1 00:00:04,400 --> 00:00:07,800 Speaker 1: Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from I Heart Radio. 2 00:00:12,119 --> 00:00:14,560 Speaker 1: Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host, 3 00:00:14,680 --> 00:00:17,640 Speaker 1: Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer with I Heart Radio. 4 00:00:18,000 --> 00:00:20,680 Speaker 1: And how the tag are you. It's time for the 5 00:00:20,720 --> 00:00:25,759 Speaker 1: tech news for Tuesday, March twenty ninth, two thousand, twenty two, 6 00:00:26,440 --> 00:00:30,680 Speaker 1: and let's start with a doozy. Yesterday, Wired published an 7 00:00:30,760 --> 00:00:35,720 Speaker 1: article by Will Night titled the Supply Chain Crisis is 8 00:00:35,760 --> 00:00:38,640 Speaker 1: about to get a lot worse. And it's a well 9 00:00:38,680 --> 00:00:41,840 Speaker 1: researched and well written article, and I recommend that y'all 10 00:00:41,880 --> 00:00:45,040 Speaker 1: all check it out because I'm just going to touch 11 00:00:45,080 --> 00:00:49,760 Speaker 1: on part of what the article focused on, Namely, we 12 00:00:49,840 --> 00:00:52,960 Speaker 1: continue to see massive disruptions in the supply chain due 13 00:00:53,000 --> 00:00:56,200 Speaker 1: to a bunch of different things all happening at the 14 00:00:56,240 --> 00:00:59,480 Speaker 1: same time. Now, one is obviously the ongoing COVID Night 15 00:00:59,520 --> 00:01:04,600 Speaker 1: Team Pen Dimmick and China's official policy regarding outbreaks. So, 16 00:01:04,720 --> 00:01:07,679 Speaker 1: in an attempt to mitigate the spread of COVID in China, 17 00:01:07,880 --> 00:01:11,560 Speaker 1: the government has a policy to essentially shut down regions 18 00:01:11,600 --> 00:01:15,840 Speaker 1: where outbreaks are detected. And because we've seen more virulent 19 00:01:15,959 --> 00:01:19,280 Speaker 1: strains of COVID emerge over time, this has meant that 20 00:01:19,360 --> 00:01:23,320 Speaker 1: various parts of China have had to lock down repeatedly. Now, 21 00:01:23,360 --> 00:01:28,520 Speaker 1: obviously that disrupts everything from manufacturing to shipping, and parts 22 00:01:28,520 --> 00:01:31,640 Speaker 1: of China have adjusted this policy a little bit. They've 23 00:01:31,720 --> 00:01:36,920 Speaker 1: they've more localized lockdowns, so that reduces the broader impacts. 24 00:01:37,000 --> 00:01:39,560 Speaker 1: Instead of shutting down an entire region, they might shut 25 00:01:39,600 --> 00:01:44,000 Speaker 1: down a smaller area within that region. But obviously this 26 00:01:44,040 --> 00:01:47,760 Speaker 1: is still an issue. And another factor is the ongoing 27 00:01:47,800 --> 00:01:51,240 Speaker 1: war in Ukraine. Russia's actions have led to much of 28 00:01:51,240 --> 00:01:55,000 Speaker 1: the world imposing sanctions on the country, and that includes 29 00:01:55,160 --> 00:01:58,280 Speaker 1: shipping goods through Russia. So routes that would have gone 30 00:01:58,320 --> 00:02:02,320 Speaker 1: over land through Russia UH now have to take alternate pathways. 31 00:02:02,880 --> 00:02:06,360 Speaker 1: And meanwhile, the shipping centers around the world are dealing 32 00:02:06,400 --> 00:02:09,960 Speaker 1: with congestion. Supply chains are kind of like when you 33 00:02:10,080 --> 00:02:12,480 Speaker 1: drive on the highway and you know, you just sometimes 34 00:02:12,480 --> 00:02:15,960 Speaker 1: for no apparent reason, hit bumper to bumper traffic and 35 00:02:16,000 --> 00:02:18,960 Speaker 1: you're just crawling along and then eventually the traffic just 36 00:02:19,080 --> 00:02:21,920 Speaker 1: kinds of opens up and you can't even see what 37 00:02:22,080 --> 00:02:25,360 Speaker 1: caused the slowdown in the first place. Well, you know, 38 00:02:26,480 --> 00:02:28,480 Speaker 1: that's the same sort of thing that can happen in 39 00:02:28,520 --> 00:02:31,960 Speaker 1: supply chains, although it can happen at much worse degrees 40 00:02:32,000 --> 00:02:36,280 Speaker 1: because supply chains are so complicated and so dependent upon 41 00:02:36,440 --> 00:02:39,440 Speaker 1: all the different links in that chain, so when something 42 00:02:39,480 --> 00:02:45,240 Speaker 1: goes wrong, you get as you would suspect a chain reaction. Anyway, 43 00:02:45,320 --> 00:02:47,960 Speaker 1: the article and Wired warns that the war in Ukraine 44 00:02:48,000 --> 00:02:50,800 Speaker 1: is likely to contribute to really tough supply chain issues 45 00:02:51,120 --> 00:02:53,600 Speaker 1: that we might not even see for a few more weeks, 46 00:02:53,919 --> 00:02:57,120 Speaker 1: and that this will likely have further consequences, ranging from 47 00:02:57,360 --> 00:03:01,680 Speaker 1: shortages and certain types of goods to price hikes and 48 00:03:01,680 --> 00:03:04,320 Speaker 1: and this actually goes well beyond just the realm of 49 00:03:04,360 --> 00:03:08,119 Speaker 1: technology and into other industries like food supplies. UH For example, 50 00:03:08,520 --> 00:03:11,240 Speaker 1: the article mentions that we might see the price of 51 00:03:11,240 --> 00:03:16,280 Speaker 1: tomatoes escalate because a lot of tomato farmers might switch 52 00:03:16,320 --> 00:03:21,040 Speaker 1: over to grain because grain requires less fertilizer, and fertilizer 53 00:03:21,120 --> 00:03:24,320 Speaker 1: a lot of it comes from Russia. So you start 54 00:03:24,400 --> 00:03:27,359 Speaker 1: to see how these little links of the chain can 55 00:03:27,400 --> 00:03:31,960 Speaker 1: have massive consequences. Further down the line, speaking of complications 56 00:03:31,960 --> 00:03:35,560 Speaker 1: of supply chains, Testla's giga factory in Shanghai had to 57 00:03:35,560 --> 00:03:38,960 Speaker 1: shut down temporarily in response to one of those COVID 58 00:03:39,000 --> 00:03:42,480 Speaker 1: lockdowns that I just mentioned. So according to Reuters, the 59 00:03:42,560 --> 00:03:45,880 Speaker 1: facility will only be down for four days, so it 60 00:03:45,960 --> 00:03:48,960 Speaker 1: could be a lot worse. But obviously any downtime in 61 00:03:49,000 --> 00:03:53,680 Speaker 1: a manufacturing facility is going to impact business. Now how 62 00:03:53,760 --> 00:03:57,480 Speaker 1: much of an impact. Well, in one, that Shanghai factory 63 00:03:57,560 --> 00:04:02,800 Speaker 1: produced about half of all of Tesla's vehicles worldwide, So 64 00:04:03,080 --> 00:04:06,320 Speaker 1: when fifty of your output is coming from one facility 65 00:04:06,320 --> 00:04:09,160 Speaker 1: and that facility gets shut down, that's a potentially pretty 66 00:04:09,200 --> 00:04:13,760 Speaker 1: big impact. Uh. Anyway that it seems like Tesla's launch 67 00:04:13,800 --> 00:04:16,920 Speaker 1: of its Berlin Giga factory, which happened earlier this month, 68 00:04:17,600 --> 00:04:20,919 Speaker 1: was happening just in time. Now I should also add, 69 00:04:21,320 --> 00:04:25,200 Speaker 1: it's not like Berlin could immediately step in and take 70 00:04:25,240 --> 00:04:28,600 Speaker 1: over the slack from China. Uh, that's not how this 71 00:04:28,600 --> 00:04:31,279 Speaker 1: would work. I mean, obviously you're talking about totally different 72 00:04:31,279 --> 00:04:33,320 Speaker 1: part of the world, you're talking about totally different shipping, 73 00:04:33,600 --> 00:04:37,039 Speaker 1: you're talking about different markets. And also the Berlin facility 74 00:04:37,080 --> 00:04:39,599 Speaker 1: reportedly is not going to be scaling up to full 75 00:04:39,600 --> 00:04:42,159 Speaker 1: production for several months. It might not be till the 76 00:04:42,240 --> 00:04:45,120 Speaker 1: end of this year before we start seeing it approach 77 00:04:45,520 --> 00:04:49,240 Speaker 1: the full production capabilities. Now, if you've been listening to 78 00:04:49,279 --> 00:04:51,760 Speaker 1: my tech news episodes. You know that Apple has been 79 00:04:51,839 --> 00:04:55,599 Speaker 1: hit with repeated fines from Dutch regulators to the tune 80 00:04:55,600 --> 00:04:58,600 Speaker 1: of five million euros per week, and that was going 81 00:04:58,640 --> 00:05:01,400 Speaker 1: to be to a maximum of fifty million euros over 82 00:05:01,400 --> 00:05:05,160 Speaker 1: the course of ten weeks. Well, we just hit week 83 00:05:05,240 --> 00:05:10,200 Speaker 1: ten and Apple still has not complied with regulator demands, 84 00:05:10,240 --> 00:05:12,800 Speaker 1: at least not to their satisfaction. Now, at the heart 85 00:05:12,839 --> 00:05:16,520 Speaker 1: of this issue is how Apple requires app developers to 86 00:05:16,640 --> 00:05:19,960 Speaker 1: use Apple's in house payment system for in app purchases 87 00:05:20,000 --> 00:05:24,279 Speaker 1: on iOS apps. And we're specifically talking about dating apps 88 00:05:24,360 --> 00:05:27,200 Speaker 1: in this particular case. It's true across the board, but 89 00:05:27,680 --> 00:05:31,520 Speaker 1: the regulators are really concerned with dating applications. So Dutch 90 00:05:31,600 --> 00:05:35,240 Speaker 1: regulators determined that Apple's practice is anti competitive and they 91 00:05:35,279 --> 00:05:38,320 Speaker 1: demanded that the company allow app developers to use alternative 92 00:05:38,400 --> 00:05:42,520 Speaker 1: payment processing methods in their apps. Apple's failure to do 93 00:05:42,600 --> 00:05:46,000 Speaker 1: that is what resulted in fines. Now, Apple did propose 94 00:05:46,040 --> 00:05:49,280 Speaker 1: a solution, but it did not satisfy the regulators, and 95 00:05:49,320 --> 00:05:53,560 Speaker 1: for good reason. Apple's solution was to allow developers to 96 00:05:53,640 --> 00:05:56,400 Speaker 1: use a different payment system, but Apple would still get 97 00:05:56,400 --> 00:06:00,800 Speaker 1: a twenty seven percent cut of every transaction. Now, as 98 00:06:00,800 --> 00:06:05,240 Speaker 1: it stands, Apple takes out of in app transactions, at 99 00:06:05,320 --> 00:06:09,200 Speaker 1: least from developers of a certain size. Considering the fact 100 00:06:09,279 --> 00:06:12,760 Speaker 1: that any payment processing company will also take a cut, 101 00:06:13,279 --> 00:06:15,200 Speaker 1: that means that if you were to go outside of 102 00:06:15,240 --> 00:06:18,839 Speaker 1: Apple and use someone else to process your payments, you 103 00:06:18,880 --> 00:06:22,240 Speaker 1: would probably be surrendering more than thirty percent of each 104 00:06:22,279 --> 00:06:26,480 Speaker 1: transaction in total once you added up both the contributions 105 00:06:26,480 --> 00:06:29,960 Speaker 1: to Apple and to your preferred payment service. So it 106 00:06:29,960 --> 00:06:33,039 Speaker 1: would be more expensive to go outside of Apple because 107 00:06:33,120 --> 00:06:37,159 Speaker 1: Apple is demanding this cut on top of everything. Now, 108 00:06:37,200 --> 00:06:40,360 Speaker 1: the regulators called bull crap on apple solution, saying it 109 00:06:40,400 --> 00:06:43,919 Speaker 1: was transparently anti competitive. I think it's pretty hard to 110 00:06:44,000 --> 00:06:46,880 Speaker 1: argue against that. And now that the regulators have gone 111 00:06:46,880 --> 00:06:50,480 Speaker 1: through the full ten weeks and fifty million euros of fines, 112 00:06:50,880 --> 00:06:54,400 Speaker 1: they say they are reviewing Apple's most recent proposed changes 113 00:06:54,480 --> 00:06:56,920 Speaker 1: to see if those are in fact compliant with the 114 00:06:56,920 --> 00:07:00,600 Speaker 1: original order. If they are not, the reg lators say 115 00:07:00,680 --> 00:07:05,880 Speaker 1: they could impose quote possibly higher penalties end quote on Apple. Now, 116 00:07:05,920 --> 00:07:08,840 Speaker 1: I've seen several analysts suggest that Apple is actually just 117 00:07:08,880 --> 00:07:11,880 Speaker 1: seeking to push this matter into a court in an 118 00:07:11,880 --> 00:07:15,120 Speaker 1: effort to get a judgment that will release the company 119 00:07:15,160 --> 00:07:17,400 Speaker 1: from these requirements. In the first place, you know, kind 120 00:07:17,440 --> 00:07:20,400 Speaker 1: of hopeful that they might successfully argue in a court 121 00:07:20,440 --> 00:07:24,080 Speaker 1: of law that their practice is not anti competitive and 122 00:07:24,120 --> 00:07:26,520 Speaker 1: that then they wouldn't have to worry about complying or 123 00:07:26,560 --> 00:07:30,040 Speaker 1: paying fines at all. But obviously we've heard nothing from 124 00:07:30,160 --> 00:07:35,240 Speaker 1: Apple itself confirming this suspicion. One Apple related rumor that 125 00:07:35,280 --> 00:07:38,200 Speaker 1: the company is UH is having right now is that 126 00:07:38,240 --> 00:07:43,280 Speaker 1: it's cutting back on producing new iPhone SE units. UH. 127 00:07:43,320 --> 00:07:47,400 Speaker 1: The new iPhone SE became available on March eighteen, So 128 00:07:47,640 --> 00:07:50,000 Speaker 1: you might wonder, well, why would the company cut production 129 00:07:50,040 --> 00:07:51,760 Speaker 1: on a product that has been out for less than 130 00:07:51,800 --> 00:07:55,800 Speaker 1: a fortnight. Well, it appears that there is a double 131 00:07:55,800 --> 00:07:59,640 Speaker 1: whammy at play here, that there is lower than expected 132 00:07:59,680 --> 00:08:03,440 Speaker 1: demand end for this particular phone, and on top of that, 133 00:08:04,160 --> 00:08:07,400 Speaker 1: there are those massive supply chain and certainties that we've 134 00:08:07,440 --> 00:08:10,320 Speaker 1: been talking about in this episode. So this could be 135 00:08:10,360 --> 00:08:14,600 Speaker 1: Apple cutting losses before they are too keenly felt. Now 136 00:08:14,720 --> 00:08:16,520 Speaker 1: I need to add that this all comes from a 137 00:08:16,560 --> 00:08:21,600 Speaker 1: media outlet called mackay Asia, and that outlet is citing 138 00:08:21,760 --> 00:08:25,400 Speaker 1: unidentified sources, so they're not naming their sources, which is 139 00:08:25,440 --> 00:08:27,800 Speaker 1: not unusual, but it also is something that we have 140 00:08:27,840 --> 00:08:30,480 Speaker 1: to keep in mind that when you have unnamed sources, 141 00:08:31,400 --> 00:08:35,079 Speaker 1: you have to consider the possibility that the information is 142 00:08:35,120 --> 00:08:38,920 Speaker 1: not reliable. In fact, a couple of air Pods suppliers, 143 00:08:38,920 --> 00:08:42,720 Speaker 1: so not Apple itself, but companies that work with Apple. 144 00:08:43,080 --> 00:08:45,959 Speaker 1: They reached out to mac rumors dot com, which is 145 00:08:45,960 --> 00:08:49,560 Speaker 1: where I encountered this story, and they refuted the claims 146 00:08:49,600 --> 00:08:52,920 Speaker 1: that were made in Ncay Asia. So it's possible that 147 00:08:53,080 --> 00:08:56,080 Speaker 1: this is not a real story. But according to those 148 00:08:56,280 --> 00:09:00,760 Speaker 1: Nicay Asia reports, Apple has told manufacturer is to cut 149 00:09:00,880 --> 00:09:04,000 Speaker 1: way back on units, reducing them by as much as 150 00:09:04,320 --> 00:09:09,080 Speaker 1: three million fewer phones per month. Now, originally Apple projected 151 00:09:09,120 --> 00:09:11,680 Speaker 1: it would ship between twenty five to thirty million of 152 00:09:11,720 --> 00:09:15,280 Speaker 1: these phones worldwide this year, but according to the report, 153 00:09:15,320 --> 00:09:17,520 Speaker 1: it now estimates it will be closer to fifteen to 154 00:09:17,640 --> 00:09:22,079 Speaker 1: twenty million units, so see a significant drop. Now. Obviously, 155 00:09:22,760 --> 00:09:25,320 Speaker 1: the story is uncertain and we'll have to follow up 156 00:09:25,400 --> 00:09:27,280 Speaker 1: later to see how it pans out, whether or not 157 00:09:27,320 --> 00:09:30,520 Speaker 1: in the ca Asia was accurate in its reporting or 158 00:09:30,559 --> 00:09:33,640 Speaker 1: if this was fabricated. But if it is real, it 159 00:09:33,679 --> 00:09:36,400 Speaker 1: could be another indicator of how the global supply chain 160 00:09:36,480 --> 00:09:42,600 Speaker 1: crisis is impacting the the industry of consumer technology and 161 00:09:42,640 --> 00:09:46,959 Speaker 1: obviously We're seeing that impact in lots of different things today, 162 00:09:47,040 --> 00:09:50,319 Speaker 1: like everything that involves the semiconductor is pretty much affected 163 00:09:50,360 --> 00:09:53,360 Speaker 1: by it and will potentially continue to be so for 164 00:09:54,760 --> 00:09:57,439 Speaker 1: maybe more than a year. I don't I mean, I 165 00:09:57,480 --> 00:09:59,720 Speaker 1: don't have any insight into that, but just the way 166 00:09:59,760 --> 00:10:02,959 Speaker 1: things start going right now, it is certainly complicated matters. 167 00:10:03,440 --> 00:10:05,720 Speaker 1: We have some more news stories to go over before 168 00:10:05,760 --> 00:10:15,959 Speaker 1: we get to that. Let's take a quick break. We're 169 00:10:16,040 --> 00:10:20,360 Speaker 1: back and Sony has overhauled its PlayStation Plus and PlayStation 170 00:10:20,400 --> 00:10:23,920 Speaker 1: Now subscription services for a launch in the near future 171 00:10:24,000 --> 00:10:27,000 Speaker 1: in June of this year, and that launch will combine 172 00:10:27,040 --> 00:10:31,240 Speaker 1: those services into a new set of PlayStation Plus offerings. So, 173 00:10:31,480 --> 00:10:35,920 Speaker 1: in case you were not familiar with these features, PlayStation 174 00:10:36,000 --> 00:10:39,760 Speaker 1: Now has been a subscription service that let's subscribers access 175 00:10:39,840 --> 00:10:43,280 Speaker 1: games for the PS four, PS three, and PS two 176 00:10:43,320 --> 00:10:47,040 Speaker 1: platforms over the cloud. Uh Here in the United States, 177 00:10:47,040 --> 00:10:49,920 Speaker 1: the service was priced at nine dollars nine cents per 178 00:10:49,960 --> 00:10:52,880 Speaker 1: month or twenty four ninety nine for three months or 179 00:10:54,240 --> 00:10:58,240 Speaker 1: for a full year. PlayStation Plus was a different service 180 00:10:58,280 --> 00:11:02,080 Speaker 1: and is a different service, and it allows subscribers to 181 00:11:02,160 --> 00:11:06,640 Speaker 1: access premium options such as the ability to play multiplayer 182 00:11:06,720 --> 00:11:11,440 Speaker 1: games online. So without PlayStation Plus, you can't play any 183 00:11:11,520 --> 00:11:15,000 Speaker 1: multiplayer games online. You can only play local games on 184 00:11:15,040 --> 00:11:18,079 Speaker 1: your machine. That way, uh you also get a chance 185 00:11:18,120 --> 00:11:22,079 Speaker 1: to download free games. Each month, Sony chooses a couple 186 00:11:22,120 --> 00:11:24,880 Speaker 1: of titles and offers them up for free for PlayStation 187 00:11:24,920 --> 00:11:29,200 Speaker 1: Plus users, and starting in June, both of these suites 188 00:11:29,240 --> 00:11:32,680 Speaker 1: of services PlayStation now in PlayStation Plus will combine into 189 00:11:32,760 --> 00:11:37,439 Speaker 1: Vultron or PlayStation Plus that's the name they decided to 190 00:11:37,480 --> 00:11:40,040 Speaker 1: stick with. So at the base level, there are three 191 00:11:40,080 --> 00:11:41,920 Speaker 1: tiers to this and then the lowest tier is the 192 00:11:41,960 --> 00:11:46,440 Speaker 1: PlayStation Plus Essential which will be nine per month, and 193 00:11:46,480 --> 00:11:49,280 Speaker 1: it's pretty much the exact same thing that PlayStation Plus 194 00:11:49,400 --> 00:11:52,240 Speaker 1: is right now, so that means it will give users 195 00:11:52,920 --> 00:11:56,240 Speaker 1: access to online multiplayer games and they'll be able to 196 00:11:56,320 --> 00:11:59,400 Speaker 1: download the free games that are offered by Sony each month. 197 00:11:59,840 --> 00:12:03,480 Speaker 1: The next tier up is PlayStation Plus Extra that will 198 00:12:03,559 --> 00:12:07,200 Speaker 1: be fourteen per month and will include up to four 199 00:12:07,280 --> 00:12:11,959 Speaker 1: hundred PS five and PS four games that subscribers can download, 200 00:12:12,240 --> 00:12:14,920 Speaker 1: so they'll have access to a library of up to 201 00:12:15,000 --> 00:12:18,480 Speaker 1: four hundred games that they can then download as part 202 00:12:18,480 --> 00:12:22,839 Speaker 1: of their subscription. Then there's the PlayStation Plus Premium level 203 00:12:23,240 --> 00:12:26,240 Speaker 1: that will be seventeen dollars and nine nine cents per month. 204 00:12:26,800 --> 00:12:30,680 Speaker 1: That will include additional access to three hundred forty more games, 205 00:12:30,720 --> 00:12:34,200 Speaker 1: including some PS three titles, PS two titles, and PS 206 00:12:34,320 --> 00:12:38,000 Speaker 1: one titles via cloud streaming. Plus you get all the 207 00:12:38,040 --> 00:12:41,600 Speaker 1: stuff from the previous tiers. Now, I don't play as 208 00:12:41,679 --> 00:12:43,880 Speaker 1: much on my consoles these days, but I do think 209 00:12:43,880 --> 00:12:46,360 Speaker 1: that this is, you know, a good strategy. It's one 210 00:12:46,400 --> 00:12:49,679 Speaker 1: that puts Sony on better footing against Microsoft and the 211 00:12:49,840 --> 00:12:53,440 Speaker 1: Xbox Games Pass, which is you know, Microsoft version of 212 00:12:53,480 --> 00:12:57,080 Speaker 1: this kind of strategy. However, Jim Ryan, the CEO of 213 00:12:57,120 --> 00:13:01,400 Speaker 1: Sony's PlayStation division, did dump a little ice water on 214 00:13:01,440 --> 00:13:05,080 Speaker 1: this announcement. Bryan said that Sony is not planning on 215 00:13:05,160 --> 00:13:10,560 Speaker 1: including first party titles in this Plus service, at least 216 00:13:10,559 --> 00:13:14,200 Speaker 1: not at the titles launch at any rate. So, unlike Microsoft, 217 00:13:14,200 --> 00:13:17,280 Speaker 1: which has been including big name exclusive titles on Game 218 00:13:17,280 --> 00:13:21,480 Speaker 1: Pass at launch, PlayStation Plus will not be following suit. 219 00:13:21,640 --> 00:13:25,760 Speaker 1: Ryan says that interrupts the quote unquote virtuous cycle of 220 00:13:26,000 --> 00:13:29,880 Speaker 1: Sony's process and developing titles, and that doing so would 221 00:13:29,960 --> 00:13:34,480 Speaker 1: undermine that process and that the company wouldn't recapture the 222 00:13:34,520 --> 00:13:38,920 Speaker 1: costs that it's pouring into developing those titles. In other words, 223 00:13:38,920 --> 00:13:43,280 Speaker 1: Sony saying we don't want to cannibalize our own internal systems, 224 00:13:43,600 --> 00:13:46,000 Speaker 1: so we're not going to do that. I'm sure we'll 225 00:13:46,040 --> 00:13:47,920 Speaker 1: be a disappointment to a lot of people who are 226 00:13:47,960 --> 00:13:51,320 Speaker 1: hoping that this would be akin to the Xbox Game 227 00:13:51,320 --> 00:13:54,679 Speaker 1: Pass and give Sony players access to those first party 228 00:13:54,720 --> 00:13:58,160 Speaker 1: titles day and date. But um, you know, it still 229 00:13:58,160 --> 00:14:03,240 Speaker 1: sounds like a pretty incredible offering to me. Again, I'm 230 00:14:03,280 --> 00:14:06,360 Speaker 1: not like, I'm not the big console gamer these days, 231 00:14:06,360 --> 00:14:09,760 Speaker 1: but I think if I were really actively using my PlayStation, 232 00:14:10,520 --> 00:14:13,200 Speaker 1: I think I'd be aiming for that PlayStation plus premium. 233 00:14:13,320 --> 00:14:15,000 Speaker 1: I mean, it's eighteen bucks a month, but at the 234 00:14:15,040 --> 00:14:16,760 Speaker 1: same time, you just look at how much you have 235 00:14:17,000 --> 00:14:21,280 Speaker 1: to access and that's pretty incredible. Also, eighteen dollars a 236 00:14:21,280 --> 00:14:23,360 Speaker 1: month is a lot less than buying a game a month. 237 00:14:23,440 --> 00:14:26,560 Speaker 1: You're talking about sixty dollars plus in that regard. In 238 00:14:26,680 --> 00:14:30,320 Speaker 1: other gaming news, Bungee has filed a lawsuit against ten 239 00:14:30,560 --> 00:14:35,880 Speaker 1: John does As in ten unidentified defendants, and Bungee says 240 00:14:35,960 --> 00:14:41,000 Speaker 1: that these people weaponize YouTube's Digital Millennium Copyright Act or 241 00:14:41,120 --> 00:14:44,680 Speaker 1: d m C a process. Now there's a lot to 242 00:14:44,760 --> 00:14:47,160 Speaker 1: unpack here, So let's take a step by step. First 243 00:14:47,160 --> 00:14:49,320 Speaker 1: of all, you've got the d m c A. This 244 00:14:49,400 --> 00:14:53,440 Speaker 1: puts hefty requirements on platforms to take quick action when 245 00:14:53,440 --> 00:14:56,880 Speaker 1: those platforms are alerted to an instance of someone violating 246 00:14:56,960 --> 00:15:01,280 Speaker 1: copyright law. So in YouTube case, when it receives a 247 00:15:01,360 --> 00:15:04,520 Speaker 1: demand to remove content from its platform due to a 248 00:15:04,640 --> 00:15:08,520 Speaker 1: d m c A violation, that is, someone has said, hey, 249 00:15:08,680 --> 00:15:13,040 Speaker 1: this person has uploaded content they don't own. I own 250 00:15:13,120 --> 00:15:17,520 Speaker 1: that content, take it down. Typically YouTube responds to sweet 251 00:15:17,680 --> 00:15:19,920 Speaker 1: and takes down the content, or else it runs the 252 00:15:20,040 --> 00:15:23,640 Speaker 1: risk of being held liable for failure to act with 253 00:15:23,720 --> 00:15:27,200 Speaker 1: regard to the d m c A. As such, YouTube 254 00:15:27,320 --> 00:15:29,840 Speaker 1: tends to be pretty darn quick on the draw with 255 00:15:30,000 --> 00:15:33,560 Speaker 1: d m c A takedown notices, and potentially too quick 256 00:15:33,680 --> 00:15:36,440 Speaker 1: on the draw, at least according to Bungee. Now see 257 00:15:36,520 --> 00:15:40,080 Speaker 1: Bungee also issues d m c A takedown notices because 258 00:15:40,120 --> 00:15:44,800 Speaker 1: sometimes people might upload stuff like say the soundtrack to 259 00:15:44,880 --> 00:15:50,560 Speaker 1: a Bungee title to YouTube without Bungees authorization, or they 260 00:15:50,640 --> 00:15:54,920 Speaker 1: might upload lengthy cut scenes that and not include any 261 00:15:54,920 --> 00:15:57,520 Speaker 1: other content. So in other words, there's no like user 262 00:15:57,560 --> 00:16:03,320 Speaker 1: generated content. It's just Bungees cut scenes uploaded complete to YouTube. 263 00:16:03,720 --> 00:16:07,000 Speaker 1: Those are cases where Bungee will issue a takedown notice 264 00:16:07,040 --> 00:16:10,000 Speaker 1: through the d m c A, and Bungee follows protocol. 265 00:16:10,360 --> 00:16:13,080 Speaker 1: It fills out a d m c A order. Uh, 266 00:16:13,120 --> 00:16:15,200 Speaker 1: there's like an online form you've got to fill out 267 00:16:15,600 --> 00:16:18,600 Speaker 1: that then submits that to YouTube, and then YouTube then 268 00:16:18,640 --> 00:16:22,360 Speaker 1: goes and takes down the offending content and it typically 269 00:16:22,400 --> 00:16:26,240 Speaker 1: issues a strike against the responsible channel. However, and here's 270 00:16:26,280 --> 00:16:29,720 Speaker 1: the problem. It turns out that apparently anyone can do 271 00:16:29,760 --> 00:16:34,400 Speaker 1: this on behalf of anyone else, Like anyone could go 272 00:16:34,680 --> 00:16:38,120 Speaker 1: and create a Gmail account because you have to have 273 00:16:38,200 --> 00:16:40,520 Speaker 1: one of those in order to do this, and go 274 00:16:40,600 --> 00:16:43,360 Speaker 1: to YouTube and fill out an online form claiming to 275 00:16:43,480 --> 00:16:46,880 Speaker 1: be the owner of intellectual property that's in a video 276 00:16:47,440 --> 00:16:51,000 Speaker 1: and demand that YouTube take the video down, and YouTube 277 00:16:51,040 --> 00:16:55,240 Speaker 1: will do it. In other words, YouTube is so responsive 278 00:16:55,280 --> 00:16:58,480 Speaker 1: to d m c A takedown notices that it will 279 00:16:58,520 --> 00:17:02,880 Speaker 1: act first without verifying that the party that's making this 280 00:17:03,040 --> 00:17:07,399 Speaker 1: demand actually owns the I P and question. So apparently 281 00:17:07,440 --> 00:17:12,520 Speaker 1: these ten unknown individuals created fake Gmail accounts, are real 282 00:17:12,600 --> 00:17:16,080 Speaker 1: Gmail accounts but under fake identities, and issued d m 283 00:17:16,200 --> 00:17:21,040 Speaker 1: c A notices against channels that had destiny to content 284 00:17:21,160 --> 00:17:24,960 Speaker 1: on them, and they were posing as Bungee, the owners 285 00:17:25,040 --> 00:17:28,240 Speaker 1: of the I P. And further, Bungee believes that these 286 00:17:28,280 --> 00:17:32,040 Speaker 1: ten unauthorized individuals did this in retaliation for having their 287 00:17:32,080 --> 00:17:36,879 Speaker 1: own content removed from actual Bungee listed d m c 288 00:17:37,040 --> 00:17:40,000 Speaker 1: A takedowns. So, in other words, the way it went 289 00:17:40,080 --> 00:17:43,359 Speaker 1: down was like, this Channel A puts up a video 290 00:17:43,560 --> 00:17:49,560 Speaker 1: that contains Bungee I P, and they don't actually provide 291 00:17:49,680 --> 00:17:53,520 Speaker 1: enough user content to warrant putting that stuff up. In 292 00:17:53,520 --> 00:17:57,640 Speaker 1: other words, they're violating Bungee's own policies. So they might 293 00:17:57,720 --> 00:18:00,760 Speaker 1: be posting cut scenes but not provide any sort of 294 00:18:00,960 --> 00:18:04,800 Speaker 1: commentary or gameplay outside of that, or maybe they're just 295 00:18:04,840 --> 00:18:09,000 Speaker 1: posting the music without any of their own content, so 296 00:18:09,280 --> 00:18:13,560 Speaker 1: it's not legitimate in Bungee's eyes. So then Bungee issues 297 00:18:13,560 --> 00:18:16,320 Speaker 1: the d m c A takedown YouTube acts. Then the 298 00:18:16,400 --> 00:18:22,400 Speaker 1: channel owner who had this stuff up, stung by Bungee's takedown, 299 00:18:22,720 --> 00:18:26,040 Speaker 1: starts lashing out at other channels that are actually playing 300 00:18:26,080 --> 00:18:28,600 Speaker 1: by the rules, meaning that these are channels that have 301 00:18:28,720 --> 00:18:33,560 Speaker 1: sufficient creator content in them so they're not violating Bungee's policies. 302 00:18:33,920 --> 00:18:39,800 Speaker 1: So these these channels then get take down notices. Against them, 303 00:18:39,840 --> 00:18:43,280 Speaker 1: and at first they might think Bungee's targeted me for 304 00:18:43,280 --> 00:18:45,560 Speaker 1: no reason, like I was playing by the rules and 305 00:18:45,600 --> 00:18:48,480 Speaker 1: Bungee took my stuff down, But in fact, Bungee never 306 00:18:48,560 --> 00:18:50,600 Speaker 1: did this. It wasn't Bungee. It was one of these 307 00:18:50,640 --> 00:18:55,280 Speaker 1: other you know, wounded members. And the company says that 308 00:18:55,320 --> 00:18:59,160 Speaker 1: these ten people have caused damage to Bungee's reputation and 309 00:18:59,240 --> 00:19:03,280 Speaker 1: committed for all essentially by posing as Bungee representatives. And 310 00:19:03,359 --> 00:19:06,320 Speaker 1: also they said, hey, we just want to take time 311 00:19:06,359 --> 00:19:10,080 Speaker 1: to mention that YouTube has terrible processes for d m 312 00:19:10,160 --> 00:19:13,639 Speaker 1: c A takedowns that allow this kind of thing to happen, 313 00:19:14,080 --> 00:19:17,000 Speaker 1: and that it could happen across the board, across any 314 00:19:17,080 --> 00:19:20,680 Speaker 1: i P, like anyone who has an AX to grind 315 00:19:20,720 --> 00:19:25,520 Speaker 1: against a content creator could but potentially create an account, 316 00:19:26,040 --> 00:19:28,760 Speaker 1: file a d m c A takedown and get a 317 00:19:29,040 --> 00:19:32,640 Speaker 1: video taken off of YouTube. And then you know, they 318 00:19:32,640 --> 00:19:36,640 Speaker 1: did it completely illegally, right, they did it without actually 319 00:19:36,640 --> 00:19:39,560 Speaker 1: owning the i P. But YouTube goes ahead and acts 320 00:19:39,640 --> 00:19:43,520 Speaker 1: anyway because YouTube doesn't want to get held accountable for 321 00:19:43,640 --> 00:19:47,280 Speaker 1: not acting, and obviously that would be a terrible way 322 00:19:47,320 --> 00:19:51,959 Speaker 1: to harass someone. Chances are it would get reversed. But 323 00:19:52,440 --> 00:19:55,600 Speaker 1: just getting the video taken down means that if someone's 324 00:19:55,640 --> 00:20:00,240 Speaker 1: dependent upon videos to you know, make their living, a 325 00:20:00,320 --> 00:20:04,919 Speaker 1: video getting taken down as an enormous financial consequence on 326 00:20:04,960 --> 00:20:10,280 Speaker 1: that person. So yeah, it's it's a nasty situation. However, 327 00:20:10,400 --> 00:20:13,720 Speaker 1: Bungee has not named YouTube or the parent company Alphabet 328 00:20:13,760 --> 00:20:16,959 Speaker 1: as a defendant in this case, but they are seeking 329 00:20:17,000 --> 00:20:19,359 Speaker 1: to get the legal grounds that will allow them to 330 00:20:19,400 --> 00:20:22,639 Speaker 1: compel YouTube to share information about the ten John Does 331 00:20:22,680 --> 00:20:27,120 Speaker 1: who are behind the takedowns. YouTube has shut down those 332 00:20:27,119 --> 00:20:30,720 Speaker 1: accounts or has started to reverse those uh those d 333 00:20:30,840 --> 00:20:34,840 Speaker 1: m c A takedowns, but YouTube has not shared information 334 00:20:34,920 --> 00:20:38,640 Speaker 1: that might give a clue as to the identity of 335 00:20:38,680 --> 00:20:42,359 Speaker 1: those ten people. And so now Bungee is looking to 336 00:20:42,440 --> 00:20:47,040 Speaker 1: get the legal uh foundation to require YouTube to share 337 00:20:47,080 --> 00:20:50,560 Speaker 1: that because YouTube won't share that information unless there's essentially 338 00:20:50,600 --> 00:20:52,919 Speaker 1: a court order to do so. Now, I wanted to 339 00:20:52,960 --> 00:20:56,639 Speaker 1: cover the story to illustrate how intellectual property law can 340 00:20:56,680 --> 00:21:00,679 Speaker 1: get really really messy in the tech sector, although I 341 00:21:00,680 --> 00:21:04,280 Speaker 1: can also get messy and other sectors too, So this 342 00:21:04,359 --> 00:21:07,520 Speaker 1: is one of those things that a lot of advocates 343 00:21:07,560 --> 00:21:12,960 Speaker 1: have been warning against UM suggesting that intellectual property law 344 00:21:13,040 --> 00:21:17,200 Speaker 1: as it stands is kind of broken, and the way 345 00:21:17,280 --> 00:21:23,080 Speaker 1: that various platforms attempt to deal with IP law is 346 00:21:23,160 --> 00:21:25,879 Speaker 1: broken as well. All Right, we've got some more news 347 00:21:25,880 --> 00:21:28,400 Speaker 1: stories to get through. Before we get to those, let's 348 00:21:28,400 --> 00:21:39,480 Speaker 1: take another quick break. Tech Crunch is reporting that TikTok 349 00:21:40,000 --> 00:21:42,440 Speaker 1: is testing a feature that will allow users to look 350 00:21:42,480 --> 00:21:45,680 Speaker 1: back over their watch history, which will make it much 351 00:21:45,680 --> 00:21:49,439 Speaker 1: easier to locate a specific video they've seen. See in 352 00:21:49,520 --> 00:21:52,320 Speaker 1: this day and age where our attention spans and memory 353 00:21:52,400 --> 00:21:55,119 Speaker 1: or toast, we need a feature like watch history to 354 00:21:55,119 --> 00:21:57,840 Speaker 1: be able to hunt down that one short video where 355 00:21:57,880 --> 00:22:00,600 Speaker 1: someone is lip sinking over that same audio you've seen 356 00:22:00,720 --> 00:22:03,840 Speaker 1: used in countless other videos, but this video has a 357 00:22:03,920 --> 00:22:06,560 Speaker 1: rabbit in it or whatever. I don't know. I don't 358 00:22:06,640 --> 00:22:09,560 Speaker 1: use TikTok, but this has been a feature that a 359 00:22:09,600 --> 00:22:11,800 Speaker 1: lot of people have been asking for for a long time, 360 00:22:12,000 --> 00:22:14,960 Speaker 1: because otherwise watch history is kind of lost to the ether, 361 00:22:15,600 --> 00:22:17,080 Speaker 1: and you have to do a lot of searching and 362 00:22:17,119 --> 00:22:19,760 Speaker 1: TikTok to rediscover something if you want to share it 363 00:22:19,800 --> 00:22:21,920 Speaker 1: with others. I mean, there are exceptions if you if 364 00:22:21,920 --> 00:22:24,520 Speaker 1: you favorite a video, but if you haven't favored it, 365 00:22:24,600 --> 00:22:27,159 Speaker 1: it's a pain in the took us to try and 366 00:22:27,200 --> 00:22:31,320 Speaker 1: track it down. Now, TikTok hasn't actually rolled this out yet, 367 00:22:31,600 --> 00:22:33,399 Speaker 1: and there's no telling what the feature is going to 368 00:22:33,440 --> 00:22:36,200 Speaker 1: look like or how it will perform if and when 369 00:22:36,359 --> 00:22:39,000 Speaker 1: the service enables it, but it could be coming in 370 00:22:39,040 --> 00:22:42,560 Speaker 1: the near future. Here in the United States, House Democrats 371 00:22:42,560 --> 00:22:45,840 Speaker 1: are pushing for the US to adopt a digital currency 372 00:22:45,880 --> 00:22:49,040 Speaker 1: that would behave the same way that cash does, except 373 00:22:49,040 --> 00:22:52,880 Speaker 1: you know, digitally, so in a bill called the Electronic 374 00:22:53,000 --> 00:22:57,600 Speaker 1: Currency and Secure Hardware or e Cash Act, the politicians 375 00:22:57,640 --> 00:23:00,480 Speaker 1: are calling for the U. S. Treasury Department to take 376 00:23:00,520 --> 00:23:02,679 Speaker 1: care of this project, and the goal would be to 377 00:23:02,680 --> 00:23:07,000 Speaker 1: create a secure means of supporting digital cash transactions that 378 00:23:07,119 --> 00:23:10,360 Speaker 1: do not depend upon a blockchain or a shared ledger 379 00:23:10,760 --> 00:23:13,399 Speaker 1: or any sort of tracking system. So, in other words, 380 00:23:13,680 --> 00:23:17,720 Speaker 1: you should be able to transfer digital cash the same 381 00:23:17,760 --> 00:23:21,000 Speaker 1: way as you could physical cash. So if I walked 382 00:23:21,080 --> 00:23:23,400 Speaker 1: up to you and I handed you a five dollar bill, 383 00:23:23,920 --> 00:23:26,080 Speaker 1: that's between you and me. You know, there's no other 384 00:23:26,160 --> 00:23:29,840 Speaker 1: record of that transaction. And so the goal here would 385 00:23:29,840 --> 00:23:32,280 Speaker 1: be to make a digital solution that could follow a 386 00:23:32,320 --> 00:23:36,040 Speaker 1: similar pathway. That could be pretty tricky to do because 387 00:23:36,119 --> 00:23:40,520 Speaker 1: keeping transactions private while also providing security and protecting against 388 00:23:40,560 --> 00:23:44,960 Speaker 1: stuff like digital counterfeiting and theft is a challenge, but 389 00:23:45,000 --> 00:23:47,840 Speaker 1: if successful, people in the US would have the option 390 00:23:47,880 --> 00:23:51,679 Speaker 1: to send money to each other while bypassing other services 391 00:23:51,720 --> 00:23:55,359 Speaker 1: that typically take a transaction fee in the process. Plus 392 00:23:55,400 --> 00:23:58,399 Speaker 1: those services can keep track of transactions and use that 393 00:23:58,520 --> 00:24:01,520 Speaker 1: data for other purposes. The bill has a long way 394 00:24:01,560 --> 00:24:03,520 Speaker 1: to go before it can become a law, and chances 395 00:24:03,520 --> 00:24:07,560 Speaker 1: are there will be some resistance, probably considerable resistance in 396 00:24:07,640 --> 00:24:10,720 Speaker 1: some fields to this measure. So there's no guarantee that 397 00:24:10,760 --> 00:24:14,960 Speaker 1: will actually see this enacted, but still very interesting. If 398 00:24:15,000 --> 00:24:17,720 Speaker 1: you've ever been fired or laid off, you know that 399 00:24:17,720 --> 00:24:22,520 Speaker 1: that experience usually bites. While China business seems to have 400 00:24:22,600 --> 00:24:24,520 Speaker 1: come up with a new way to deliver the news 401 00:24:24,880 --> 00:24:27,159 Speaker 1: that's sure to make employees who get their walk in 402 00:24:27,200 --> 00:24:31,320 Speaker 1: papers feel good about it. Yep. Apparently a few companies 403 00:24:31,320 --> 00:24:35,000 Speaker 1: in China have sent out congratulations letters to employees that 404 00:24:35,040 --> 00:24:38,920 Speaker 1: are getting laid off and contextualizing the experience as quote 405 00:24:39,000 --> 00:24:43,680 Speaker 1: unquote graduating from the company. So it's like, hey, great job, 406 00:24:43,720 --> 00:24:45,960 Speaker 1: you did so well, We're firing you. Now go out 407 00:24:46,000 --> 00:24:51,400 Speaker 1: there and fly little butterflies. One note allegedly from Chinese 408 00:24:51,400 --> 00:24:55,640 Speaker 1: e commerce company j D dot Com specifically said quote 409 00:24:55,960 --> 00:25:01,400 Speaker 1: happy graduation, congratulations for having graduated from j D dot com, 410 00:25:01,440 --> 00:25:05,640 Speaker 1: thank you for the companionship. End quote. Now, through my 411 00:25:06,760 --> 00:25:11,679 Speaker 1: notably American lens, from that perspective, that sounds like the 412 00:25:11,760 --> 00:25:15,320 Speaker 1: nastiest passive, aggressive way to let someone know that they've 413 00:25:15,359 --> 00:25:20,480 Speaker 1: been fired that I've ever seen, like downright insulting. But 414 00:25:20,520 --> 00:25:23,920 Speaker 1: according to Business Insider, this and similar messages from other 415 00:25:24,000 --> 00:25:27,000 Speaker 1: companies are really being created with the intention of trying 416 00:25:27,000 --> 00:25:30,040 Speaker 1: to take the sting out of things, as the Chinese 417 00:25:30,119 --> 00:25:34,280 Speaker 1: tech sector is in general cutting way back. So the 418 00:25:34,359 --> 00:25:37,439 Speaker 1: Chinese government has been cracking down on the tech sector 419 00:25:37,480 --> 00:25:40,440 Speaker 1: over in China for the last couple of years, particularly recently, 420 00:25:40,960 --> 00:25:44,120 Speaker 1: and has introduced a lot of new regulations and restrictions, 421 00:25:44,800 --> 00:25:47,880 Speaker 1: possibly in an effort to prevent these companies from challenging 422 00:25:47,880 --> 00:25:53,240 Speaker 1: the authority of the Chinese government itself, but ostensibly it's 423 00:25:53,280 --> 00:25:56,840 Speaker 1: done in the name of protecting Chinese citizens. The companies, 424 00:25:56,880 --> 00:25:58,840 Speaker 1: in an effort to cut back on losses, have been 425 00:25:58,920 --> 00:26:02,359 Speaker 1: laying off thousands of employees, so these messages may have 426 00:26:02,400 --> 00:26:04,680 Speaker 1: been a sincere effort to kind of spend the layoffs 427 00:26:04,760 --> 00:26:08,240 Speaker 1: as a positive thing and to avoid alienating future potential 428 00:26:08,280 --> 00:26:11,120 Speaker 1: employees from turning away from the tech sector. I am 429 00:26:11,160 --> 00:26:13,639 Speaker 1: curious how this is going over in China, because I 430 00:26:13,640 --> 00:26:15,480 Speaker 1: can tell you for a fact, it would not fly 431 00:26:15,680 --> 00:26:18,639 Speaker 1: over here. And now let's wrap up with a trio 432 00:26:18,760 --> 00:26:23,199 Speaker 1: of stories about artificial intelligence. The Register reports that a 433 00:26:23,240 --> 00:26:26,440 Speaker 1: pair of researchers from Stanford have identified more than one 434 00:26:26,480 --> 00:26:30,439 Speaker 1: thousand profiles on LinkedIn that are fake profiles, complete with 435 00:26:30,520 --> 00:26:35,320 Speaker 1: AI generated profile pictures. The researchers recognize signs of AI 436 00:26:35,400 --> 00:26:39,160 Speaker 1: created faces, including how the AI position the computer generated 437 00:26:39,200 --> 00:26:41,240 Speaker 1: face within the frame, with the eyes being in the 438 00:26:41,320 --> 00:26:44,960 Speaker 1: dead center, and some blurring that of the finer features 439 00:26:45,000 --> 00:26:49,320 Speaker 1: like like individual strands of hair. And apparently some companies 440 00:26:49,359 --> 00:26:51,919 Speaker 1: are leaning on these fake accounts in an effort to 441 00:26:51,960 --> 00:26:55,080 Speaker 1: reach out to people and sell products to them. So 442 00:26:55,160 --> 00:26:57,800 Speaker 1: one of the researchers reported that they initially got tipped 443 00:26:57,840 --> 00:27:01,000 Speaker 1: off to this when they personally received a message from 444 00:27:01,000 --> 00:27:04,480 Speaker 1: such an account offering to sell a software package to them. 445 00:27:04,520 --> 00:27:07,359 Speaker 1: So the researcher felt something was off and then followed 446 00:27:07,400 --> 00:27:09,240 Speaker 1: the message back to the account and that kind of 447 00:27:09,240 --> 00:27:13,199 Speaker 1: started this whole you know, casual investigation into it. Now 448 00:27:13,280 --> 00:27:16,119 Speaker 1: the researchers pointed out that in this case, at least, 449 00:27:16,320 --> 00:27:19,119 Speaker 1: the use of AI generated accounts wasn't part of some 450 00:27:19,520 --> 00:27:23,560 Speaker 1: sinister misinformation campaign per se, but more about trying to 451 00:27:23,800 --> 00:27:27,280 Speaker 1: increase sales by adding a personal touch. But it does 452 00:27:27,400 --> 00:27:30,879 Speaker 1: raise questions about whether or not that practice is actually ethical. 453 00:27:31,520 --> 00:27:34,399 Speaker 1: Should it be reasonable to expect that any interaction on 454 00:27:34,480 --> 00:27:38,119 Speaker 1: social media is between you and a real human person. 455 00:27:38,520 --> 00:27:41,480 Speaker 1: Wouldn't it be more ethical to make AI outreach more 456 00:27:41,520 --> 00:27:45,480 Speaker 1: transparent so that the person being contacted is not working 457 00:27:45,600 --> 00:27:48,640 Speaker 1: under the assumption that the entity on the other end 458 00:27:48,640 --> 00:27:52,040 Speaker 1: of that direct message is in fact a human. Oh 459 00:27:52,160 --> 00:27:55,200 Speaker 1: brave new world to have such fake people in it. 460 00:27:55,920 --> 00:27:59,040 Speaker 1: Eric Schmidt, whom you might remember was once the CEO 461 00:27:59,160 --> 00:28:02,800 Speaker 1: of Google, has a foundation and this foundation has been 462 00:28:02,840 --> 00:28:06,639 Speaker 1: donating heavily to the US government's Office of Science and 463 00:28:06,720 --> 00:28:11,960 Speaker 1: Technology Policy, and this has raised some red flags. Why well, 464 00:28:12,000 --> 00:28:15,480 Speaker 1: it's because Schmidt invests heavily in several companies that are 465 00:28:15,480 --> 00:28:19,600 Speaker 1: related to AI products and services, and the government office, 466 00:28:19,840 --> 00:28:22,960 Speaker 1: the Office of Science and Technology Policy, is in charge 467 00:28:22,960 --> 00:28:26,680 Speaker 1: of formulating policies that relate to AI. So, in other words, 468 00:28:26,720 --> 00:28:29,360 Speaker 1: at least at a casual glance, it appears that Schmidt 469 00:28:29,440 --> 00:28:33,000 Speaker 1: is funding the very office that creates regulations that in 470 00:28:33,040 --> 00:28:37,320 Speaker 1: turn will affect Schmidt's various investments, and that sure does 471 00:28:37,400 --> 00:28:40,120 Speaker 1: come across as if he might be greasing the wheels. 472 00:28:40,960 --> 00:28:43,280 Speaker 1: Politico has a full report on the matter, and it 473 00:28:43,320 --> 00:28:46,880 Speaker 1: ain't pretty well. I definitely want to see government departments 474 00:28:46,880 --> 00:28:49,960 Speaker 1: that are in charge of determining tech policy fully funded. 475 00:28:50,440 --> 00:28:52,600 Speaker 1: It's pretty obvious to me that this funding should not 476 00:28:52,680 --> 00:28:56,240 Speaker 1: be coming from the tech sector directly. That is a 477 00:28:56,320 --> 00:28:59,960 Speaker 1: pretty clear conflict of interest. So yaza on that one. 478 00:29:00,680 --> 00:29:03,520 Speaker 1: And finally, we've got a story of an AI system 479 00:29:03,520 --> 00:29:06,400 Speaker 1: beating humans at a game. And we've seen this in 480 00:29:06,480 --> 00:29:10,000 Speaker 1: games like Go and chess, but now we've also seen 481 00:29:10,040 --> 00:29:12,760 Speaker 1: it in Bridge, as in the card game at a 482 00:29:12,800 --> 00:29:16,080 Speaker 1: special tournament in Paris, France. Now I am not a 483 00:29:16,120 --> 00:29:19,000 Speaker 1: bridge player, and I admit that the rules and scoring 484 00:29:19,040 --> 00:29:22,120 Speaker 1: for Bridge get pretty darn complicated. I watched a video 485 00:29:22,200 --> 00:29:24,400 Speaker 1: on it and by the end I thought I would 486 00:29:24,440 --> 00:29:27,920 Speaker 1: rather describe quantum computing to somebody. So I'm gonna be 487 00:29:28,000 --> 00:29:32,000 Speaker 1: pretty general with this news story, because otherwise, if I 488 00:29:32,040 --> 00:29:33,920 Speaker 1: try and get specific, I'm just gonna mess it up 489 00:29:33,920 --> 00:29:35,680 Speaker 1: and all the bridge players out there are gonna call 490 00:29:35,720 --> 00:29:38,560 Speaker 1: me out on it um. Also, I should add that 491 00:29:38,600 --> 00:29:42,200 Speaker 1: the way this tournament worked included leaving out the bidding 492 00:29:42,280 --> 00:29:45,120 Speaker 1: part of a bridge game, and as I understand it, 493 00:29:45,840 --> 00:29:49,440 Speaker 1: the bidding part of a bridge game and the formation 494 00:29:49,520 --> 00:29:53,440 Speaker 1: of a contract that's a huge part of bridge strategy. 495 00:29:53,520 --> 00:29:58,800 Speaker 1: So that's a notable absence there. However, Bridge also represents 496 00:29:58,800 --> 00:30:02,200 Speaker 1: a game where a player only has partial knowledge of 497 00:30:02,280 --> 00:30:05,560 Speaker 1: the game's status. Now, in most other games where AI 498 00:30:05,680 --> 00:30:08,440 Speaker 1: has wiped the floor with us humans, it's been a 499 00:30:08,440 --> 00:30:11,000 Speaker 1: case where both players have full knowledge of the game 500 00:30:11,040 --> 00:30:13,880 Speaker 1: status throughout the game. Like in chess, you can see 501 00:30:13,880 --> 00:30:16,680 Speaker 1: where all your pieces and where all your opponents pieces 502 00:30:16,720 --> 00:30:19,960 Speaker 1: are in a standard game, and so you're both working 503 00:30:20,000 --> 00:30:23,080 Speaker 1: with full information about the status of the game all 504 00:30:23,120 --> 00:30:26,360 Speaker 1: the way through. Bridge is different. So Bridge is a 505 00:30:26,360 --> 00:30:29,360 Speaker 1: card game that's played with four players, and players who 506 00:30:29,400 --> 00:30:32,920 Speaker 1: sit across from one another form a team. So you 507 00:30:32,960 --> 00:30:36,920 Speaker 1: have a North South team and an East West team. 508 00:30:36,960 --> 00:30:39,600 Speaker 1: And in this tournament, a group of human champions were 509 00:30:39,600 --> 00:30:43,240 Speaker 1: put up against some robot Bridge players, and the robots 510 00:30:43,240 --> 00:30:47,480 Speaker 1: had performed well in robot competitions, but when compared to 511 00:30:47,560 --> 00:30:50,680 Speaker 1: human champions, they were still kind of beginners. So the 512 00:30:50,760 --> 00:30:54,640 Speaker 1: humans played their own hand and their partners dummy hand, 513 00:30:55,120 --> 00:30:57,000 Speaker 1: which is a thing in bridge and I'm not going 514 00:30:57,040 --> 00:30:59,920 Speaker 1: to try to explain the whole thing because I barely 515 00:31:00,080 --> 00:31:03,280 Speaker 1: understand it. But what that means is that the human 516 00:31:03,360 --> 00:31:06,680 Speaker 1: knows the contents of their own hand, and everyone at 517 00:31:06,680 --> 00:31:10,840 Speaker 1: the table knows the dummy hand because the dummy hand 518 00:31:10,880 --> 00:31:13,440 Speaker 1: is played face up, so all the cards are played 519 00:31:13,480 --> 00:31:16,080 Speaker 1: face up on the table for one of the two 520 00:31:16,120 --> 00:31:19,719 Speaker 1: sets of partners. So that means the human champion in 521 00:31:19,720 --> 00:31:22,120 Speaker 1: this case has the most information in the game because 522 00:31:22,120 --> 00:31:25,040 Speaker 1: they know their own cards, they know their partners cards 523 00:31:25,280 --> 00:31:27,760 Speaker 1: the dummy hand, in other words, and that means that 524 00:31:27,800 --> 00:31:31,480 Speaker 1: by extension, they can also know what cards their opponents hold, 525 00:31:31,560 --> 00:31:34,920 Speaker 1: though they don't know which opponent holds which card. Right Like, 526 00:31:34,960 --> 00:31:36,560 Speaker 1: if they look at their hand and say I don't 527 00:31:36,560 --> 00:31:38,840 Speaker 1: have the Queen of Spades and the dummy hand doesn't 528 00:31:38,840 --> 00:31:40,760 Speaker 1: have the Queen of Spades, that means one of the 529 00:31:40,800 --> 00:31:44,360 Speaker 1: two people I'm playing against definitely has the Queen of Spades. 530 00:31:44,600 --> 00:31:46,800 Speaker 1: They can make that conclusion, they just don't know which 531 00:31:46,840 --> 00:31:50,479 Speaker 1: person has it. Anyway, the humans had to play a 532 00:31:50,560 --> 00:31:53,400 Speaker 1: series of eight hundred deals in sets of ten, so 533 00:31:53,520 --> 00:31:57,160 Speaker 1: eight sets total, and in the end, the score reflected 534 00:31:57,200 --> 00:32:00,960 Speaker 1: how many tricks the human player won against the robot opponents. 535 00:32:01,880 --> 00:32:04,920 Speaker 1: None of this, by the way, includes the AII mentioned. 536 00:32:05,400 --> 00:32:08,040 Speaker 1: This was just the baseline, so it was seeing how 537 00:32:08,040 --> 00:32:12,080 Speaker 1: many times did the human win over the robot players. 538 00:32:12,720 --> 00:32:16,680 Speaker 1: Then the AI system called Nook did the exact same 539 00:32:16,720 --> 00:32:19,720 Speaker 1: thing that the humans did. From why I understand it 540 00:32:19,800 --> 00:32:24,760 Speaker 1: played the same hands against the same robot opponents, so 541 00:32:24,880 --> 00:32:28,000 Speaker 1: Nook was essentially just trying to do the same thing 542 00:32:28,000 --> 00:32:30,720 Speaker 1: that the human champions did. And then what they did 543 00:32:30,760 --> 00:32:34,400 Speaker 1: was they they compared the performance of Nook against the 544 00:32:34,400 --> 00:32:37,360 Speaker 1: performance of the human champions, and it turned out that 545 00:32:37,480 --> 00:32:41,240 Speaker 1: Nook had a higher success rate uh in sixties seven 546 00:32:41,400 --> 00:32:44,440 Speaker 1: of the eighties sets, it scored better than the human 547 00:32:44,520 --> 00:32:47,600 Speaker 1: champion did, which means it had an eight three victory 548 00:32:47,680 --> 00:32:53,560 Speaker 1: rate over the human champions when competing against these robot opponents. Notably, 549 00:32:53,760 --> 00:32:57,320 Speaker 1: Nook didn't go head to head against humans in this tournament, 550 00:32:57,360 --> 00:33:01,760 Speaker 1: so this wasn't humans versus Nook. It was humans versus robots, 551 00:33:01,800 --> 00:33:04,880 Speaker 1: the Nook versus robots and then seeing which one did 552 00:33:04,920 --> 00:33:07,800 Speaker 1: the best. So clearly we are not quite at the 553 00:33:07,800 --> 00:33:10,440 Speaker 1: point where we can definitively say that AI can play 554 00:33:10,480 --> 00:33:14,160 Speaker 1: bridge better than the best humans can. That would require 555 00:33:14,200 --> 00:33:17,240 Speaker 1: a system that can engage in the whole game of bridge, 556 00:33:17,520 --> 00:33:22,160 Speaker 1: which includes things like bidding and deception before that can 557 00:33:22,200 --> 00:33:26,360 Speaker 1: ever happen. But it's still pretty neat. And that's it 558 00:33:26,600 --> 00:33:30,760 Speaker 1: for the tech news for Tuesday, March two. If you 559 00:33:30,800 --> 00:33:33,880 Speaker 1: have suggestions for topics I should cover in future episodes 560 00:33:33,920 --> 00:33:36,760 Speaker 1: of tech Stuff, please reach out to me. The handle 561 00:33:37,040 --> 00:33:40,680 Speaker 1: on Twitter is tech Stuff h s W and I'll 562 00:33:40,720 --> 00:33:48,880 Speaker 1: talk to you again really soon. Text Stuff is an 563 00:33:48,880 --> 00:33:52,560 Speaker 1: I Heart Radio production. For more podcasts from my Heart Radio, 564 00:33:52,920 --> 00:33:56,080 Speaker 1: visit the i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever 565 00:33:56,160 --> 00:34:01,560 Speaker 1: you listen to your favorite shows.