Speaker 1: Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there,
Speaker 1: and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland.
Speaker 1: I'm an executive producer with iHeartRadio and how the tech
Speaker 1: are you. It's time for the tech News for Thursday
Speaker 1: May twenty fifth, twenty twenty three. So, first thing, I
Speaker 1: want to address our updates to a story I covered
Speaker 1: on Tuesday, which was about an incident in Cardiff in
Speaker 1: Wales where a pair of teenage boys died in a
Speaker 1: traffic accident and word had gotten around that they were
Speaker 1: in they were being pursued by police and that that
Speaker 1: contributed to this accident. It caused the accident and there
Speaker 1: were riots that followed. Now, initially reports were that the
Speaker 1: police weren't involved at all and that this was misinformation
Speaker 1: and it spread rapidly and that ended up creating the
Speaker 1: situation that ultimately escalated into a riot. Since then, where
Speaker 1: it has gotten out that CCTV footage has shown that
Speaker 1: there was a police van that was following the boys.
Speaker 1: The police in Cardiff have said that there still wasn't
Speaker 1: a pursuit, but the footage shows that there was a
Speaker 1: police van following behind the boys. The police have given
Speaker 1: a timeline that suggests that the van actually turned off
Speaker 1: from following them before the crash happened. I don't know
Speaker 1: what the truth is at this point, but it is
Speaker 1: important to follow up on it because obviously the initial
Speaker 1: statement was about this being misinformation that then spread rapidly
Speaker 1: throughout the community, and it may turn out that it's
Speaker 1: not misinformation at all. So we'll have to continue to
Speaker 1: watch the story and see what happens. Obviously, if it
Speaker 1: turns out that the police were misrepresenting what was going on,
Speaker 1: it is going to make a situation where police relationships
Speaker 1: with the community are already on shaky ground much worse.
Speaker 1: So we will keep an eye out to see how
Speaker 1: this story continues. Yesterday, Twitter attempted to serve as the
Speaker 1: platform for GOP presidential hopeful Ron DeSantis as he made
Speaker 1: his announcement that he was officially launching a presidential campaign.
Speaker 1: This had been long anticipated, yesterday was just the formal announcement. Now,
Speaker 1: I say Twitter attempted to serve as a platform because
Speaker 1: the Twitter space that Elon Musk created specifically for this
Speaker 1: event became a cacophony when audio issues made it impossible
Speaker 1: for anyone to say anything without it being a massive,
Speaker 1: incomprehensible mess. Musk later said the problem was that Twitter's
Speaker 1: servers were overloaded. Several tech news outlets have pointed out
Speaker 1: that this event well well attended, virtually it wasn't a
Speaker 1: small event. It still didn't come close to approaching other
Speaker 1: large online only events that had, you know, several times
Speaker 1: more people in attendance, but had fewer technical glitches. Whatever
Speaker 1: the cause of the glitches, the launch did not go smoothly.
Speaker 1: Now I'm not going to comment on the political side
Speaker 1: of this, and you're welcome. Instead, I just want to
Speaker 1: say the problems, the technical problems, really didn't come as
Speaker 1: much of a surprise to at least the grouchy people
Speaker 1: like me out in the tech space, because Musk effectively
Speaker 1: gutted Twitter over the course of his ownership of the platform,
Speaker 1: and since then, essentially a skeleton crew has had to
Speaker 1: scramble to meet whatever sometimes apparently arbitrary goals Musk comes
Speaker 1: up with, or at least that's how it looks on
Speaker 1: the outside, And I fully admit I am looking at
Speaker 1: this from the outside. I could be one hundred percent
Speaker 1: off base with these observations and assumptions. So I don't
Speaker 1: want to suggest that my view is the the sum
Speaker 1: total of the truth. Just from the outside, it looks
Speaker 1: like Musk keeps wanting Twitter to tackle these huge projects,
Speaker 1: but with such a reduced workforce that it's it's kind
Speaker 1: of setting the platform up to fail, which is unfortunate
Speaker 1: because I'm sure the people who are actually working on it,
Speaker 1: you know, they don't want things to fail, and they're
Speaker 1: working hard, but they're doing so with a lack of
Speaker 1: assets and resources. All right, now it's time to talk
Speaker 1: about AI again, and to talk about Sam Altman, CEO
Speaker 1: of open AI again. Now you might remember that very
Speaker 1: recently Altman appeared before US Congress and said that AI
Speaker 1: is a field where regulation is needed. And at the time,
Speaker 1: I was kind of hopeful that this meant Altman was
Speaker 1: really sincere in that belief and that he was going
Speaker 1: to take an active role to really draft useful regulations.
Speaker 1: But then you could also say, well, yeah, but Sam
Speaker 1: Bankman freed said very similar things about cryptocurrency and regulations,
Speaker 1: and then look where he's at right now, so that
Speaker 1: maybe you shouldn't take these these statements at face value.
Speaker 1: So over in the EU, Altman's tune is slightly different
Speaker 1: than it was in the US. So I would say
Speaker 1: that the EU has people who are far more skeptical
Speaker 1: and concerned about AI than what you typically see here
Speaker 1: in the United States. Not to say that people in
Speaker 1: the US are totally cool with AI and they have
Speaker 1: no worries, But in the EU, I think it's it's
Speaker 1: more prominent. And in the EU, the EU has passed
Speaker 1: a law called the AI Act, which categorizes artificial intelligence
Speaker 1: into three different buckets according to perceived risks. So at
Speaker 1: the very very top of this are unacceptable risks, So
Speaker 1: these would be AI applications that would potentially violate citizens' rights.
Speaker 1: So these would be applications that the EU would just
Speaker 1: outlaw period like these, you cannot use AI to do
Speaker 1: these sort of things, So this would be something like
Speaker 1: China's social scoring system for example. That's where each person
Speaker 1: would receive a score which really relates to how useful
Speaker 1: and loyal they were according to the state. That would
Speaker 1: be right out as a use of AI. Under this
Speaker 1: are is a category called high risk AI systems. These
Speaker 1: could potentially be useful, so they could have a social
Speaker 1: benefit to them, but they're also potentially harmful. So because
Speaker 1: of that anything that fell into this category would need
Speaker 1: to follow a strict set of rules and regulations in
Speaker 1: order to be legal in EU. So, in other words,
Speaker 1: a high risk system would be allowable under EU law,
Speaker 1: provided that the companies that were making and using those
Speaker 1: systems abided by the rules and remain transparent and such.
Speaker 1: Altman says that chat, GPT and the GPT Large Language
Speaker 1: Model would fall into this high risk category as the
Speaker 1: EU has defined it, and he objects to that. He
Speaker 1: says that shouldn't be the case. And he also seems
Speaker 1: to think that the rules and regulations are too restrictive
Speaker 1: and that they are going to harm small companies that
Speaker 1: wish to integrate AI. Now keep in mind those small
Speaker 1: companies integrating AI. I think Altman's looking at those small
Speaker 1: companies as customers, right, These are companies that would be
Speaker 1: essentially licensing open AI's platforms for work. So that's you know,
Speaker 1: he has a vested interest in this. So I guess
Speaker 1: what Altman appears to be saying. This is my interpretation
Speaker 1: is that he's all for regulations if he has a
Speaker 1: heavy hand in making them so that you know, they
Speaker 1: don't actually impede his business. But if a country or
Speaker 1: a European Union creates rules independently, He's ready to take
Speaker 1: his toys and go home. Or really, to quote him,
Speaker 1: he said, quote, if we can comply, we will, and
Speaker 1: if we can't, will cease operating. We will try, but
Speaker 1: there are technical limits to what's possible. End quote. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: Brad Smith, Microsoft President, called on US lawmakers to form
Speaker 1: rules that would limit or prevent integrating AI into critical
Speaker 1: systems like say the US power grid or various water infrastructure,
Speaker 1: that kind of thing. He also called for AI companies
Speaker 1: to be held accountable if and when their tools cause problems.
Speaker 1: And considering how Microsoft has really invested heavily in open
Speaker 1: AI and integrated GPT into its Microsoft Being product, this
Speaker 1: is a pretty interesting take. But Smith said, quote this
Speaker 1: is the fundamental need to ensure that machines remain subject
Speaker 1: to effective oversight by people, and the people who design
Speaker 1: and operate machines remain accountable to everyone else's end quote.
Speaker 1: So here's the thing I agree with that. I think
Speaker 1: that is a reasonable thing to call for. I think
Speaker 1: the world in general needs to come up with rules
Speaker 1: for the design and integration of AI and limitations to
Speaker 1: that right, like where AI should and shouldn't be used,
Speaker 1: and how it should and shouldn't be used. And I
Speaker 1: think those rules need to require companies to be as
Speaker 1: transparent as possible. Just getting more and more complicated as
Speaker 1: these AI models get more and more complex, and also
Speaker 1: the rules need to make sense, they need to be effective.
Speaker 1: They need to prevent companies from just having the protect
Speaker 1: of rules being in existence as they continue to develop AI.
Speaker 1: So by that I mean this, Okay, So if there's
Speaker 1: no rule, like there's an absence of rules, companies can
Speaker 1: actually be a little nervous as they operate. Right, you
Speaker 1: have no rules, you have no oversight, But that means
Speaker 1: that if you do something really bad, there's going to
Speaker 1: be a big ruckus and perhaps an overreaction to the ruckus,
Speaker 1: which means that you end up harming yourself more than
Speaker 1: you would have if you just made a set of
Speaker 1: rules and abided by them. Now, when you make rules, well,
Speaker 1: that means that you do have these these rules, these restrictions,
Speaker 1: but usually not everything's covered, right. There are often gaps
Speaker 1: or loopholes. So if you do something unanticipated but something
Speaker 1: that isn't covered by the rules, your defense is, well,
Speaker 1: there's nothing in the rules that says, you know, I
Speaker 1: can't make AI that automatically denies credit to people who
Speaker 1: come from such and such a place, because historically we
Speaker 1: know all those folks default on loans or whatever. Rules
Speaker 1: that are intended to protect the public sometimes have an
Speaker 1: odd way of protecting the perpetrators of bad deeds. That's
Speaker 1: what I'm saying. Like, if there were no rules, then
Speaker 1: you might have a much larger reaction. If there are
Speaker 1: rules and whatever you did wasn't covered by them, then
Speaker 1: you can say, hey, I was following the rules. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this bad thing happened, but I wasn't breaking the law.
Speaker 1: So creating rules does need to be done, but it
Speaker 1: needs to be done with care and critical thinking. And
Speaker 1: it also has to be an ongoing process. It's not
Speaker 1: something you do once and then you walk away. According
Speaker 1: to a research firm called Watchful Technologies, TikTok has been
Speaker 1: testing an AI chatbot in Apple mobile devices. In the
Speaker 1: TikTok app, the chatbot is called Taco and I don't
Speaker 1: know if it only works on Tuesdays. Oh, hang on,
Speaker 1: it's actually spelled Takoh. The chatbot is meant to help
Speaker 1: with discovery, so users apparently activate this chatbot and converse
Speaker 1: with it to help find stuff they like or to
Speaker 1: answer questions they have. They might have a question of
Speaker 1: what does it mean if my toilet won't flush or whatever,
Speaker 1: and then the AI agent will find videos that somehow
Speaker 1: relate to that kind of thing. Now, according to the researchers,
Speaker 1: Taco's purpose seems mostly just to keep people on TikTok
Speaker 1: longer and keep them watching videos. So it's not like
Speaker 1: Taco's posing as a best friend or something like that,
Speaker 1: but rather augmenting the recommendation algorithm to find stuff that's
Speaker 1: going to maximize users time on the app. Okay, we're
Speaker 1: going to take a quick break. When we come back,
Speaker 1: we've got some more tech news to cover. We're back,
Speaker 1: so yesterday. On Wednesday, Meta held another round of layoffs,
Speaker 1: hitting somewhere in the neighborhood of six thousand people time.
Speaker 1: The jobs affected were mostly on the business side of
Speaker 1: Meta's operations, as opposed to, you know, like the tech side. Reportedly,
Speaker 1: morale is in pretty bad shape in Meta. There were
Speaker 1: a couple of articles I saw this morning that we're
Speaker 1: saying things like Meta employees are trying to avoid being
Speaker 1: included in a future round of layoffs by essentially creating
Speaker 1: work like they're manufacturing work for them to do. It's
Speaker 1: kind of like the bosses coming look busy kind of mentality.
Speaker 1: Others at Meta appear to have no motivation to work
Speaker 1: at all, because you know, when you don't know whether
Speaker 1: or not you're going to have a job the next day,
Speaker 1: it can really do a number on you. I have
Speaker 1: been there, and it is tough now. According to tech Crunch,
Speaker 1: this most recent round of layoffs should theoretically be the
Speaker 1: last major layoffs for the foreseeable future. Meta has indicated
Speaker 1: that it was aiming to eliminate ten thousand jobs the
Speaker 1: spring total across layoffs, and this one was the second
Speaker 1: round of layoffs, so they have definitely hit that ten
Speaker 1: thousand mark. And since late last year, Meta has handed
Speaker 1: around twenty one thousand staff they're walking papers and has
Speaker 1: also put a a hiring freeze on thousands of open positions.
Speaker 1: Mark Zuckerberg, Meta's CEO, has called twenty twenty three the
Speaker 1: Year of Efficiency, indicating that Meta had a bloated workforce
Speaker 1: that wasn't really representative of the actual amount of work
Speaker 1: that needed to be done. In other words, we got
Speaker 1: more people than we have work for them to do. Also,
Speaker 1: the company continues to face some pretty hefty costs which
Speaker 1: might be motivating some of these cutbacks. That includes a
Speaker 1: more than one billion dollar fine that came down from
Speaker 1: the EU earlier this week. To learn about that, just
Speaker 1: listen to Tuesday's episode of Tech Stuff. Apple has announced
Speaker 1: a truly ginormous deal with the company Broadcom that will
Speaker 1: see these two companies making five G components in the
Speaker 1: United States. So, according to an article in courts, Apple
Speaker 1: will invest somewhere in the neighborhood of four hundred thirty
Speaker 1: billion dollars to boost US manufacturing, largely in the five
Speaker 1: G realm, but the connectivity space in general. So over
Speaker 1: the last couple of years, Apple has been looking for
Speaker 1: ways to decrease its reliance on Chinese manufacturing for various components.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of different reasons to pull out
Speaker 1: of China, ranging from optics because it doesn't always look
Speaker 1: good to be doing business with a country that has
Speaker 1: a pretty awful human rights record all the way to
Speaker 1: practical things like supply chain issues if you want to
Speaker 1: be super cynical. But it's not really easy to just
Speaker 1: extract from China, largely because companies like Apple depend upon
Speaker 1: the lower, the much much lower costs of labor in
Speaker 1: China to keep production costs down. Recently, a manufacturing facility
Speaker 1: in India actually announced it would no longer manufacture Apple
Speaker 1: components because Apple's demands regarding costs of production meant that
Speaker 1: this Indian company their profit margins were nearly non existent.
Speaker 1: I mean, potentially the company would end up losing money
Speaker 1: to make stuff for Apple because Apple was saying, We're
Speaker 1: not going to pay you more than X amount, and
Speaker 1: meanwhile it costs why amount to make the stuff. So
Speaker 1: there are companies in other places where Apple has previously
Speaker 1: tried to move to avoid working in China that have
Speaker 1: already kind of bulked because of this issue. You know,
Speaker 1: the fact that unless Apple is willing to pay the
Speaker 1: amount that is acceptable within that country for labor, then
Speaker 1: it's just not going to get done. So a move
Speaker 1: out of China is likely going to mean increased prices
Speaker 1: on items in the long run. Global economics are super complicated.
Speaker 1: The attorneys general for several states here in the United
Speaker 1: States have banded together to level a massive lawsuit against
Speaker 1: a telecommunications company called Avid Telecom, and, according to the lawsuit,
Speaker 1: this one telecommunications company facilitated billions of robocalls to people
Speaker 1: who had previously signed up on the national Do Not
Speaker 1: Call Registry. So that registry is supposed to protect the
Speaker 1: people who sign up to it from receiving nuisance and
Speaker 1: unwanted calls, primarily telemarketing calls, but also things like scams
Speaker 1: and stuff. Citizens can actually designate the types of calls
Speaker 1: that they are willing to receive. So if you want,
Speaker 1: you can go to and you're in the US, you
Speaker 1: can go to the Do Not Call Registry, sign up
Speaker 1: for free, and even indicate which calls you don't mind getting. Anyway,
Speaker 1: the problem is that, at least according to this lawsuit,
Speaker 1: Avid Telecom allowed telemarketing calls and scams and such to
Speaker 1: go through when they absolutely should not have been able to.
Speaker 1: The lawyer for Avid Telecom denies the charges, saying the
Speaker 1: company acted in accordance with the law and expressed disappointment
Speaker 1: that all these Attorneys general didn't just sit down for
Speaker 1: a civilized discussion before bringing a nasty lawsuit. We'll have
Speaker 1: to see where this goes from here. Sony held a
Speaker 1: PlayStation event this week, a PlayStation showcase event, and unveiled
Speaker 1: a new handheld gaming device that will be capable of
Speaker 1: playing any non VR game streamed from a nearby PlayStation five.
Speaker 1: So essentially, you're running the game on your PlayStation five,
Speaker 1: you're just streaming it to this handheld device that's within
Speaker 1: a certain range of that PS five. It doesn't even
Speaker 1: have an official name yet, but the internal name for
Speaker 1: the handheld is Project Q. So Project Q will be
Speaker 1: dependent upon a console. It will not be able to
Speaker 1: play games natively. You can't just take it on the
Speaker 1: go like you would with a Nintendo Switch. It kind
Speaker 1: of looks like someone took a modern PlayStation controller, cut
Speaker 1: it in half, and then shoved an eight inch screen
Speaker 1: in between the two halves. I'm not crazy about this design,
Speaker 1: but I'm also in the minority of folks who don't
Speaker 1: like PlayStation controllers in general. I know I'm bonkers. Anyway.
Speaker 1: That's about all we know so far about Project Q.
Speaker 1: Sony didn't have information on how much folks should expect
Speaker 1: this to cost or when it will come out. If
Speaker 1: it's on the more expensive side, that's kind of a
Speaker 1: deal breaker in my book. But then I also don't
Speaker 1: own a PS five yet. I might actually change that
Speaker 1: next month. Because I'm thinking about buying myself one as
Speaker 1: a Berthday present, but I'm pretty sure i'll skip Project Q. Finally,
Speaker 1: South Korea successfully launched a rocket carrying eight satellites earlier today.
Speaker 1: The rocket, called Nuri, launched in the afternoon in South Korea,
Speaker 1: and according to South Korea's Ministry of Science, it achieved orbit.
Speaker 1: The office also reported that the primary satellite on board
Speaker 1: the next SAT two has already established communications with Korea's
Speaker 1: station in Antarctica. And as for the other satellites, at
Speaker 1: the time of this recording, there was actually questions if
Speaker 1: one of them microsatellites failed to deploy properly from the rocket.
Speaker 1: I don't have more information on that just yet, but
Speaker 1: South Korea is now the seventh country to achieve a
Speaker 1: launch carry more than a ton of payload into orbit.
Speaker 1: And that's it for the tech News. I hope you
Speaker 1: are all well and I'll talk to you again really soon.
Speaker 1: Tech Stuff is an iHeartRadio production. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio,
Speaker 1: visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen
Speaker 1: to your favorite shows.