Speaker 1: Welcome to tex Stuff, a production from I Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: He there, and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host
Speaker 1: Jonathan Strickland, Diamond executive producer with I Heart Radio, and
Speaker 1: how the tech are you. It's time for the tech
Speaker 1: news for Thursday, January twenty three, and we've got another
Speaker 1: couple of interesting bits of chat GPT, slash open AI,
Speaker 1: slash chat bought news. First up, The Verge reports that
Speaker 1: academic publishing company Springer Nature has updated its policies such
Speaker 1: that a I writing tools like chat GPT cannot be
Speaker 1: credited as an author of a scientific paper. And considering
Speaker 1: the reports of how tools like chat GBT can and
Speaker 1: do get stuff wrong on occasion, not to mention some
Speaker 1: plagiarism issues, we will talk about in justice. Second, all
Speaker 1: of this makes sense. Springer Nature does say that these
Speaker 1: tools can be used in the process of creating ideas
Speaker 1: for research or even assisting in writing, as long as
Speaker 1: the paper is transparent about this, which potentially could even
Speaker 1: mean specifying which bits of the paper were AI generated.
Speaker 1: But ultimately these things cannot be credited as an author,
Speaker 1: and that really does make sense. These tools tend to
Speaker 1: have a lack of transparency and you don't know how
Speaker 1: they get to the point of generating the text they create.
Speaker 1: You also don't get things like citations for references and
Speaker 1: that kind of thing. And so without knowing where the
Speaker 1: author is drawing information from, one you can't be certain
Speaker 1: that the information being presented as reliable, and too, you
Speaker 1: can't be sure that the author's conclusions are valid because
Speaker 1: you don't know where the conclusions were drawn from. It
Speaker 1: sounds like Springer Nature is opti mystic regarding how AI
Speaker 1: can play a part in scientific research and writing, but
Speaker 1: that it's going to take a lot of work to
Speaker 1: foster the positive use of AI, as well as a
Speaker 1: lot of work to prevent the negative use cases. A
Speaker 1: couple of weeks ago, I talked about how the website
Speaker 1: Futurism had uncovered c nets use of AI to write
Speaker 1: articles in the c net Money channel, and you only
Speaker 1: knew about if you clicked on the little dropped down
Speaker 1: that would appear if you highlighted the s net money
Speaker 1: staff byline. Well, futurism keeps coming up with great reporting
Speaker 1: with more updates on that. They have pointed out how
Speaker 1: several of the articles written by this AI included factual
Speaker 1: errors and just as concerning also included examples of plagiarism. Now,
Speaker 1: in some cases, the AI appears to have largely lifted language,
Speaker 1: almost entirely untouched from other sources, including from c net itself.
Speaker 1: As Future is a reporter John Christian puts it, quote,
Speaker 1: a new futurism investigation found extensive evidence that the c
Speaker 1: net ais work has demonstrated deep structural and phrasing similarities
Speaker 1: to articles previously published elsewhere without giving credit. In other words,
Speaker 1: it looks like the butt directly plagiarized the work of
Speaker 1: red Ventures competitors, red Ventures being the owner of Set,
Speaker 1: as well as human writers at bank Rate and even
Speaker 1: Senet itself end quote. And as I mentioned a moment ago,
Speaker 1: these chat bots fail to credit their sources, and so
Speaker 1: it all comes across as the AI is passing work
Speaker 1: off as its own when it's not. And that sort
Speaker 1: of stuff can get you fired or banned from publications.
Speaker 1: So this really is a big problem, particularly when you
Speaker 1: consider that AI in this context is being relied upon
Speaker 1: to generate articles in place of a human being doing
Speaker 1: the writing. So if it turns out your robot is
Speaker 1: copying humans, not only are you denying a person a
Speaker 1: chance to write the article. So you're denying a person
Speaker 1: a job. Your robot is also stealing work from other humans.
Speaker 1: It's kind of like a double dipping of bad AI practices. Now,
Speaker 1: to be fair to see Net and to rend Ventures, UH,
Speaker 1: they've stopped using AI to generate articles, at least for
Speaker 1: the time being. I highly recommend you read the full
Speaker 1: article that's on futurism. It has the title c nets
Speaker 1: AI journalist appears to have committed extensive plagiarism and another
Speaker 1: AI fail news item. You might remember I mentioned a
Speaker 1: couple of weeks ago that Do Not Pay, the company
Speaker 1: that helps normal everyday folks try to do stuff like
Speaker 1: cancel their streaming subscriptions all the way up to getting
Speaker 1: out of parking tickets, that that it was going to
Speaker 1: participate in a court case next month, namely, a person
Speaker 1: who was charged with a traffic citation in California was
Speaker 1: going to wear some glasses equipped with cameras and a
Speaker 1: microphone and wear an earp and then do Not Pay
Speaker 1: as AI assistant would attempt to help the accused defend
Speaker 1: themselves in traffic court. Those plans are now off the
Speaker 1: table because Do Not Pays CEO Joshua Browder says the
Speaker 1: company has scrapped the idea after receiving threats from quote
Speaker 1: multiple state bar associations end quote, and that he and
Speaker 1: the company could stand accused of the unauthorized practice of law,
Speaker 1: which at least in some states can land you in
Speaker 1: the pokey for up to six months. For those not
Speaker 1: familiar with the phrase the pokey, that's that's jail. So
Speaker 1: AI will not be pulling a matlock this February. I'm
Speaker 1: I'm dropping a lot of old people references in this episode.
Speaker 1: Give me a shout if you're if you're picking them up. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: state bar associations across the United States are evaluating how
Speaker 1: to handle situations like this, which just a year ago
Speaker 1: would have seemed like a silly fantasy. Also, Do not
Speaker 1: Pay was in the news because it offered up a
Speaker 1: million bucks to any all your schedule to argue before
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, saying all you have to do is
Speaker 1: use an earpiece and it will connect to our AI
Speaker 1: tool and the AI will tell you what to argue
Speaker 1: in front of the court and you'll get a million dollars.
Speaker 1: Most folks seem to portray Browder as the kind of
Speaker 1: executive who likes to get a lot of publicity through
Speaker 1: really splashy stunts, And in this case, it's kind of
Speaker 1: hard for me to dispute that particular portrayal. On Tuesday,
Speaker 1: the New York Stock Exchange had a rough morning. Stock
Speaker 1: prices for normally stable companies began to swing as much
Speaker 1: as twenty in a short amount of time. According to Bloomberg,
Speaker 1: more than two hundred fifty companies were affected. So why
Speaker 1: is this in tech stuff? What was causing these extreme
Speaker 1: stock fluctuations? Was it economic instability? Was it news that
Speaker 1: the doomsday clock is now sitting at ninety seconds? Was
Speaker 1: it fears about how Russia is going to react to
Speaker 1: Germany and the United States sending tanks to Ukraine. No,
Speaker 1: the while morning was due to an n y s
Speaker 1: E employee forgetting to turn off a backup system properly.
Speaker 1: All right, So, clearly, for something as important to the
Speaker 1: global economy as the New York Stock Exchange, that is,
Speaker 1: the n y s E, then a backup is necessary, right.
Speaker 1: There needs to be a way to switch on a
Speaker 1: backup quickly in the event of a failure of the
Speaker 1: primary system or else trading ends up being affected and
Speaker 1: in a worst case scenario, it could prompt a real
Speaker 1: financial crisis. So of course, the n y s E
Speaker 1: has backups, and employees are supposed to check up on
Speaker 1: these backup systems regularly, and typically this involves turning the
Speaker 1: backup on after normal trading hours when the stock exchange
Speaker 1: is closed, then verifying that the system is working the
Speaker 1: way it's supposed to, and then shutting the system down again.
Speaker 1: But on Tuesday, someone failed to do that last step
Speaker 1: of shutting it down again, and when the primary system
Speaker 1: came online, it performed as if it had been going
Speaker 1: for a while, like instead of being the beginning of
Speaker 1: the trading day, it was acting as if it had
Speaker 1: gone down and came back up while the backup was
Speaker 1: in operation. And this through everything into a tizzy because
Speaker 1: there were all these auctions that were supposed to go
Speaker 1: off first thing in the morning, and it kind of
Speaker 1: bypassed all this, and that's why prices started to fluctuate
Speaker 1: like crazy because things were not going the way they
Speaker 1: were supposed to. So then the New York Stock Exchange
Speaker 1: had to spring into action and address this problem. And
Speaker 1: now the n y s E is in the process
Speaker 1: of reversing the trades that happened during the whole confusing process,
Speaker 1: and that's gonna be a pretty expensive fix. So this
Speaker 1: is a case where have you tried turning it off
Speaker 1: and on again? Is the wrong approach. It's just have
Speaker 1: you tried turning it off. Reuter's reports that according to
Speaker 1: Standard Media Index, advertising spend on Twitter was down seventy
Speaker 1: in December two. This was bad news, particularly after the
Speaker 1: rough November, which reportedly saw a fifty five decline in
Speaker 1: ad spending. And if you're ready for another percentage, Twitter
Speaker 1: relies on advertising to make up of its revenue. So
Speaker 1: this is really bad news for Twitter, and there have
Speaker 1: been a lot of factors that could have contributed to
Speaker 1: add money drying up. First up, there's this general global
Speaker 1: economic situation we're all in where companies across the board
Speaker 1: are cutting costs all over the place, which includes ad spend.
Speaker 1: Marketing typically is one of the first areas hit when
Speaker 1: companies want to buckle down and tighten their belts. Then
Speaker 1: there's the concern that Twitter is turning into a more chaotic, toxic,
Speaker 1: and frankly dangerous platform, especially for brands. With Elon Musk's
Speaker 1: rather mercurial leadership style. Leading the way. Musk himself has
Speaker 1: laid a lot of the blame on activist groups lobbying
Speaker 1: companies to pull ad money off Twitter. But keep in mind,
Speaker 1: one of the reasons Musk gave when he was still
Speaker 1: trying to back away from buying Twitter months and months
Speaker 1: and months ago, back in mid two was that he
Speaker 1: saw an economic downturn coming, and that could mean that
Speaker 1: he was already worried about drops in revenue for Twitter. Also,
Speaker 1: Musk recently announced that Twitter would offer a subscription tier
Speaker 1: that would cost a little bit more than the normal subscription,
Speaker 1: but would come with an ad free experience, and that
Speaker 1: he said Twitter already has too many ads on it.
Speaker 1: It's weird that he's saying this while he's also simultaneously
Speaker 1: trying to bring advertisers back on board with Twitter, using
Speaker 1: various incentives to bring them back into the fold. It's
Speaker 1: getting to the point where you really don't know what
Speaker 1: to believe as a user or as an advertiser. Okay,
Speaker 1: while we sort all that out, let's take a quick break.
Speaker 1: We'll be back after these messages. We're back. Next up,
Speaker 1: we've got some stories about censorship and how tech companies
Speaker 1: are reportedly bowing to it, and Apple customers in Hong
Speaker 1: Kong reported that Safari blocked at least for a while
Speaker 1: access to certain sites like get lab last year, and
Speaker 1: apparently this was because Apple has worked with Tencent in China,
Speaker 1: and Tencent has a blacklist of sites that Chinese users
Speaker 1: are not supposed to be able to access, which you know,
Speaker 1: usually these directives come from the government, they're sent to
Speaker 1: these these big companies, and Apple partners with ten Cent
Speaker 1: in order to operate within China, so that's where this
Speaker 1: was apparently coming from. But Hong Kong citizens have enjoyed
Speaker 1: less authoritative oversight in the past, and it appears as
Speaker 1: though ten cents blacklist was now extending to Hong Kong users,
Speaker 1: something that Apple appears to have confirmed at some point
Speaker 1: late last year. And the reason we have to be
Speaker 1: vague about this is that it's not that Apple came
Speaker 1: out and released a statement about this. Rather, Apple at
Speaker 1: some point late in updated it's Safari privacy notice in
Speaker 1: Hong Kong, and it took a while for folks to
Speaker 1: notice that had happened, which is why we're only just
Speaker 1: now hearing about this in the West. Apple has essentially
Speaker 1: refused to comment on this. They Apple has said, you
Speaker 1: know what, you need to go talk to ten Cent.
Speaker 1: It's like ask your mom, Apple saying go talk to
Speaker 1: tensent and tense. It is refusing to comment it on
Speaker 1: it too. So that's where we are with that now.
Speaker 1: On a related note, and in another Twitter story, the
Speaker 1: Intercept reports that Twitter has bowed to political pressure in
Speaker 1: India and is actively blocking links to a BBC documentary
Speaker 1: that accuses India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi of taking a
Speaker 1: prominent role in carrying out Gina side in Gujarat in
Speaker 1: two thousand two. The Indian government has denounced this documentary,
Speaker 1: calling it propaganda and demanding that companies like Twitter and
Speaker 1: YouTube block links to it within India, and several people,
Speaker 1: including actor John Cusack, have reported that their tweets that
Speaker 1: included links to this documentary have been banned and blocked
Speaker 1: in India, and Cusack has actually gone on to say
Speaker 1: that his whole Twitter account is banned in India full stop.
Speaker 1: The Intercept is pretty darn critical of Twitter and of Musk.
Speaker 1: In the article I read this morning, uh, the Intercept
Speaker 1: rather cheekily points out that Musk has been framed as
Speaker 1: a free speech absolutist, and yet here's an example of
Speaker 1: his company cow towing to authoritarian pressure. It's very much
Speaker 1: not a free speech thing, like it's the opposite. It's
Speaker 1: it's it's government censorship. Musk, for his part, says he
Speaker 1: was not even aware of the issue and that all
Speaker 1: his attention has been divided between Twitter, Tesla, and Space Sex,
Speaker 1: which is a pretty dangerous thing for him to even tweet,
Speaker 1: because there are a ton of Tesla investors who have
Speaker 1: been angry about him for that specific reason that his
Speaker 1: attention has been divided, and they've seen Twitter as this
Speaker 1: big diversion that has in in turn caused Tesla to suffer.
Speaker 1: And like if you look at the stock price for Tesla,
Speaker 1: it's been in a rough place for the last year. Anyway,
Speaker 1: it is concerning to see a government be able to
Speaker 1: ban any news that it doesn't like, whether Musk himself
Speaker 1: was aware of the issue or not. And again I
Speaker 1: should also add Google agreed several times in the past
Speaker 1: two demands from India's government to since there certain links
Speaker 1: and videos, So it's not like Twitter is alone here.
Speaker 1: It's one prominent example of a tech company appearing to
Speaker 1: comply with an authoritarian government's demands to sensor materials so
Speaker 1: that citizens aren't able to access it, but it is
Speaker 1: by no means the only one doing it. Last year,
Speaker 1: I mentioned how Bloomberg reported on the Army's experience with
Speaker 1: the Integrated Visual Augmentation System or IVAS, and this is
Speaker 1: essentially it's a militarized and ruggedized version of the Microsoft
Speaker 1: Hollowlens mixed reality headset. It's it's one that specifically developed
Speaker 1: and tuned for the Army, and the Army's goal was
Speaker 1: to work with Microsoft and develop a system that helps
Speaker 1: soldiers be more effective in the field, including support for
Speaker 1: stuff like target acquisition and better marksmanship. But as it
Speaker 1: turns out, soldiers didn't much care for the technology. Reports
Speaker 1: said that soldiers experienced health issues ranging from next train
Speaker 1: to motion sickness, and that they were more accurate and
Speaker 1: efficient when they were relying on their older equipment. So
Speaker 1: a lot of soldiers just opted to not use the
Speaker 1: headset at all. While some of this could be chalked
Speaker 1: up to the adjustment period anyone encounters when they have
Speaker 1: to in corporate new equipment into their their daily tasks,
Speaker 1: the messages seemed to be that ives was performing well
Speaker 1: under expectations. Task and Purpose dot Com published a piece
Speaker 1: earlier this week saying Microsoft still allegedly had plans to
Speaker 1: develop the platform and improve it further and release updates
Speaker 1: to the IVAS platform, and that the Army still intends
Speaker 1: to deploy this very very expensive headset because it had
Speaker 1: already purchased thousands of the things, and each headset, by
Speaker 1: the way, cost the Army forty dollars a piece grand
Speaker 1: for one of these headsets. And I thought the upcoming
Speaker 1: Apple headset was going to be expensive at three K.
Speaker 1: But the Army could be waiting a really long time
Speaker 1: before getting that new and improved Iva's headset. Because one
Speaker 1: area within Microsoft that was hit very, very hard by
Speaker 1: recent layoffs and cutbacks is the mixed reality divisions within
Speaker 1: the company. I said one area. I guess areas would
Speaker 1: be more appropriate, because it's separate departments that we're all
Speaker 1: working within this general field. Gizmoto has an article that's
Speaker 1: titled Microsoft cuts VR staff and leaves questions about its
Speaker 1: metaverse ambitions, written by Kyle Barr, and a lot of
Speaker 1: other outlets have also reported on this as well. It's
Speaker 1: just I relied on Gizmoto as my prime source for
Speaker 1: this particular news item. Essentially, it sounds like the mixed
Speaker 1: reality division inside Microsoft was positively gutted, in some cases
Speaker 1: to the point for all intents and purposes of being eliminated.
Speaker 1: All Space VR, which Microsoft acquired in seventeen, announced it
Speaker 1: will be shutting down in March. The few folks from
Speaker 1: the Alt Space VR team who still are at Microsoft
Speaker 1: are going to be shifted to work for Microsoft Mesh.
Speaker 1: This is Microsoft project to bring VR into its Teams product.
Speaker 1: Other mixed reality departments were either severely downsized or outright jettison.
Speaker 1: It's possible that the Hollow Lens has actually seen its
Speaker 1: final days, and lots of news outlets are suggesting that
Speaker 1: Microsoft maybe pulling back or even abandoning plans to develop
Speaker 1: the Metaverse. And it was going to be a really
Speaker 1: important partner with meta for that particular project. And y'all
Speaker 1: you know, I've been super critical about the hype around Metaverse.
Speaker 1: I still question the usefulness and and uh importance of
Speaker 1: the Metaverse, but I definitely did not want to see
Speaker 1: it all come crashing down like this, especially at the
Speaker 1: expense of people's jobs. I would have much rather have
Speaker 1: seen people get repurposed into other projects that could potentially
Speaker 1: have greater benefit. I really questioned the benefit of the metaverse.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I hate seeing folks getting laid off like this.
Speaker 1: Our next story takes us to New York City and
Speaker 1: Madison Square Gardens, So Masson Square Gardens or MSG, is
Speaker 1: one of the famous venues here in the United States.
Speaker 1: I think of Mass and Square Gardens the same way
Speaker 1: I think of things like the Hollywood Bowl. A lot
Speaker 1: of sporting events and concerts and stuff take place there.
Speaker 1: And whenever I think of Mass and Square Gardens, honestly,
Speaker 1: I just imagined professional rassling, maybe with a couple of
Speaker 1: immortals ready to have a big hold sword fight with
Speaker 1: one another. Give me a shout out if you actually
Speaker 1: understand that reference. But recently, MSG has been in the
Speaker 1: news for a controversial practice, namely using facial recognition technology
Speaker 1: at security checkpoints in order to identify and then deny
Speaker 1: entry to certain folks, namely people who have been identified
Speaker 1: as working for law firms that are currently or have
Speaker 1: previously been involved in lawsuits against MSG Entertainment, even if
Speaker 1: that person had was not an active part of that
Speaker 1: particular lawsuit. In other words, imagine that you show up
Speaker 1: to go see a concert and you get to security
Speaker 1: and you find out at the security checkpoint that you're
Speaker 1: not allowed inside because the owner of the building doesn't
Speaker 1: like the company you work for. That's the only reason. Oh,
Speaker 1: you work for X, Y or Z, you can't come in.
Speaker 1: We don't let you in here. Go home. That would
Speaker 1: really stink, right, and it has New York's Attorney General
Speaker 1: going after MSG Entertainment investigating if the company is violating
Speaker 1: civil and human rights by relying on facial recognition tech
Speaker 1: and denying entry in this way that it could be
Speaker 1: retaliatory and against the law. Even if it turns out
Speaker 1: it's not technically against the law, it sure does sound scummy,
Speaker 1: doesn't it. By the way, Masson Square Gardens, in case
Speaker 1: you were wondering, I look just like Ben Bolan of
Speaker 1: stuff they don't want you to know. Okay, I've got
Speaker 1: a couple more stories to finish up on that are
Speaker 1: kind of cool and science, but we'll get to those
Speaker 1: after this quick break. Okay, let's get all science and
Speaker 1: stuff for our final two news items for today's episode.
Speaker 1: First up is an article from side Tech Daily about
Speaker 1: how research in the Physical Review Research Journal details how
Speaker 1: artificial intelligence is helping the quantum computing discipline. It can
Speaker 1: help maintain coherence within quantum systems. This is something that's
Speaker 1: really tricky and incredibly important in quantum computing, but it
Speaker 1: does require a bit of explanation. So quantum systems are
Speaker 1: incredibly complicated and they are also very delicate. You've probably
Speaker 1: heard about quantum experiments where you are able to get
Speaker 1: really cool results until you observe the system and then
Speaker 1: it all breaks down into one or the other. So
Speaker 1: the classic example is light behaving like a wave and
Speaker 1: a particle at the same time, but when you observe
Speaker 1: the system, it breaks down into one or the other.
Speaker 1: It cannot be both at the same time. Well, you
Speaker 1: observe it because the system is broken down into a
Speaker 1: classical system. Well, Quantum computers can be used to tackle
Speaker 1: problems where there are perhaps thousands of potential solutions and
Speaker 1: the system is trying to determine what is the best
Speaker 1: solution out of all those thousands, and it's essentially doing
Speaker 1: that simultaneously. It's it's essentially solving the problem with every
Speaker 1: potential solution at the same time. However, if the quantum
Speaker 1: system collapses, it can't do that anymore, and it becomes
Speaker 1: a classical system, and it becomes a very underpowered classical system.
Speaker 1: And the killer of it is these quantum systems are
Speaker 1: so delicate. A couple of things can end up causing problems.
Speaker 1: There's this issue called damping, which is when essentially internal
Speaker 1: motion within the system starts to slow down and it
Speaker 1: can potentially come to a standstill. Another is collapse from
Speaker 1: environmental noise. Something external from the system causes the system
Speaker 1: to collapse. So maintaining the quantum system within a quantum
Speaker 1: computer is of vital importance and it's very hard. But
Speaker 1: this research shows that AI can be used to help
Speaker 1: keep the system healthy and it does that through the
Speaker 1: the the judicious use of things like intense light and
Speaker 1: changes in voltage and applying different voltage to the system.
Speaker 1: And it has to be done precisely at just the
Speaker 1: right time and just the right intensity, which is why
Speaker 1: AI is being used to do this. That AI is
Speaker 1: creating the system in which uh, these different effects can
Speaker 1: be applied to the quantum computer to keep it operational,
Speaker 1: which is crazy science fiction kind of stuff to me. Uh,
Speaker 1: And I love that AI can help us make another
Speaker 1: equally fascinating technology more effective through the use of zapping
Speaker 1: that technology at just the right time and just the
Speaker 1: right amount of power. And finally, researchers at the Chinese
Speaker 1: University of Hong Kong have developed a quote unquote robot
Speaker 1: out of a magneto active phase transitional matter or MPTM.
Speaker 1: And that sounds really complex, but when you start to
Speaker 1: break it down, it's actually not that hard to understand.
Speaker 1: It's hard to do, but you can at least understand
Speaker 1: what's going on. So magneto active tells us that this
Speaker 1: material reacts to magnets and magnetic fields. So you can
Speaker 1: conclude from that that this is how controllers can manipulate
Speaker 1: the robot. They can move it around and and move
Speaker 1: and manipulate in various ways using magnets and magnetic fields.
Speaker 1: All right, got it. So it's got some sort of
Speaker 1: magnetic material inside of it, but one of about phase
Speaker 1: transitional matter. What does that mean? Well, it means that
Speaker 1: the matter in question can move between different phases such
Speaker 1: as liquid and solid, and that, in fact is what
Speaker 1: we're talking about in this specific case. So this is
Speaker 1: a robot in air quotes that can go from solid
Speaker 1: to liquid and back to solid again, and it can
Speaker 1: be manipulated by magnets, which is super freaking cool. So
Speaker 1: the researchers relied on gallium. Uh, this is a metal
Speaker 1: that has a very low melting point. Gallium will go
Speaker 1: from solid to liquid at around eighty five and a
Speaker 1: half degrees fahrenheit or just under thirty degrees celsius. Now,
Speaker 1: this means that you can do some really neat stuff
Speaker 1: with gallium because gallium will be solid at room temperature,
Speaker 1: but it will melt if you hold a piece of
Speaker 1: it in your hand because your body temperature is higher
Speaker 1: than eighty five point five. And I've seen lots of
Speaker 1: videos of people playing with gallium where they've used gallium
Speaker 1: and poured liquid gallium into a mold of like a
Speaker 1: spoon for example, and so it looks like a regular
Speaker 1: metal spoon. But then if you were to use it
Speaker 1: to say, stir some hot tea, the spoon would just dissolve.
Speaker 1: It would melt into the You wouldn't want to drink
Speaker 1: that tea. By the way, it is non toxic, but
Speaker 1: you still don't want to be drinking gallium um. But yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's just cool, like a cool special effect
Speaker 1: kind of thing, and it's really trippy to see it
Speaker 1: in video action. It has actually been used in high
Speaker 1: temperature applications for thermometers, for example, instead of mercury. It
Speaker 1: only works if the temperatures you're measuring are above the
Speaker 1: melting point for gallium. But it is really useful because
Speaker 1: it's also non toxic, unlike mercury. The researchers then took
Speaker 1: this gallium, pure gallium, and they doped it with magnetic particles,
Speaker 1: so they essentially implant magnetic particles inside gallium and when
Speaker 1: it solidifies, those magnetic particles are locked in place, and
Speaker 1: so in solid form, it was really easy to manipulate
Speaker 1: the gallium using magnets because those those magnetic particles again,
Speaker 1: they're they're locked where they are, so you can use
Speaker 1: a magnet and just scoot that little solid piece of
Speaker 1: gallium all over the place. When it was in liquid form,
Speaker 1: it was much more difficult to make make the gallium
Speaker 1: move through magnetic force. You could get some movement, but
Speaker 1: it was really tough to do. But the research includes
Speaker 1: a really fun video and the video shows a little figuring.
Speaker 1: Its shaped kind of like a lego minifig and it's
Speaker 1: inside a black plastic cage, and the researchers use a
Speaker 1: magnet to move the figure around inside the cage, so
Speaker 1: the figure paces back and forth and then except it's
Speaker 1: not actually like its legs aren't moving, it's just scooting
Speaker 1: across the surface of the that's on I guess it's
Speaker 1: a table. It's hard to see because it's a really
Speaker 1: closed up video. But then they use magnetic resonance to
Speaker 1: heat the material up, so it went beyond the melting point,
Speaker 1: and so then it turns into this silvery globe and
Speaker 1: it slowly pours out through the bars of the cage
Speaker 1: and then flows into a mold that's in the shape
Speaker 1: of the original robot figure. It cools down and then resolidifies,
Speaker 1: and the boom. We have a very cute recreation of
Speaker 1: a famous scene from Terminator to where the T one
Speaker 1: thousand goes into liquid form and passes through the bars
Speaker 1: of a jail cell. Now, admittedly this is a very
Speaker 1: primitive robot. When it's in solid form, there are no
Speaker 1: real moving parts, there are no circuits, there are no
Speaker 1: processors or anything inside of this thing. It is completely
Speaker 1: manipulated by external forces. Being a physical magnet or something
Speaker 1: generating magnetic fields. And because it has this very low
Speaker 1: melting point, there aren't a lot of practical applications for
Speaker 1: this particular approach to robotics just yet. However, this could
Speaker 1: be the first step to doing some really cool work
Speaker 1: in creating robots that can change form depending upon the
Speaker 1: situation and the need, and that could be useful in
Speaker 1: all sorts of different applications, including medical procedures. So it
Speaker 1: is really neat, but we have to keep in mind
Speaker 1: this is like a demonstration of a concept and that
Speaker 1: we're very far away from having a practical version of
Speaker 1: this that could do useful stuff in the real world.
Speaker 1: Still fun to watch the video though, And that's it
Speaker 1: for this episode. The news for Thursday, January twenty three.
Speaker 1: I hope you are all well. If you have suggestions
Speaker 1: for topics I should cover in future episodes of tech Stuff,
Speaker 1: please reach out to me. You can do that in
Speaker 1: a couple of different ways. One is you can go
Speaker 1: over to Twitter and send me a tweet. The show
Speaker 1: handle is tech Stuff hs W, so just tweet at
Speaker 1: that and I'll see it. Or if you prefer, you
Speaker 1: can download the I Heart radio app spree to downloads
Speaker 1: free to use, and you can type text stuff into
Speaker 1: little search field. Go right to the tech stuff page.
Speaker 1: You'll see there's a little microphone icon on that page.
Speaker 1: If you click on that, you can leave a voice
Speaker 1: message up to thirty seconds in length and let me
Speaker 1: know what you would like to hear and I'll talk
Speaker 1: to you again really soon. Yeah. Text Stuff is an
Speaker 1: I Heart Radio production. For more podcasts from my Heart Radio,
Speaker 1: visit the i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever
Speaker 1: you listen to your favorite shows.