WEBVTT - Tech News: Why You Shouldn't Use AI Instead of People for Your Hotline

0:00:04.440 --> 0:00:12.399
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to Tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there,

0:00:12.400 --> 0:00:16.000
<v Speaker 1>and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland.

0:00:16.079 --> 0:00:19.160
<v Speaker 1>I'm an executive producer with iHeartRadio. And how the tech

0:00:19.200 --> 0:00:22.600
<v Speaker 1>are you. It's time for some tech news for June

0:00:22.760 --> 0:00:26.159
<v Speaker 1>of first, twenty twenty three. How did we get to

0:00:26.360 --> 0:00:32.120
<v Speaker 1>June already? Yikes? All right, it's another AI heavy news

0:00:32.159 --> 0:00:35.440
<v Speaker 1>episode because you know that's what's going on out there.

0:00:35.800 --> 0:00:39.560
<v Speaker 1>You might recall that on Tuesday I talked about Stephen Schwartz,

0:00:39.720 --> 0:00:43.800
<v Speaker 1>the lawyer who submitted a filing in a legal case

0:00:43.800 --> 0:00:48.320
<v Speaker 1>that contained false information courtesy of chat GPT. He didn't

0:00:48.320 --> 0:00:52.400
<v Speaker 1>do it on purpose. Chat GPT just gave him information

0:00:52.479 --> 0:00:56.160
<v Speaker 1>that was not true. Schwartz had used chat GPT as

0:00:56.200 --> 0:00:58.680
<v Speaker 1>part of his legal research in a case, and the

0:00:58.760 --> 0:01:03.560
<v Speaker 1>chat bot invented some cases that never actually existed as precedents.

0:01:03.920 --> 0:01:07.319
<v Speaker 1>So Schwartz did actually think to ask chat gpt if

0:01:07.360 --> 0:01:10.680
<v Speaker 1>the cases were real, Like there's a there's an exchange

0:01:10.680 --> 0:01:12.520
<v Speaker 1>where he said, hey, is that a real case? In

0:01:12.600 --> 0:01:17.840
<v Speaker 1>chat GPT is like yeah, yeah toats toad's real. So

0:01:17.920 --> 0:01:20.959
<v Speaker 1>it turns out you just can't trust a chatbot. This,

0:01:21.080 --> 0:01:23.480
<v Speaker 1>by the way, is why. I'm really concerned about these

0:01:23.560 --> 0:01:29.640
<v Speaker 1>chatbots being incorporated directly into things like web search, you know,

0:01:29.680 --> 0:01:32.800
<v Speaker 1>with Microsoft and Google both rushing to do that. I

0:01:32.800 --> 0:01:36.360
<v Speaker 1>think it's a mistake because of multiple reasons, one of

0:01:36.400 --> 0:01:41.000
<v Speaker 1>which is this tendency toward hallucinations. Now Schwartz is awaiting

0:01:41.000 --> 0:01:43.640
<v Speaker 1>a hearing that will happen on June eighth that will

0:01:43.640 --> 0:01:47.200
<v Speaker 1>determine what, if any, sanctions he will face as a

0:01:47.280 --> 0:01:53.840
<v Speaker 1>result of this goof them up. Meanwhile, in Texas, a

0:01:54.960 --> 0:01:58.360
<v Speaker 1>judge named Brantley Starr has made it clear that he

0:01:58.400 --> 0:02:02.320
<v Speaker 1>will not abide any AI chat bought shenanigans in his court.

0:02:02.720 --> 0:02:05.640
<v Speaker 1>He said that attorneys in his courtroom must promise that

0:02:05.760 --> 0:02:09.840
<v Speaker 1>quote no portion of the filing was drafted by generative

0:02:09.960 --> 0:02:14.359
<v Speaker 1>artificial intelligence end quote, or if any part of the

0:02:14.440 --> 0:02:20.320
<v Speaker 1>filing did involve generative AI in any respect, a human

0:02:20.400 --> 0:02:24.160
<v Speaker 1>being must have checked the information and verified it to

0:02:24.200 --> 0:02:29.399
<v Speaker 1>be true and accurate. This covers pretty much anything lawyers

0:02:29.440 --> 0:02:32.519
<v Speaker 1>would submit to the court, and I think it's an

0:02:32.600 --> 0:02:36.839
<v Speaker 1>excellent idea. As we saw with Schwartz, AI just it's

0:02:36.960 --> 0:02:40.800
<v Speaker 1>not trustworthy. It can make stuff up in some cases,

0:02:41.000 --> 0:02:44.160
<v Speaker 1>and honestly, this step is good for everyone in the

0:02:44.240 --> 0:02:47.760
<v Speaker 1>legal system. In the long run, I wouldn't be surprised

0:02:48.000 --> 0:02:52.640
<v Speaker 1>to see other judges follow suit. Open AI, meanwhile, is

0:02:52.720 --> 0:02:57.800
<v Speaker 1>trying to address this troubling problem of AI hallucinations. So yes,

0:02:58.000 --> 0:03:01.280
<v Speaker 1>in case you forgot what halluci nations mean with regard

0:03:01.320 --> 0:03:04.480
<v Speaker 1>to AI, it just means an incident in which AI

0:03:04.720 --> 0:03:08.600
<v Speaker 1>invents information, such as the fake legal cases cited in

0:03:08.639 --> 0:03:13.120
<v Speaker 1>Schwartz's situation. And it's not that AI is a pathological

0:03:13.200 --> 0:03:16.280
<v Speaker 1>liar or has some sort of motivation to give us

0:03:16.320 --> 0:03:20.760
<v Speaker 1>the wrong information. It's more like, when this AI gets

0:03:20.800 --> 0:03:23.280
<v Speaker 1>into a situation where it does not have all the

0:03:23.320 --> 0:03:28.240
<v Speaker 1>relevant information, sometimes it just makes stuff up in the

0:03:28.320 --> 0:03:32.760
<v Speaker 1>absence of reliable info. To me, it's kind of like

0:03:32.800 --> 0:03:35.840
<v Speaker 1>if you've ever had a friend who just seems incapable

0:03:35.920 --> 0:03:38.680
<v Speaker 1>of using the words I don't know the answer to that,

0:03:39.640 --> 0:03:43.760
<v Speaker 1>then you probably feel like this is a very familiar situation, right.

0:03:44.800 --> 0:03:47.280
<v Speaker 1>Just think of someone who, rather than say I don't know,

0:03:47.720 --> 0:03:51.240
<v Speaker 1>that's interesting, I don't know, they say, oh, it's probably

0:03:51.320 --> 0:03:54.400
<v Speaker 1>because or maybe they don't even you know, try to aculivocate.

0:03:54.480 --> 0:03:57.720
<v Speaker 1>They just outright say something they think is probably true

0:03:58.040 --> 0:04:00.160
<v Speaker 1>and they don't know. One way or the other. It's

0:04:00.200 --> 0:04:04.440
<v Speaker 1>kind of what open ai says is happening with chat GPT,

0:04:04.600 --> 0:04:07.000
<v Speaker 1>actually what a lot of AI experts say are happening

0:04:07.000 --> 0:04:10.760
<v Speaker 1>with generative AI in general. And so now the company

0:04:10.800 --> 0:04:14.400
<v Speaker 1>is saying it's going to revisit how AI works toward

0:04:14.880 --> 0:04:19.560
<v Speaker 1>creating an answer. So right now, the model apparently follows

0:04:19.560 --> 0:04:23.840
<v Speaker 1>a process called outcome supervision, in which the goal is

0:04:23.920 --> 0:04:26.440
<v Speaker 1>just to get the final answer. It doesn't really matter

0:04:26.480 --> 0:04:30.279
<v Speaker 1>what pathway you took to get there. The ends justify

0:04:30.279 --> 0:04:34.719
<v Speaker 1>the means. In other words, so the outcome supervision is

0:04:34.839 --> 0:04:37.600
<v Speaker 1>just the AI gets a reward if the answer it

0:04:37.640 --> 0:04:40.640
<v Speaker 1>provides at the end of the day is correct. The

0:04:40.720 --> 0:04:44.520
<v Speaker 1>problem is that when AI makes a mistakes, say early

0:04:44.600 --> 0:04:46.880
<v Speaker 1>on in the process, this can have a much larger

0:04:46.920 --> 0:04:49.760
<v Speaker 1>effect further on in the process. Like if you've ever

0:04:49.839 --> 0:04:53.719
<v Speaker 1>put something together and you made a mistake early, you

0:04:53.800 --> 0:04:55.640
<v Speaker 1>might realize that by the time you're getting toward the

0:04:55.720 --> 0:04:59.000
<v Speaker 1>end that small mistake has created a situation much further

0:04:59.040 --> 0:05:02.400
<v Speaker 1>in the process. That is a huge problem. Well, so

0:05:02.640 --> 0:05:05.080
<v Speaker 1>is the same with AI, And so open ai is

0:05:05.080 --> 0:05:10.279
<v Speaker 1>saying they're looking at changing over to process supervision in

0:05:10.320 --> 0:05:14.320
<v Speaker 1>which you know, reward stages for the AI occur throughout

0:05:14.440 --> 0:05:19.520
<v Speaker 1>the reasoning process, so this thought is supposed to less

0:05:19.839 --> 0:05:24.200
<v Speaker 1>think that you know, AI would reward itself every step

0:05:24.240 --> 0:05:26.720
<v Speaker 1>along the way as it made the right choices, and

0:05:26.760 --> 0:05:31.520
<v Speaker 1>thus would reduce the possibility of making a mistake. Further

0:05:31.640 --> 0:05:36.800
<v Speaker 1>down the line, critics argue that it may not make

0:05:36.880 --> 0:05:41.200
<v Speaker 1>any difference at all to the amount of misinformation or

0:05:41.240 --> 0:05:45.320
<v Speaker 1>just fake information that is generated by AI. It might

0:05:45.360 --> 0:05:48.720
<v Speaker 1>not matter what process it uses, but rather what's more

0:05:48.760 --> 0:05:53.160
<v Speaker 1>important is that AI operates with a lack of transparency,

0:05:53.240 --> 0:05:56.039
<v Speaker 1>so it can be really hard to pinpoint where a

0:05:56.120 --> 0:06:00.800
<v Speaker 1>problem starts because you can't actually see what the processes.

0:06:00.880 --> 0:06:02.600
<v Speaker 1>And if you can't see what the process is, it's

0:06:02.720 --> 0:06:06.640
<v Speaker 1>very hard to diagnose where the problem is popping up.

0:06:07.480 --> 0:06:09.920
<v Speaker 1>And so the critics worry that this change in method

0:06:09.920 --> 0:06:14.440
<v Speaker 1>won't actually solve the problem of AI creating incorrect responses

0:06:14.480 --> 0:06:19.320
<v Speaker 1>and misinformation. Over in Italy, a senator named Marco Lombardo

0:06:19.680 --> 0:06:23.719
<v Speaker 1>stood before Parliament and delivered a speech about Italy's agreements

0:06:23.800 --> 0:06:28.440
<v Speaker 1>with Switzerland, and that does not sound particularly techi except

0:06:28.920 --> 0:06:32.320
<v Speaker 1>at the conclusion of the speech, Lombardo revealed that the

0:06:32.360 --> 0:06:34.760
<v Speaker 1>speech he read out was not written by a human

0:06:34.800 --> 0:06:39.000
<v Speaker 1>being instead it was generated by AI, and further, Lombardo

0:06:39.080 --> 0:06:42.560
<v Speaker 1>said he did this in order to prompt a larger

0:06:42.680 --> 0:06:48.160
<v Speaker 1>conversation about AI and to really consider what it can

0:06:48.240 --> 0:06:52.839
<v Speaker 1>do and the potential consequences that can occur if people

0:06:53.360 --> 0:06:57.039
<v Speaker 1>misuse it or if the AI does not perform as expected.

0:06:57.520 --> 0:07:00.719
<v Speaker 1>Italy has been one of the more proactive country to

0:07:00.960 --> 0:07:05.160
<v Speaker 1>consider AI and to be critical of AI. Previously, Italy

0:07:05.279 --> 0:07:09.720
<v Speaker 1>banned chat gpt, although only temporarily, and did so because

0:07:09.720 --> 0:07:13.480
<v Speaker 1>of concerns that information shared with the chatbot would not

0:07:13.680 --> 0:07:18.440
<v Speaker 1>be secure and thus violate citizen privacy laws. And we've

0:07:18.440 --> 0:07:22.760
<v Speaker 1>seen with chat GPT in particular that the history of

0:07:22.840 --> 0:07:27.080
<v Speaker 1>chat ended up becoming open right. People were suddenly able

0:07:27.120 --> 0:07:30.000
<v Speaker 1>to see what other people had been talking about with

0:07:30.120 --> 0:07:34.640
<v Speaker 1>chat GPT. So I think it's an understandable concern along

0:07:34.640 --> 0:07:38.800
<v Speaker 1>with privacy, but also it's good to see governments having

0:07:38.880 --> 0:07:43.760
<v Speaker 1>these discussions to really seriously talk about how to think

0:07:43.800 --> 0:07:46.400
<v Speaker 1>about AI in order to make the best use of

0:07:46.440 --> 0:07:51.920
<v Speaker 1>it and not have it create problems. Italy's approach has

0:07:51.920 --> 0:07:54.920
<v Speaker 1>motivated the EU in general. Lawmakers there as well as

0:07:54.920 --> 0:07:57.280
<v Speaker 1>some of the United States, have indicated that they are

0:07:57.320 --> 0:08:02.440
<v Speaker 1>now working on a code of conduct regarding AI and

0:08:02.840 --> 0:08:06.480
<v Speaker 1>AI companies. Representatives from the EU and the United States

0:08:06.520 --> 0:08:10.080
<v Speaker 1>met at a Trade and Technology Council meeting and started

0:08:10.120 --> 0:08:14.400
<v Speaker 1>to talk over this code of conduct, which would be voluntary.

0:08:15.280 --> 0:08:18.960
<v Speaker 1>On my mind, a voluntary code of conduct is a

0:08:18.960 --> 0:08:22.080
<v Speaker 1>little bit on the weak sauce side. I get that

0:08:22.760 --> 0:08:25.720
<v Speaker 1>optics can be bad if an AI company refuses to

0:08:25.760 --> 0:08:29.000
<v Speaker 1>adopt the code of conduct, and that might mean that

0:08:29.240 --> 0:08:32.120
<v Speaker 1>the company would find it difficult to do business with

0:08:32.200 --> 0:08:36.120
<v Speaker 1>customers if they refused to sign on to this code

0:08:36.160 --> 0:08:39.960
<v Speaker 1>of conduct. So there might be some social pressures and

0:08:40.080 --> 0:08:43.840
<v Speaker 1>business pressures to do it, but it's voluntary. Considering the

0:08:43.880 --> 0:08:47.880
<v Speaker 1>potential risks associated with AI now, I am not going

0:08:47.920 --> 0:08:51.199
<v Speaker 1>so far as to claim there's an existential threat level

0:08:51.280 --> 0:08:54.839
<v Speaker 1>risk out there, but there is risk, and that's bad enough.

0:08:54.880 --> 0:08:57.240
<v Speaker 1>But considering that risk, I think we might need more

0:08:57.280 --> 0:09:00.719
<v Speaker 1>than just a voluntary code of conduct in order to

0:09:00.800 --> 0:09:04.120
<v Speaker 1>keep things in line. Also, it'll be interesting to see

0:09:04.440 --> 0:09:08.600
<v Speaker 1>what role various AI companies and open Ai in particular,

0:09:08.960 --> 0:09:13.840
<v Speaker 1>will take in helping draft this code of conduct. You know,

0:09:13.880 --> 0:09:17.680
<v Speaker 1>Sam Altman, the CEO of open Ai, has tried to

0:09:17.679 --> 0:09:22.040
<v Speaker 1>get in front of this stuff and It makes me

0:09:22.120 --> 0:09:25.440
<v Speaker 1>worry because if the people who are the subject of

0:09:25.440 --> 0:09:29.280
<v Speaker 1>a code of conduct are actually allowed to write or

0:09:29.280 --> 0:09:32.760
<v Speaker 1>at least influence the writing of that code of conduct,

0:09:33.160 --> 0:09:35.319
<v Speaker 1>you can end up with rules that don't actually guard

0:09:35.320 --> 0:09:38.920
<v Speaker 1>against anything at all, and then it's just optics and

0:09:38.960 --> 0:09:42.920
<v Speaker 1>that's useless. And for a horrifying story of how AI

0:09:43.080 --> 0:09:47.360
<v Speaker 1>can be harmful, Chloe Shang of Motherboard has an article

0:09:47.400 --> 0:09:53.400
<v Speaker 1>titled Eating disorder Helpline disables chatbot for harmful responses after

0:09:53.559 --> 0:09:58.880
<v Speaker 1>firing human staff. Yeah, the headline, that's a lot. So

0:09:58.920 --> 0:10:02.000
<v Speaker 1>the story here is is that the National Eating Disorder

0:10:02.080 --> 0:10:08.000
<v Speaker 1>Association or NDA made a plan to replace human operators

0:10:08.360 --> 0:10:13.040
<v Speaker 1>of a mental health hotline with a chatbot called Tessup.

0:10:13.360 --> 0:10:15.840
<v Speaker 1>So I guess the idea was that the chatbot would

0:10:15.880 --> 0:10:20.040
<v Speaker 1>be more efficient and cheaper than keeping human beings who

0:10:20.080 --> 0:10:24.720
<v Speaker 1>have expertise and experience and you know, empathy on the payroll.

0:10:25.120 --> 0:10:27.840
<v Speaker 1>But you know, this is not a helpline you would

0:10:27.880 --> 0:10:30.640
<v Speaker 1>call if your lawnmower stopped working, Like, I can see

0:10:30.640 --> 0:10:34.400
<v Speaker 1>a chatbot being used for something rather mundane like this.

0:10:34.400 --> 0:10:37.360
<v Speaker 1>This is a helpline design for people who are dealing

0:10:38.000 --> 0:10:44.000
<v Speaker 1>with eating disorders. Union representatives have accused ANYDA of using

0:10:44.120 --> 0:10:47.760
<v Speaker 1>union busting tactics and warned that relying on AI could

0:10:47.840 --> 0:10:51.120
<v Speaker 1>lead to terrible situations. And earlier this week, a social

0:10:51.200 --> 0:10:53.640
<v Speaker 1>media post about how this AI chatbot led to a

0:10:53.720 --> 0:10:57.439
<v Speaker 1>terrible situation went viral. So, first up, there was an

0:10:57.440 --> 0:11:01.800
<v Speaker 1>activist named Sharon Maxwell. I had to test out Tessa,

0:11:02.400 --> 0:11:05.800
<v Speaker 1>and she said that quote every single thing Tessa suggested

0:11:05.840 --> 0:11:08.400
<v Speaker 1>were things that led to the development of my eating

0:11:08.440 --> 0:11:13.160
<v Speaker 1>disorder end quote. So by that, what I think Maxwell

0:11:13.200 --> 0:11:16.720
<v Speaker 1>is saying is that she had previously developed an eating disorder,

0:11:17.400 --> 0:11:21.280
<v Speaker 1>and the thoughts that went into her head that led

0:11:21.320 --> 0:11:24.280
<v Speaker 1>to her developing this eating disorder were the exact same

0:11:24.360 --> 0:11:28.440
<v Speaker 1>things that this chatbot was now suggesting as advice. So,

0:11:28.520 --> 0:11:32.840
<v Speaker 1>in other words, Tessa was giving Maxwell the advice of, Hey,

0:11:33.200 --> 0:11:36.440
<v Speaker 1>maybe you can lose a pound or two by doing this,

0:11:36.440 --> 0:11:39.200
<v Speaker 1>this and this, And when you're trying to make that

0:11:39.200 --> 0:11:42.520
<v Speaker 1>suggestion to someone who's dealing with the eating disorder, that

0:11:42.720 --> 0:11:46.560
<v Speaker 1>is a very dangerous thing. And then a psychologist named

0:11:46.600 --> 0:11:51.000
<v Speaker 1>Alexis Conason, and my apologies for the pronunciation of your

0:11:51.040 --> 0:11:53.520
<v Speaker 1>last name, I'm sure I'm getting it wrong. She conducted

0:11:53.559 --> 0:11:57.080
<v Speaker 1>her own test and found similar results. So what was

0:11:57.200 --> 0:12:03.520
<v Speaker 1>Anyda's response. Well, initially the organization accused Conison of fabricating

0:12:03.559 --> 0:12:07.400
<v Speaker 1>the whole thing, so she sent screenshots of her conversation

0:12:07.520 --> 0:12:10.320
<v Speaker 1>to an Eda, and then not too long after that,

0:12:10.880 --> 0:12:14.240
<v Speaker 1>Anyda took Tessa offline in order to address some quote

0:12:14.280 --> 0:12:19.120
<v Speaker 1>unquote bugs in the program. While Tesla has guardrails that

0:12:19.160 --> 0:12:22.160
<v Speaker 1>are meant to keep the chatbot from doing stuff like this,

0:12:23.120 --> 0:12:27.840
<v Speaker 1>we have seen again and again that AI can bypass

0:12:28.080 --> 0:12:30.880
<v Speaker 1>guardrails even if the person on the other end of

0:12:30.920 --> 0:12:35.120
<v Speaker 1>the conversation isn't trying to force things that way, and

0:12:35.240 --> 0:12:38.120
<v Speaker 1>the story really points out that for some jobs you

0:12:38.240 --> 0:12:41.200
<v Speaker 1>really probably should just depend upon human beings to do

0:12:41.240 --> 0:12:45.640
<v Speaker 1>the work. Okay, we're going to take a quick break.

0:12:45.679 --> 0:12:47.760
<v Speaker 1>When we come back, we've got some more news items

0:12:47.760 --> 0:13:02.040
<v Speaker 1>to cover. Okay, we're back. Meta says it's going to

0:13:02.120 --> 0:13:06.080
<v Speaker 1>remove posts containing news content for users in the state

0:13:06.080 --> 0:13:11.320
<v Speaker 1>of California if California passes a law that would require

0:13:11.400 --> 0:13:16.160
<v Speaker 1>platforms like Facebook and Google to pay publishers if work

0:13:16.200 --> 0:13:19.760
<v Speaker 1>from those publishers show up on those platforms. We've actually

0:13:19.760 --> 0:13:23.000
<v Speaker 1>seen this issue crop up around the world. Notably, it

0:13:23.080 --> 0:13:26.079
<v Speaker 1>happened in Australia a couple of years ago, when Australia

0:13:26.120 --> 0:13:30.199
<v Speaker 1>passed a similar law, Facebook went dark in Australia temporarily.

0:13:30.520 --> 0:13:34.400
<v Speaker 1>Eventually the law took hold and things have kind of

0:13:34.520 --> 0:13:37.720
<v Speaker 1>entered into an equilibrium. Whether or not the law actually

0:13:37.760 --> 0:13:42.280
<v Speaker 1>addressed the issue that was of concern is another matter

0:13:42.520 --> 0:13:46.120
<v Speaker 1>that actually is a good subject for an episode, honestly.

0:13:46.520 --> 0:13:50.240
<v Speaker 1>But the idea is that publishers want compensation. They're arguing

0:13:50.760 --> 0:13:55.520
<v Speaker 1>that platforms like Google and Facebook are siphoning traffic away

0:13:55.600 --> 0:13:59.880
<v Speaker 1>from the actual news websites. That's where they monetize that traffic,

0:14:00.440 --> 0:14:04.760
<v Speaker 1>and these platforms are benefiting from the work being done

0:14:04.800 --> 0:14:08.920
<v Speaker 1>by journalists, but they're not compensating the news outlets in

0:14:08.960 --> 0:14:13.760
<v Speaker 1>the process. Meta's Andy Stone, who's a name that I

0:14:13.800 --> 0:14:16.400
<v Speaker 1>see pop up pretty much whenever the company wants to

0:14:16.400 --> 0:14:20.400
<v Speaker 1>dismiss regulations that would work against it, said the bill,

0:14:20.520 --> 0:14:22.840
<v Speaker 1>if signed into law, would amount to nothing more than

0:14:22.840 --> 0:14:26.480
<v Speaker 1>a slush fund that would benefit large media companies but

0:14:26.640 --> 0:14:30.840
<v Speaker 1>not help smaller California based publishers, which, depending on how

0:14:30.880 --> 0:14:33.800
<v Speaker 1>this bill is framed, that actually might be true, because

0:14:33.800 --> 0:14:37.880
<v Speaker 1>I've heard similar criticisms about the Australian law. Now I

0:14:37.920 --> 0:14:40.160
<v Speaker 1>don't know I haven't read the bill. If I had

0:14:40.240 --> 0:14:42.960
<v Speaker 1>read the bill, I probably wouldn't have a good grasp

0:14:43.000 --> 0:14:46.440
<v Speaker 1>on its limitations because law speak be scary you. It's

0:14:46.440 --> 0:14:50.160
<v Speaker 1>even more difficult to read than a really complex technical manual.

0:14:50.600 --> 0:14:54.600
<v Speaker 1>But yes, this is another battle we're starting to see unfold.

0:14:55.040 --> 0:14:59.640
<v Speaker 1>I don't see California backing down from this, and it

0:14:59.680 --> 0:15:02.800
<v Speaker 1>will be interesting to see where this goes. But honestly,

0:15:02.880 --> 0:15:05.520
<v Speaker 1>at the end of the day, I'm mostly concerned that

0:15:05.600 --> 0:15:09.400
<v Speaker 1>the law actually does what the law aims to do right.

0:15:10.160 --> 0:15:13.040
<v Speaker 1>It gets very frustrating when you hear about laws that

0:15:13.120 --> 0:15:17.200
<v Speaker 1>potentially could correct a situation, but because of how they

0:15:17.200 --> 0:15:20.600
<v Speaker 1>are written and how they're enacted, they failed to do

0:15:21.000 --> 0:15:26.520
<v Speaker 1>what the purpose at least claimed to be. Metta also

0:15:26.840 --> 0:15:29.880
<v Speaker 1>faces a fine levied by a court in Russia this week.

0:15:30.240 --> 0:15:33.080
<v Speaker 1>The charge is that the company failed to remove prohibited

0:15:33.160 --> 0:15:38.560
<v Speaker 1>content from WhatsApp, specifically about a drug called Lyrica, and

0:15:38.600 --> 0:15:44.160
<v Speaker 1>so the fine is three million rubles, which equates to

0:15:44.240 --> 0:15:47.720
<v Speaker 1>about thirty seven thousand dollars, and a Russian court also

0:15:47.840 --> 0:15:52.560
<v Speaker 1>find the Wikimedia Foundation a similar amount of money, also

0:15:52.680 --> 0:15:56.560
<v Speaker 1>three million rubles, but they said that Wikimedia Foundation failed

0:15:56.560 --> 0:16:00.720
<v Speaker 1>to remove quote unquote false information about Russia's war wind Ukraine.

0:16:01.560 --> 0:16:04.960
<v Speaker 1>Something tells me that neither Meta nor Wikimedia Foundation will

0:16:05.000 --> 0:16:09.840
<v Speaker 1>consider these moves particularly intimidating. Meta certainly not thirty seven

0:16:09.880 --> 0:16:12.960
<v Speaker 1>thousand dollars is like, I don't even think they would

0:16:13.000 --> 0:16:16.440
<v Speaker 1>notice if that money went away, So I don't think

0:16:16.440 --> 0:16:20.080
<v Speaker 1>that this is really a big move against the companies.

0:16:20.600 --> 0:16:23.440
<v Speaker 1>Amazon also has a couple of bills to settle this week.

0:16:23.640 --> 0:16:25.640
<v Speaker 1>First up, the company agreed to pay a thirty eight

0:16:25.680 --> 0:16:28.680
<v Speaker 1>million dollars settlement in relation to a lawsuit that accused

0:16:28.720 --> 0:16:33.000
<v Speaker 1>the company of having illegally collected and storing information relating

0:16:33.040 --> 0:16:39.200
<v Speaker 1>to children through the Digital Personal Assistant, whose name starts

0:16:39.200 --> 0:16:41.520
<v Speaker 1>with A, ends with A, and has lex in the middle.

0:16:42.200 --> 0:16:45.560
<v Speaker 1>The Federal Trade Commission in the United States brought the

0:16:45.640 --> 0:16:49.080
<v Speaker 1>case against Amazon, so this settlement requires that the company

0:16:49.400 --> 0:16:53.640
<v Speaker 1>changes its data collection, storage, and deletion practices on top

0:16:53.680 --> 0:16:56.360
<v Speaker 1>of paying the fine. The other bill Amazon has to

0:16:56.360 --> 0:16:59.920
<v Speaker 1>pay is five point eight million dollars. This is another settlement,

0:17:00.160 --> 0:17:03.800
<v Speaker 1>also with the FTC. This one is with regard to

0:17:03.880 --> 0:17:08.200
<v Speaker 1>Amazon's ring products. Those are the security systems and doorbell

0:17:08.560 --> 0:17:12.200
<v Speaker 1>camera systems. The FTC accused Amazon of having a system

0:17:12.240 --> 0:17:17.120
<v Speaker 1>that allowed employees and contractors to access video feeds from

0:17:17.200 --> 0:17:21.760
<v Speaker 1>customer cameras without any real safeguards to prevent that from happening.

0:17:22.160 --> 0:17:24.959
<v Speaker 1>As you might imagine that as a huge privacy and

0:17:25.000 --> 0:17:29.000
<v Speaker 1>security violation. Amazon has agreed to create new processes with

0:17:29.119 --> 0:17:31.159
<v Speaker 1>regular checkups to make sure that the company has a

0:17:31.160 --> 0:17:35.120
<v Speaker 1>tighter data security strategy, while also simultaneously saying we never

0:17:35.160 --> 0:17:38.880
<v Speaker 1>broke the law, because that's what you can do when

0:17:38.920 --> 0:17:42.119
<v Speaker 1>you make settlements, all right. One trend happening with some

0:17:42.280 --> 0:17:45.000
<v Speaker 1>tech platforms is to make changes to how these platforms

0:17:45.000 --> 0:17:48.920
<v Speaker 1>give access to an API, which is an application programming interface.

0:17:49.400 --> 0:17:53.800
<v Speaker 1>That's what lets app developers tap into larger platforms in

0:17:53.920 --> 0:17:57.240
<v Speaker 1>order to do whatever it is. So a developer might

0:17:57.320 --> 0:18:00.240
<v Speaker 1>create an app that ties into a larger platform like

0:18:00.280 --> 0:18:02.760
<v Speaker 1>Twitter or as we'll talk about in a second Reddit,

0:18:03.440 --> 0:18:08.119
<v Speaker 1>and these apps then reference they send requests to the

0:18:08.640 --> 0:18:13.320
<v Speaker 1>underlying platform, and that populates the app. So Twitter as

0:18:13.480 --> 0:18:17.320
<v Speaker 1>a price tag associated with this. For every fifty million

0:18:17.400 --> 0:18:21.200
<v Speaker 1>tweets requested, a developer has to cough up forty two

0:18:21.280 --> 0:18:24.800
<v Speaker 1>thousand dollars. And yes, fifty million tweets, that's a lot.

0:18:25.080 --> 0:18:27.760
<v Speaker 1>But if your app is super popular and a lot

0:18:27.760 --> 0:18:30.119
<v Speaker 1>of people are using it all day. You're going to

0:18:30.200 --> 0:18:33.240
<v Speaker 1>hit that fifty million mark over and over again. Reddit

0:18:33.400 --> 0:18:36.480
<v Speaker 1>is now doing something similar. They've changed their API, and

0:18:36.640 --> 0:18:41.119
<v Speaker 1>Christian Sellig, the developer behind the popular Reddit app Apollo,

0:18:41.680 --> 0:18:43.800
<v Speaker 1>reports that he might have to shut the app down

0:18:43.960 --> 0:18:46.919
<v Speaker 1>entirely because of Reddit's new policy, which is to charge

0:18:46.960 --> 0:18:51.439
<v Speaker 1>twelve thousand dollars per fifty million requests. Selleg revealed that

0:18:51.480 --> 0:18:56.199
<v Speaker 1>Apollo generates around seven billion requests every month, and that

0:18:56.240 --> 0:18:58.800
<v Speaker 1>means it would cost around twenty million dollars a year

0:18:58.840 --> 0:19:02.400
<v Speaker 1>to operate. The app, understandably is not in a position

0:19:02.600 --> 0:19:06.200
<v Speaker 1>to pay that much. Generally speaking, the app developer community

0:19:06.280 --> 0:19:08.360
<v Speaker 1>is not too keen on this approach, as it punishes

0:19:08.400 --> 0:19:12.040
<v Speaker 1>you for being successful. Finally, if you have a PC

0:19:12.200 --> 0:19:14.760
<v Speaker 1>rig with a motherboard from Gigabyte, you should know that

0:19:14.800 --> 0:19:18.000
<v Speaker 1>security researchers at Eclipsium discovered the company had created a

0:19:18.040 --> 0:19:22.000
<v Speaker 1>backdoor system to deliver firmware updates to the motherboard, and

0:19:22.480 --> 0:19:25.520
<v Speaker 1>that system lacks proper security, which means a hacker could

0:19:25.520 --> 0:19:29.920
<v Speaker 1>potentially hijack that delivery system and use it to send

0:19:30.520 --> 0:19:34.720
<v Speaker 1>executable code straight to target computers. Do not pass goes,

0:19:34.760 --> 0:19:37.479
<v Speaker 1>do not Colick two hundred dollars. If you're curious, if

0:19:37.520 --> 0:19:40.399
<v Speaker 1>your device has a Gigabyte motherboard, you can go to

0:19:41.080 --> 0:19:43.680
<v Speaker 1>the start menu and Windows and look at system information.

0:19:44.800 --> 0:19:48.000
<v Speaker 1>More than two hundred and fifty motherboards are affected by this,

0:19:48.760 --> 0:19:52.439
<v Speaker 1>so that's a big ouch. Supposedly, Gigabyte is working on

0:19:52.520 --> 0:19:56.320
<v Speaker 1>this and intends to create a solution, but as of

0:19:56.400 --> 0:19:59.240
<v Speaker 1>right now, I don't know of any solution that has

0:19:59.359 --> 0:20:03.320
<v Speaker 1>actually out there, so be careful out there. All right,

0:20:03.400 --> 0:20:05.960
<v Speaker 1>that's it for the tech news for today, June first,

0:20:06.000 --> 0:20:09.560
<v Speaker 1>twenty twenty three. I hope you're all well, and I'll

0:20:09.600 --> 0:20:18.760
<v Speaker 1>talk to you again really soon. Tech Stuff is an

0:20:18.840 --> 0:20:24.359
<v Speaker 1>iHeartRadio production. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,

0:20:24.480 --> 0:20:31.560
<v Speaker 1>Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.