likely to touch the billionaires, so there's

0:16:12.920 --> 0:16:15.160
<v Speaker 1>no reason to worry about it. Let that stay up

0:16:15.200 --> 0:16:18.800
<v Speaker 1>on those profiles. We all just have to fend for ourselves.

0:16:18.840 --> 0:16:23.040
<v Speaker 1>But publicly available information about billionaires, now you're talking about

0:16:23.120 --> 0:16:26.560
<v Speaker 1>dangerous information. Anyway, read the article. You already can tell

0:16:26.560 --> 0:16:29.440
<v Speaker 1>what my opinion is about all this. I'll just Quotemorrow

0:16:29.520 --> 0:16:33.240
<v Speaker 1>directly for this little bit, because you know we're aligned

0:16:33.280 --> 0:16:36.680
<v Speaker 1>on this quote. It's just not clear that Meta cares

0:16:36.680 --> 0:16:39.280
<v Speaker 1>as much about its users' privacy and well being as

0:16:39.280 --> 0:16:45.160
<v Speaker 1>it does about Zuckerberg's end quote Preachmorrow. The US Federal

0:16:45.200 --> 0:16:48.040
<v Speaker 1>Trade Commission created new rules this past summer that gives

0:16:48.080 --> 0:16:51.000
<v Speaker 1>the agency the power to find people who post, buy,

0:16:51.200 --> 0:16:54.160
<v Speaker 1>or sell fake reviews online. I'm sure you're aware that

0:16:54.200 --> 0:16:57.160
<v Speaker 1>fake reviews are a real problem. Once upon a time,

0:16:57.200 --> 0:16:59.280
<v Speaker 1>I think the average person could go to an online

0:16:59.320 --> 0:17:03.320
<v Speaker 1>marketplace like Amazon and lean on user reviews when making

0:17:03.400 --> 0:17:06.320
<v Speaker 1>purchasing decisions. But over time, companies have found ways to

0:17:06.440 --> 0:17:10.520
<v Speaker 1>incentivize folks to write good reviews. Sometimes it's fairly innocent.

0:17:10.680 --> 0:17:12.959
<v Speaker 1>You know, you might have a little card in the

0:17:13.000 --> 0:17:15.280
<v Speaker 1>box that your product came in saying something like, hey,

0:17:15.320 --> 0:17:18.359
<v Speaker 1>if you like this, please consider writing a review. That

0:17:18.440 --> 0:17:22.360
<v Speaker 1>seems pretty innocuous, but it can quickly get more murky,

0:17:22.560 --> 0:17:24.359
<v Speaker 1>like you might get one that says, hey, hey, if

0:17:24.400 --> 0:17:26.720
<v Speaker 1>you write a five star review, we'll give you a

0:17:26.760 --> 0:17:29.960
<v Speaker 1>coupon for some other product or service. And sometimes it

0:17:30.080 --> 0:17:34.840
<v Speaker 1>just gets downright overtly wrong, like write a positive review

0:17:34.920 --> 0:17:37.800
<v Speaker 1>for this thing that you might not even use or own,

0:17:38.200 --> 0:17:41.159
<v Speaker 1>and we will pay you money. Well, the new rules

0:17:41.160 --> 0:17:43.840
<v Speaker 1>that the FTC passed are now in effect, and essentially,

0:17:43.960 --> 0:17:46.680
<v Speaker 1>if you are caught trading in fake reviews, you could

0:17:46.720 --> 0:17:49.480
<v Speaker 1>face a fine of up to fifty one, seven hundred

0:17:49.480 --> 0:17:53.240
<v Speaker 1>and forty four bucks, and that includes AI generated reviews.

0:17:53.280 --> 0:17:55.680
<v Speaker 1>If they find that you've been doing that, you could

0:17:55.680 --> 0:17:59.480
<v Speaker 1>be paying some pretty hefty cash. Now, on top of that,

0:17:59.520 --> 0:18:03.160
<v Speaker 1>companies are not allowed to suppress negative reviews. They're also

0:18:03.240 --> 0:18:07.320
<v Speaker 1>not allowed to promote positive reviews that they suspect are fake. Now,

0:18:07.480 --> 0:18:10.560
<v Speaker 1>how the FTC plans to go about proving that a

0:18:10.600 --> 0:18:13.280
<v Speaker 1>company was aware that a review was fake, I'm sure

0:18:13.280 --> 0:18:15.840
<v Speaker 1>that'll be challenging. On a case by case basis. But

0:18:15.960 --> 0:18:18.320
<v Speaker 1>the rule is a hefty piece of writing. It is

0:18:18.320 --> 0:18:21.119
<v Speaker 1>one hundred and sixty three pages long, and no, I

0:18:21.320 --> 0:18:24.000
<v Speaker 1>have not read the whole thing, so I'm not prepared

0:18:24.040 --> 0:18:26.159
<v Speaker 1>to give my full opinion as to whether or not

0:18:26.240 --> 0:18:28.679
<v Speaker 1>this is a good idea or a bad idea, or

0:18:28.720 --> 0:18:32.080
<v Speaker 1>a good response or an ineffective response. I need to

0:18:32.119 --> 0:18:33.840
<v Speaker 1>be able to read the whole thing before I come

0:18:33.920 --> 0:18:35.399
<v Speaker 1>up with that. So it looks like I've got my

0:18:35.480 --> 0:18:39.840
<v Speaker 1>reading material for my upcoming flights. Yay, okay. I got

0:18:39.880 --> 0:18:41.960
<v Speaker 1>a couple of articles I want to recommend for your

0:18:42.040 --> 0:18:46.439
<v Speaker 1>reading pleasure. One is a John Broadcin article on Ours

0:18:46.520 --> 0:18:50.920
<v Speaker 1>Technica and it's titled Cable companies ask Fifth Circuit to

0:18:51.000 --> 0:18:54.359
<v Speaker 1>block FTC's click to cancel rule. I think that's the

0:18:54.440 --> 0:18:58.719
<v Speaker 1>least surprising headline I've ever read. Obviously, cable companies don't

0:18:58.760 --> 0:19:01.520
<v Speaker 1>want there to be a straight forward click to cancel

0:19:01.960 --> 0:19:04.480
<v Speaker 1>route for users. But yeah, read the article because it

0:19:04.720 --> 0:19:07.800
<v Speaker 1>kind of explains what the situation is and how the

0:19:08.000 --> 0:19:12.199
<v Speaker 1>specific courts that were chosen could end up having a

0:19:12.280 --> 0:19:16.880
<v Speaker 1>massive impact on this potential rule. And finally, I have

0:19:16.960 --> 0:19:20.240
<v Speaker 1>one other reading recommendation. It's an article by John Walker

0:19:20.359 --> 0:19:25.720
<v Speaker 1>of Kotaku. It is titled Roadblocks's new child safety changes

0:19:25.800 --> 0:19:29.560
<v Speaker 1>reveal how dangerous it's been for years. So it's an

0:19:29.560 --> 0:19:33.280
<v Speaker 1>eye opening piece that applauds these safety changes, but it

0:19:33.320 --> 0:19:36.719
<v Speaker 1>does ask, hey, how is it that this wasn't already

0:19:36.800 --> 0:19:40.399
<v Speaker 1>a thing? So check that out as well. I hope

0:19:40.520 --> 0:19:43.560
<v Speaker 1>all you out there are doing well, and I will

0:19:43.560 --> 0:19:52.920
<v Speaker 1>talk to you again really soon. Tech Stuff is an

0:19:52.960 --> 0:19:58.119
<v Speaker 1>iHeartRadio production. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio

0:19:58.200 --> 0:20:01.760
<v Speaker 1>app Apple Podcasts, where whoever you listen to your favorite shows.

0:20:05.920 --> 0:20:05.960
<v Speaker 1>M