Speaker 1: Welcome to Tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey thereon
Speaker 1: Welcome to Tech Stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland. I'm
Speaker 1: an executive producer with iHeartRadio. And how the tech are you.
Speaker 1: It's time for the tech news for Thursday, April twenty seventh,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three. Now, maybe you've seen this headline. Man
Speaker 1: uses chat gpt to pick winning lottery numbers. That is
Speaker 1: a heck of a claim, right, I mean that is
Speaker 1: bound to get you to click through to the article.
Speaker 1: Of course, if you read the actual story, it deflates
Speaker 1: things a little bit. The story happened in Thailand. The
Speaker 1: winner received the equivalent of fifty nine bucks. It's not
Speaker 1: exactly enough to retire on. They have gone on to
Speaker 1: TikTok to talk about what they claim has happened. But
Speaker 1: what about chat GPT giving winning numbers? Well, first, I
Speaker 1: couldn't find any verification that it actually happened. But let's
Speaker 1: go ahead and assume the story is true. There's no
Speaker 1: reason for us to just think that it's all made up.
Speaker 1: The lottery drawn this case was of four numbers, and
Speaker 1: apparently this man used some hypothetical situations while chatting with
Speaker 1: Chad GPT and also asked the bot to analyze past
Speaker 1: numbers and then suggest four numbers to pick for the
Speaker 1: upcoming lottery. Now I don't have all the details, but
Speaker 1: I can say that for random events, you cannot predict
Speaker 1: the future based upon the past. Each event is independent
Speaker 1: from the others. If you flip a coin and it
Speaker 1: comes up heads, and it's a normal coin with the
Speaker 1: heads and the tails, you cannot predict that the next
Speaker 1: coin flip will be heads or tails. I mean, you
Speaker 1: could try, but you can't be sure. Like there's no
Speaker 1: legitimacy to the guess. And that's because each flip is
Speaker 1: independent of all other flips. Over the long term, you
Speaker 1: should see a fifty to fifty distribution of heads versus tails,
Speaker 1: but from one flip to the next, there's no way
Speaker 1: of predicting it. So this is assuming you're working with
Speaker 1: actual random events. So long as the lottery system is
Speaker 1: working properly, it should not matter what past numbers indicate.
Speaker 1: But if there is a bias in the system, then
Speaker 1: it would be possible that a computer could pick up
Speaker 1: on patterns that would be otherwise a little difficult to spot.
Speaker 1: It still would be a heck. Of a guess to
Speaker 1: land winning numbers based off patterns, because chances are it's
Speaker 1: not the exact same four numbers coming up over and
Speaker 1: over again. If that were the case, then I can
Speaker 1: guarantee you someone would come in and say, okay, we
Speaker 1: need to look at what's going on here. It's far
Speaker 1: more likely that a lottery commission would notice patterns before
Speaker 1: anyone else would, and would demand a full audit of
Speaker 1: the system to make sure that things were running fair
Speaker 1: and square. Also, chad GPT only has access to information
Speaker 1: up to twenty twenty one. Anything from twenty twenty one
Speaker 1: forward isn't accessible. So if chad GPT were drawing information
Speaker 1: from past lottery numbers, they would be very old. And
Speaker 1: to me that suggests that the lottery system would probably
Speaker 1: have been replaced or altered at some point in the
Speaker 1: years between twenty twenty one and twenty twenty three, and
Speaker 1: I guess well the year, so all three of those years,
Speaker 1: and that these old patterns, if they did exist before
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one, probably shouldn't exist today. So you couldn't
Speaker 1: even if those patterns were there, you couldn't draw from
Speaker 1: that and make a meaningful guess for today's numbers. Of course,
Speaker 1: it's possible this man was feeding the more recent lottery
Speaker 1: numbers to chat GBT manually that could be the case,
Speaker 1: but again, unless something hinky is going on with the
Speaker 1: actual lottery system, there's really nothing but coincidence connecting the
Speaker 1: chatbot's suggestions to actual winning numbers. It's not like chat
Speaker 1: GPT could analyze all the variables involved in the numbers
Speaker 1: being picked and then predict the most likely outcome. It
Speaker 1: doesn't even know all the variables. So I would caution
Speaker 1: anyone against putting their faith in a chat bot to
Speaker 1: help them win the lottery. And I know I'm being
Speaker 1: a little bit flippant about this, but there really is
Speaker 1: a danger when folks start to treat AI as if
Speaker 1: it is magic, that somehow it does not obey physical
Speaker 1: laws or can get around hard limitations to our knowledge.
Speaker 1: That opens up the chance for fraud, chicanery, and general scumbagginess.
Speaker 1: An organization called the Association for Mathematical Consciousness Science or AMCs,
Speaker 1: has issued an open letter saying, and I am paraphrasing here, Hey,
Speaker 1: before we do too much more work in AI and
Speaker 1: potentially create a conscious machine, we should really learn more
Speaker 1: about consciousness in general. Now, if you've been listening to
Speaker 1: tech stuff for a while, you've probably heard me talk
Speaker 1: about how human consciousness is a complicated, nuanced thing and
Speaker 1: we don't fully understand it. And these experts are saying
Speaker 1: that we need that kind of understanding in order to
Speaker 1: have a better approach with AI, if and when it
Speaker 1: achieves consciousness. Now, for the record, right now we appear
Speaker 1: to be far from that kind of situation. Even seemingly
Speaker 1: sophisticated AI agents are when you boil it down following
Speaker 1: some conceptually simple processes. Now there's a complex system supporting
Speaker 1: these processes, but if you really boil it down, it's
Speaker 1: all about statistical probabilities. So while an AI chat bought
Speaker 1: like chain GPT can seem to communicate like a person,
Speaker 1: it actually lacks any consciousness or motivation or intent. But
Speaker 1: there's a fear that without a more thoughtful approach, serious
Speaker 1: mistakes could be made that could cause unintended harm, whether
Speaker 1: to people or to the discipline of AI. This is
Speaker 1: in line with what some other open letters we've seen
Speaker 1: from various experts and concerned individuals have said. And while
Speaker 1: I think it's still early to think about these things.
Speaker 1: It's actually better to think about them early than to
Speaker 1: wait until it's an active problem and then you're trying
Speaker 1: to find a solution. Tech Crunch has an article about
Speaker 1: the recent rise and reaction to deep fake audio projects
Speaker 1: that digitally recreate an artist's voice to make new songs. Now,
Speaker 1: I've talked about how the music industry recoiled in horror
Speaker 1: when an AI generated song called Heart on My Sleeve
Speaker 1: featured the AI synthesized voices of Drake and the Weekend,
Speaker 1: and the song went viral. Studios began to scramble to
Speaker 1: see what sort of legal protection they could cling to
Speaker 1: in order to prevent an avalanche of AI impersonators releasing
Speaker 1: music that sounds like a famous artist recorded it, when
Speaker 1: really that person had nothing to do with it. Fun fact,
Speaker 1: such legal protection doesn't really exist here in the United States.
Speaker 1: I mean, if someone were to decide they wanted to
Speaker 1: make prints sing the Hills Are Alive from the sound
Speaker 1: of music, Well, in that case, there is a copyright
Speaker 1: issue there because that song exists under copyright. But for
Speaker 1: a brand new song, that gets way more complicated because
Speaker 1: music studios wouldn't own the rights to that song that's
Speaker 1: brand new and while I bet that wouldn't stop studios
Speaker 1: trying to use copyright strikes to take down stuff from
Speaker 1: people who had deep fakes of artists that those studios represented,
Speaker 1: arguably that approach doesn't have much legal support because there's
Speaker 1: no copyright infringement going on. Earlier this week, I mentioned
Speaker 1: that musical artist Grimes is taking a different approach. She's
Speaker 1: welcoming fans to use AI to recreate her voice for
Speaker 1: new songs, provided they give her a fifty percent share
Speaker 1: of royalties. Other artists are doing something similar. A few
Speaker 1: of them are just saying, hey, go nuts out there,
Speaker 1: do whatever you like. But the tech Crunch article brings
Speaker 1: up a critical point for a lot of artists. This
Speaker 1: possibility is brand new, and tons of people probably aren't
Speaker 1: even aware that it's possible, and they haven't given their
Speaker 1: consent to being copied, and that consent issue is important.
Speaker 1: It gets to the heart of one of the really
Speaker 1: big problems with deep fakes. A deep fake can rob
Speaker 1: someone of agency, and it's become a really serious issue
Speaker 1: in cases where someone has used deep fake technology to
Speaker 1: make it seem as if a person has appeared in
Speaker 1: say an adult film, when in fact that person didn't digitally,
Speaker 1: that person is being forced to perform in an adult
Speaker 1: film without their can. I really want to do a
Speaker 1: full episode about that issue in particular, but to do so,
Speaker 1: I feel I need to get some guests on who
Speaker 1: can give me their own first hand perspective, because otherwise
Speaker 1: it's just me sitting at a microphone saying this sounds
Speaker 1: really bad. I think we already know it sounds really bad,
Speaker 1: but getting that firsthand perspective of what it is like,
Speaker 1: the reactions you get, the impact it can have on
Speaker 1: your life when someone else just uses technology to make
Speaker 1: it seem as if you did something you didn't do.
Speaker 1: I feel like there needs to be a deeper episode
Speaker 1: about that. Anyway. My hope is that once the dust
Speaker 1: settles around this AI deep fake music issue, we figure
Speaker 1: out a way for people to be able to give
Speaker 1: consent to being copied if they don't mind it, or
Speaker 1: to deny consent and receive protection against unwanted copies if
Speaker 1: that's their preference, because right now we lack the framework
Speaker 1: to deal with this situation. The Sydney Morning Herald reports
Speaker 1: that China's Cyberspace Administration has now unveiled rules that set
Speaker 1: strict boundaries for AI chatbots in China. I talked about
Speaker 1: this in a past episode, So really it's just the
Speaker 1: next stage in that development where this administration has pushed
Speaker 1: out rules that do what you would expect, that chatbots
Speaker 1: need to have socialist core values and they cannot contradict
Speaker 1: the state. Again, no big shock here. If you are
Speaker 1: familiar with China, you know that that country has a
Speaker 1: reputation for not being particularly lenient when it comes to
Speaker 1: questioning authority. And in an earnings call yesterday, Mark Zuckerberg
Speaker 1: had a bit to say about AI as well. First,
Speaker 1: that through AI, Meta has been able to better serve
Speaker 1: content to users, and by better serve, I mean the
Speaker 1: AI helps to choose what content is served to specific
Speaker 1: users in an effort to keep them engaged longer, which
Speaker 1: really just spoils down to what do you give somebody
Speaker 1: that will keep them around, that will make them stay
Speaker 1: on the platform and see more ads and generate more
Speaker 1: revenue for the company. We've talked in the past how
Speaker 1: Meta's various recommendation algorithms are designed with the goal of
Speaker 1: keeping people glued to their platforms, and it sounds like
Speaker 1: the AI tools are aiding in that effort, particularly on
Speaker 1: Instagram with the incorporation of reels. In addition, the company
Speaker 1: plans to integrate AI into other features, potentially into stuff
Speaker 1: like chat So it's possible we could see chatbots or
Speaker 1: elements of chatbots worked into tools like Messenger or wattsapp.
Speaker 1: Considering how Snapchat users are currently review bombing their app
Speaker 1: for the integration of an AI chatbot, I think Meta
Speaker 1: should tread lightly here. Okay, we've got more news stories
Speaker 1: to go, but let's take a quick break. Okay, we're
Speaker 1: back a little bit more to say about that earnings
Speaker 1: call that Mark Zuckerberg had for Meta, It went really,
Speaker 1: really well for the company. Zuckerberg revealed that Meta outperformed expectations.
Speaker 1: It earned a profit of five point seven billion dollars
Speaker 1: for the first quarter of this year. Now, part of
Speaker 1: that is undoubtedly due to the fact that Meta has
Speaker 1: cut way back on costs, particularly in the form of
Speaker 1: you know, salaries and stuff, because Meta famously laid off
Speaker 1: around twenty one thousand people starting late last year in
Speaker 1: the quest to make twenty twenty three the Year of Efficiency.
Speaker 1: But on top of that, Zuckerberg said that Facebook had
Speaker 1: nearly three billion monthly users each month this year, and
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, the company is performing well from that perspective,
Speaker 1: no doubt about it. Zuckerberg also didn't just talk about
Speaker 1: AI either. He said the company remains dedicated to the
Speaker 1: development of the Metaverse. Whether anyone will want it by
Speaker 1: the time it gets here remains an open question. The
Speaker 1: UK's Competition in Market's Authority or CMA, has blocked Microsoft's
Speaker 1: planned acquisition of Activision Blizzard. Now, technically this move just
Speaker 1: blocks that acquisition in the UK, but since we're talking
Speaker 1: about global entities here, it becomes a challenging situation for
Speaker 1: Microsoft to move forward. It also sets a precedent while
Speaker 1: other regulators, including ones in the US and the EU,
Speaker 1: are considering this deal. The CMA's justification for blocking the
Speaker 1: deal was a concern that Microsoft could create a monopolistic
Speaker 1: command of the cloud gaming market. Right now, there's not
Speaker 1: much of a cloud gaming market, but the thought is
Speaker 1: that it's precisely at this stage where regulators cannot allow
Speaker 1: a massive company, Microsoft being one of the world's largest,
Speaker 1: to reduce the number of potential companies in the space,
Speaker 1: or to prevent other competitors from accessing certain titles, which
Speaker 1: would give Microsoft an unfair market advantage. In the process,
Speaker 1: Microsoft reps understandably criticize this result, with arguments ranging from
Speaker 1: you don't understand this market to the UK is going
Speaker 1: to be sorry for doing this to me. See Also,
Speaker 1: the company may appeal the CMA's decision, but uh, let's
Speaker 1: just say that rarely works out in the long run.
Speaker 1: The CMA is not an organization known for reversing its decisions. Also,
Speaker 1: in Microsoft News and On, by default feature in the
Speaker 1: Microsoft Edge browser has been snooping on users all right.
Speaker 1: So this feature is meant to let people who follow
Speaker 1: different content creators on different platforms to aggregate their interests
Speaker 1: so that they have a single place they can go
Speaker 1: to look for updates. So that way, instead of having
Speaker 1: to go platform to platform and check on the content
Speaker 1: creators you like to see if there's anything new, you
Speaker 1: would go to this one destination and all the new
Speaker 1: stuff would be updated there. This, by the way, is
Speaker 1: not a novel idea. I used to rely on tools
Speaker 1: that no longer exist that did this kind of stuff
Speaker 1: with news articles. It's really what RSS feeds were intended
Speaker 1: to do back in the day. But anyway, something went
Speaker 1: wrong with a recent update to Edge see. The way
Speaker 1: this tool is supposed to work is that when you
Speaker 1: go to a page on a platform that supports this feature,
Speaker 1: and only then Edge would send the URL to Microsoft
Speaker 1: through a domain called bingapis dot com. But a redditor
Speaker 1: user with the handle hackermchacker face or mchackface. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: I didn't mean to misidentify you, hacker mchackface. They posted
Speaker 1: that a recent update to Edge now has it where
Speaker 1: the browser sends every URL to every web page you
Speaker 1: visit to that domain. So it's not just the creator
Speaker 1: pages that have this tool built into the page where
Speaker 1: it triggers this to happen. It's happening on any page
Speaker 1: you go to. And as I said, this feature is
Speaker 1: on by default, so using Edge means you are broadcasting
Speaker 1: every URL you go to to Microsoft, which is a
Speaker 1: gross breach of privacy. Now you can go into settings
Speaker 1: an Edge and turn this feature off, but the fact
Speaker 1: it's on by default and it's pulling everything in the
Speaker 1: process ain't great. Microsoft reps have said that the company
Speaker 1: is aware of the problem and will quote take appropriate
Speaker 1: action to address any issue end quote. Finally, we all
Speaker 1: know that last year was a tough one for Netflix,
Speaker 1: The company revealed late last spring that it had a
Speaker 1: decline in subscribers for the first time in more than
Speaker 1: a decade, and then investor confidence dropped like a stone.
Speaker 1: Since then, Netflix has been implementing different strategies to improve revenue.
Speaker 1: One of those, famously is cracking down on password sharing.
Speaker 1: This is something that Netflix has already implemented within certain
Speaker 1: markets like Spain, and now a few months after Netflix
Speaker 1: introduced the initiative in Spain, research firm Cantar says it
Speaker 1: estimates more than one million former Netflix customers have canceled
Speaker 1: their subscriptions there in Spain. This could change Netflix's strategy
Speaker 1: to activate this password crackdown in other markets, including here
Speaker 1: in the United States. We are on the schedule to
Speaker 1: get Netflix's new rules this quarter now. To be clear,
Speaker 1: company reps at Netflix say they expected to see a
Speaker 1: decline in response to this password policy, But the loss
Speaker 1: of a million subscribers in Spain, which I imagine has
Speaker 1: to be a much smaller market than say the United States,
Speaker 1: where the impact will be far larger, well, I mean
Speaker 1: it looks rough for Netflix. Honestly, I don't even know
Speaker 1: what the best approach is for the company. It expanded
Speaker 1: to the point of saturation in a lot of markets,
Speaker 1: and once you're there, it's really hard to achieve growth
Speaker 1: without doing stuff like hiking prices, but not hiking them
Speaker 1: so high that you convince folks to leave. Or you
Speaker 1: can do stuff like try to crack down on loopholes
Speaker 1: like shared passwords, but that hasn't gone well for them either.
Speaker 1: I don't know what the right approach is. The streaming
Speaker 1: market in general is still one that is complicated and
Speaker 1: not fully understood, and a lot of companies are struggling
Speaker 1: with how to balance paying for prestige content to it
Speaker 1: attract and keep users, and to generate enough revenue to
Speaker 1: cover all the costs and make a profit on the side.
Speaker 1: It's hard. And that's it for the tech news for today, Thursday,
Speaker 1: April twenty seventh, twenty twenty three. I hope you're all well,
Speaker 1: and I'll talk to you again really soon. Tech Stuff
Speaker 1: is an iHeartRadio production. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit
Speaker 1: the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to
Speaker 1: your favorite shows.