Speaker 1: Welcome to Tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey therein
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 May eleventh, twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three, a Thursday. Bye, I'm doing my math correctly.
Speaker 1: Google is currently holding its Io event. This is where
Speaker 1: Google invites app developers to attend various keynotes and workshops
Speaker 1: to learn about new Google features that the developers can
Speaker 1: integrate into their own work. So yesterday Google held the
Speaker 1: opening keynote, which is traditionally when the company makes the
Speaker 1: bulk of its announcements and sometimes includes like impressive displays
Speaker 1: of technology to get folks excited about Watson development. So
Speaker 1: here's a quick rundown of some of the things Google
Speaker 1: announced yesterday. They unveiled several new devices. One of them
Speaker 1: is called the Pixel Fold, which, as you might imagine,
Speaker 1: is a foldable mobile device, essentially a smartphone that can
Speaker 1: unfold into kind of a tablet. It has an o
Speaker 1: led screen when it's folded, that screen measures five point
Speaker 1: eight inches on the diagonal, but if you unfold it
Speaker 1: it becomes a seven point six inch display. That doesn't
Speaker 1: sound like it gets much bigger, but it's actually kind
Speaker 1: of like a almost like a square tablet rather than
Speaker 1: the rectangular kind you're you're probably used to. It is
Speaker 1: more square in shape. I have to admit I've never
Speaker 1: been the target market for a device like this, like
Speaker 1: a hybrid device that can be a smartphone or a tablet.
Speaker 1: But for those who do want that sort of thing,
Speaker 1: they will need to save up about one thousand and
Speaker 1: seven hundred and ninety nine bucks to get one when
Speaker 1: they become available. Google also showed off a new smartphone model,
Speaker 1: the Pixel seven A, so the A series of phones,
Speaker 1: like the five A and the seven A. Those tend
Speaker 1: to be kind of a budget model, a slight update
Speaker 1: but a budget model of the previous year's newest phone.
Speaker 1: So the seven A will cost five hundred bucks for
Speaker 1: the basic version. There's also a version that will support
Speaker 1: millimeter wave transmissions, but only certain carriers support that. But
Speaker 1: if your carrier does, then you can get that one
Speaker 1: for five hundred and fifty bucks when they go on
Speaker 1: sale and then. Google also introduced a tablet called the
Speaker 1: wait for it, Pixel Tablet. It's an eleven inch tablet.
Speaker 1: That one will cost five hundred bucks when it hits shelves.
Speaker 1: These have Google's latest processor in them, and lots of
Speaker 1: other bells and whistles, but you know, I'm not going
Speaker 1: to dive into all of that because it would take
Speaker 1: up the whole episode. Beyond the hardware, Google also talked
Speaker 1: about some changes to Google products and services, and a
Speaker 1: huge one is Google Search. You know, it used to
Speaker 1: be that that search was the only thing we really
Speaker 1: associated with Google. These days, I don't know what most
Speaker 1: people think of when they think of Google. I still
Speaker 1: think of search, but then I was around before Google
Speaker 1: Search really became a thing, when I was using web Crawler,
Speaker 1: So yeah, I don't know if everyone still thinks of
Speaker 1: Google Search. But that's where the big change is coming.
Speaker 1: And you know, Google Search has remained relatively unchanged for ages,
Speaker 1: although you could argue the incorporation of ads has switched
Speaker 1: things up a few times. But this new feature, which
Speaker 1: will be an opt in experience, meaning it's not just
Speaker 1: the standard experience you do have to elect to be
Speaker 1: part of it, is called Search Generative Experience, and as
Speaker 1: that name suggests, if you click into that mean that
Speaker 1: your search query could include an AI generated answer at
Speaker 1: the top of your search results, and that might mean
Speaker 1: you don't even need to go any further to find
Speaker 1: out more about whatever it is you're searching for. Like
Speaker 1: if you're searching for a fairly simple or you know,
Speaker 1: not to in depth topic, then you'll get a little
Speaker 1: summary and you might not have to click through to
Speaker 1: a different web page. Or maybe you use the answer
Speaker 1: that's provided by AI to ask follow up questions and
Speaker 1: get more in depth answers and still not click through.
Speaker 1: This is the kind of stuff that makes web page
Speaker 1: administrators really nervous because if no one's clicking through, then
Speaker 1: there's no traffic. If there's no traffic, then there's no revenue.
Speaker 1: And unless you're, you know, a subscription based website, and
Speaker 1: people just don't bother to cancel their subscriptions. But otherwise, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a scary kind of thing. In fact, this is
Speaker 1: something that a lot of websites have been concerned about
Speaker 1: for all while, but it could potentially be helpful to
Speaker 1: users as long as the answers are reliable. You know,
Speaker 1: as we have seen that's not always the case. The
Speaker 1: company also has opened up google Bard before it was
Speaker 1: in a beta test and you had to be invited
Speaker 1: to be part of it. But now you can just
Speaker 1: use it if you want to and maybe see if
Speaker 1: it's improved. Since Google developers expressed concerns about its dependability
Speaker 1: and accuracy, I would recommend that if you do use
Speaker 1: Google Bard, don't you know, rely on it to give
Speaker 1: you safe instructions on how to go scuba diving, because
Speaker 1: developers pointed out that an earlier build of Google Bard
Speaker 1: gave instructions that could be harmful or even fatal if
Speaker 1: you followed them. So yeah, I would not depend entirely
Speaker 1: upon AI responses right now. Google also announced that it
Speaker 1: is updating its operating system for wearable devices. This is
Speaker 1: fittingly called where a Swear where OS, so the fourth
Speaker 1: generation is what is currently in development, just so you know,
Speaker 1: where OS three hasn't yet fully deployed. So it's interesting
Speaker 1: that they were talking about the next generation when the
Speaker 1: current one hasn't really fully rolled out yet. There's lots
Speaker 1: more too. Google also showed off an AI tool that
Speaker 1: pixel users the smartphone and maybe the tablet as well.
Speaker 1: The pixel users will get to use this AI tool
Speaker 1: that will help them edit photos. So let's say you
Speaker 1: wanted to change the brightness of just one part of
Speaker 1: the photo without affecting the rest. You could do that
Speaker 1: or and this was really cool. They showed off an
Speaker 1: example of this. Let's say that you took a picture
Speaker 1: of your friend. Say your friend is standing near a
Speaker 1: cruise ship, and it's a good picture, but you just
Speaker 1: wish that you had had your friend's step like six
Speaker 1: inches to the right. Well, with this tool, you could
Speaker 1: shift your friends six inches to the right, and AI
Speaker 1: would effectively paint the background so that it wouldn't look
Speaker 1: as if you had moved the person in the first place,
Speaker 1: like it should seem as if you could move your
Speaker 1: friend to wherever in the frame you want, and the
Speaker 1: AI will just take care of the background so that
Speaker 1: it doesn't look like you messed with it at all,
Speaker 1: which is really cool. Also kind of scary because when
Speaker 1: you get into that real time photo manipulation stuff where
Speaker 1: AI is kind of covering for you, it can raise
Speaker 1: a lot of potential misuse scenarios further down the line,
Speaker 1: but still kind of neat if you're just using it
Speaker 1: casually for the purpose for which it was intended. There
Speaker 1: was a neat privacy announcement. Android devices will be able
Speaker 1: to detect Bluetooth devices that were intended to track stuff,
Speaker 1: so like Apple's air tags, right, the purpose of air
Speaker 1: tags is such you can slip one into, say your luggage,
Speaker 1: and then you can use the air tag to find
Speaker 1: that piece of luggage if you get your destination and
Speaker 1: your luggage doesn't that kind of thing right, Well, some
Speaker 1: people obviously have been using air tags to tag other stuff,
Speaker 1: not just like luggage or whatever, but sometimes, like I
Speaker 1: don't know, a person that they wanted to follow, like
Speaker 1: a stalker would use it to slip the air tag
Speaker 1: into say a car and end up stalking someone that way. Well,
Speaker 1: now Android will be able to detect these sorts of devices.
Speaker 1: So if it sees that there's some Bluetooth device that
Speaker 1: is traveling with you, like it's detected, and it's still
Speaker 1: detected even as you move through your environment, like if
Speaker 1: you're driving down the street, it will give you an
Speaker 1: alert so that way you can check to make sure
Speaker 1: that someone hasn't bugged your car or whatever. I assume
Speaker 1: that it's only going to do this when it does
Speaker 1: detect that stuff is moving around with you, so that
Speaker 1: you don't get crazy numbers of notifications. When say you
Speaker 1: go to the gym and everyone's using Bluetooth earbuds or something.
Speaker 1: Google also made some other announcements, but I think that
Speaker 1: that's enough for right now, and we could probably dive
Speaker 1: into more in future episodes of tech stuff. Over in Russia,
Speaker 1: the Russian government has fined Google's parent company, Alphabet, the
Speaker 1: staggering sum of three million rubles, which is, let me
Speaker 1: just convert this into dollars. Oh, it's about forty thousand bucks. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's not a lot. But then you might say, okay, well,
Speaker 1: why did they find Alphabet in the first place. What
Speaker 1: was the infraction. Well, the Russian government says Alphabet failed
Speaker 1: to remove videos on YouTube that the government has determined
Speaker 1: contain misinformation, primarily about Russia's war against Ukraine, which has
Speaker 1: not been going well for Putin, but the Russian government
Speaker 1: would prefer that not be publicized within Russia itself, and
Speaker 1: also any videos that contained what the government has referred
Speaker 1: to as LGBT propaganda. The government classifies any content that
Speaker 1: quote unquote promotes homosexuality as propaganda and that whomever is
Speaker 1: responsible for publishing it can face fines. Now, I would
Speaker 1: make some very judgmental comments about this about how Russia
Speaker 1: has targeted these folks. But I feel like before I
Speaker 1: can start casting stones at Russia, I gotta aim a
Speaker 1: whole lot closer to home, because currently we're seeing an
Speaker 1: increased movement against the LGBTQ plus community in various states
Speaker 1: here in the US, including some that border my state,
Speaker 1: and I imagine my state, which has perhaps some sympathetic
Speaker 1: politicians in charge, could follow suits. So I can't get
Speaker 1: two up in arms about Russia doing this. Although avi
Speaker 1: Russia has gone to extremes to suppress anyone in the
Speaker 1: LGBTQ community there, I can't, you know, We're seeing similar
Speaker 1: things happen here in the States, so I can't really
Speaker 1: just single out Russia anyway. I don't know if Google
Speaker 1: will bother paying this fine. I mean, maybe they will.
Speaker 1: It's only forty thousand dollars. I'm sure executives could just
Speaker 1: root around in their couches and come up with that.
Speaker 1: But Google, like a lot of tech companies, has already
Speaker 1: pulled out of Russia. They closed down their offices based
Speaker 1: in the country, and while Google services are still available
Speaker 1: in Russia, the company doesn't operate there like on a
Speaker 1: like a corporate scale. Speaking of YouTube, there's apparently a
Speaker 1: new anti ad blocker feature on the service, at least
Speaker 1: for some users. According to Reddit, a few folks having
Speaker 1: counter messages saying that ad blockers are not allowed on YouTube,
Speaker 1: and if you want to watch YouTube without ads, you
Speaker 1: need to become a YouTube Premium subscriber, or your other
Speaker 1: option is just to disable your ad blocker and then
Speaker 1: you get ads supported YouTube access. Google has seen a
Speaker 1: lot more people subscribe to YouTube Premium over the past
Speaker 1: couple of years, so it is possible that this is
Speaker 1: really meant to push more folks toward that. In fact,
Speaker 1: the redditors said that the pop up message included a
Speaker 1: button to make it super simple to subscribe to YouTube Premium,
Speaker 1: so you could just click there in the pop up
Speaker 1: window and do it. So far, this message has been
Speaker 1: part of a limited rolled out experiment. It's not going
Speaker 1: to everyone. It's just going to a subset of YouTube users.
Speaker 1: It is possible that YouTube will not expand this to
Speaker 1: the general user base. But as I've said before, if
Speaker 1: a company sees that a tactic is effective and is
Speaker 1: generating revenue, then they're more likely than not going to
Speaker 1: adopt it wholesale. It's hard to back off of that,
Speaker 1: and as full disclosure, I've actually been a YouTube Premium
Speaker 1: subscriber for ages. Although to be fair, I was actually
Speaker 1: a Google Music subscriber, but then Google sunset that service,
Speaker 1: and when they did, they ported my subscription over to
Speaker 1: YouTube Premium because there's YouTube music as well, and I
Speaker 1: just kept it because I like watching YouTube without ads.
Speaker 1: But I also understand that, you know, you can't get
Speaker 1: something for nothing or else. No one can make some
Speaker 1: things anymore. Speaking of that, this is perfect timing. We're
Speaker 1: going to take a quick break so that we can
Speaker 1: listen to a few messages from our sponsors and then
Speaker 1: I'll be right back. Okay, here we go back with
Speaker 1: the news. Sam Altman, the CEO of Open AI, is
Speaker 1: about to appear before the US Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy,
Speaker 1: Technology and the Law. This happens next Tuesday. Senators want
Speaker 1: to have a conversation with Altman about his perspective on
Speaker 1: how governments should approach AI. You know what sorts of
Speaker 1: laws might need to be updated or even new laws
Speaker 1: potentially proposed in order to allow for the safe and
Speaker 1: responsible development and deployment of AI while minimizing risks and
Speaker 1: threats and other types of problems. Now, in the past,
Speaker 1: Altman has been pretty candid about his opinions, and they
Speaker 1: aren't always what you would expect from a guy who
Speaker 1: runs a company that is known for perhaps the most
Speaker 1: high profile implementation of AI that's out there right now,
Speaker 1: at least among the general public. He has said more
Speaker 1: than once that chat GPT is not as miraculous as
Speaker 1: some people made it out to be. And remember, he's
Speaker 1: the guy running the company that made chat GPT. He
Speaker 1: has already met with political leaders about AI safeguards recently.
Speaker 1: So I think this is a really good step. I
Speaker 1: don't think it's just going to become political theater where
Speaker 1: Altman's being grilled for all this stuff. I feel like
Speaker 1: this there's the potential of actual collaboration here. Now. I
Speaker 1: have never met Altman, I don't know him personally. I
Speaker 1: get the sense that I mean he is trying to
Speaker 1: walk the line between running an AI company and also
Speaker 1: trying to manage expectations in a field where the hype
Speaker 1: cycle can take off without warning. We've seen that recently
Speaker 1: with reports about how investors are pouring billions of dollars
Speaker 1: into different companies that are centered around AI, even if
Speaker 1: those companies don't have you know, a business plan or something.
Speaker 1: So I hope that this meeting next week is informative
Speaker 1: and productive and that perhaps lawmakers can start looking into
Speaker 1: things that need tweaking, like you know, right to publicity
Speaker 1: and right to personality laws as an example. Meanwhile, over
Speaker 1: in the European Union, lawmakers there are also nearing the
Speaker 1: final step toward regular AI. So the EU has a
Speaker 1: big set of rules about AI that's nearing the point
Speaker 1: of adoption. And these rules cover a lot of ground,
Speaker 1: including stuff like the rules around facial recognition, for example,
Speaker 1: that it should not be used in public spaces, that
Speaker 1: law enforcement should not be relying upon it, because, as
Speaker 1: we've seen here in the United States, facial recognition technology
Speaker 1: is far from perfect. There's a tendency for this tech
Speaker 1: to have a bias that makes it difficult for facial
Speaker 1: recognition systems to differentiate people of color, for example, and
Speaker 1: this leads to disproportionate harassment when law enforcement relies on
Speaker 1: such technology to identify and track suspects. So the EU
Speaker 1: doesn't want to perpetuate that, and these rules would forbid
Speaker 1: law enforcement from relying on facial recognition technology for those purposes.
Speaker 1: The EU's approach has been to categorize AI not in
Speaker 1: terms of the AI's capability, but rather in terms of
Speaker 1: its perceived risk, which is interesting, Like, it's interesting to
Speaker 1: think about classifying AI as the perceived risk it has
Speaker 1: on people. So if an implementation of AI is perceived
Speaker 1: to be dangerous, well, then it'll likely get the unwanted
Speaker 1: label of unacceptable, Like the level of risk is unacceptable,
Speaker 1: so we cannot allow it. It would be against the
Speaker 1: law to implement AI for that specific purpose. If the
Speaker 1: AI is meant to I don't know, just like automatically
Speaker 1: tally up calculations in a spreadsheet, it would probably get
Speaker 1: a much lower risk assessment assigned to it, although you
Speaker 1: could argue that even that application of technology can potentially
Speaker 1: have really nasty consequences. It all depends upon what that
Speaker 1: spreadsheet is all about. Right now, I have yet to
Speaker 1: actually read the law. The law itself has been in
Speaker 1: the making for a couple of years. This has been
Speaker 1: a long process, with lots of different parties having input
Speaker 1: as the EU lawmakers have tried to structure this proposed bill.
Speaker 1: So I am not able to give my full opinion
Speaker 1: about this because I haven't read it. I do think
Speaker 1: that it's encouraging to see lawmakers get to this stage. However,
Speaker 1: it took a long time to get there, but at
Speaker 1: least we got there. So often when I'm talking about
Speaker 1: AI and the law, I'm just talking about this nebulous
Speaker 1: era that we're in right now where very little appears
Speaker 1: to be happening. Well, things are happening in the EU.
Speaker 1: This is, by the way, very super complicated stuff. You
Speaker 1: want to make sure that you protect citizens and all that,
Speaker 1: but you also you don't want to enter into a
Speaker 1: situation where you're outright preventing research and development on tools
Speaker 1: that could potentially create enormous public good. It is not
Speaker 1: an easy thing to do. I think we often get frustrated,
Speaker 1: including myself, get frustrated at our leaders for taking so
Speaker 1: long to adopt rules and regulations meant to protect people.
Speaker 1: Often we feel like whatever regulations are out there aren't
Speaker 1: to protect people, but are there to protect other things
Speaker 1: like corporations, which in here in the US are treated
Speaker 1: as people. But you know, it's refreshing to see some
Speaker 1: progress on that front, at least in the EU. We
Speaker 1: also have a few stories about other places that are
Speaker 1: adopting rules that relate to AI. For example, lawmakers here
Speaker 1: in the United States, specifically in the state of Minnesota,
Speaker 1: are closing in on passing a bill that would make
Speaker 1: it a crime to create a deep fake image or
Speaker 1: video that shows someone appearing to have sex without that
Speaker 1: person's consent. So, in other words, it's a law that
Speaker 1: would make deep fake pornography illegal if the person being
Speaker 1: depicted in the video or image didn't agree to it
Speaker 1: in the first place. Likewise, it would be illegal to
Speaker 1: use deep fakes in an effort to spread election disinformation. Now,
Speaker 1: the state's House of Representatives had already voted on a
Speaker 1: version of that bill, and yesterday the state's Senate. Because
Speaker 1: the lawmakers are in two houses, the House of Representatives
Speaker 1: and the Senate, both at the state level, and then
Speaker 1: we have a federal level here in the US as well,
Speaker 1: this is just for the state of Minnesota. So the
Speaker 1: Senate unanimously voted in favor of its version of the bill. However,
Speaker 1: the Senates version is technically more strict than the House version.
Speaker 1: The House version had an exception built in with regard
Speaker 1: to things like free speech and satire and parody, but
Speaker 1: to get further into that would get far more complicated. Now,
Speaker 1: the Senates version of the bill will go back to
Speaker 1: the House of Representatives. They will then discuss the changes
Speaker 1: made and vote on whether or not to adopt it.
Speaker 1: If they do vote to adopt it, which seems like
Speaker 1: a pretty strong bet, there's a lot of support for
Speaker 1: this bill, it would then move to the governor to
Speaker 1: be signed into law. Minnesota is not the first state
Speaker 1: to do this. They would follow states like Texas and
Speaker 1: California that have already put laws on the books that
Speaker 1: make certain uses of deep fake technology outright illegal. You
Speaker 1: might remember a story earlier this month about how IBM's
Speaker 1: CEO speculated that as many as seven eight hundred open positions,
Speaker 1: which is just a small group of a much larger
Speaker 1: section of open positions that are all under a hiring
Speaker 1: freeze right now, those seven eight hundred jobs could ultimately
Speaker 1: go to AI rather than being filled with human beings.
Speaker 1: Well now, IBM's chief Commercial Officer, Rob Thomas has said
Speaker 1: that managers who refused to use AI or who failed
Speaker 1: to learn how to use AI in the context of
Speaker 1: their jobs will find themselves replaced with managers who do
Speaker 1: use AI. Now that at first, when you hear it
Speaker 1: makes it sound a little sinister, but honestly, I think
Speaker 1: this is more in line with how most AI experts
Speaker 1: have framed the best use of this technology for the
Speaker 1: last several years, that AI is not meant to outright
Speaker 1: replace people, but rather to augment employee's abilities so that
Speaker 1: they can do their jobs more effectively, and also to
Speaker 1: focus on the parts of the job that are more
Speaker 1: rewarding and are less suitable for automation. Right so, someone
Speaker 1: who is willing to use AI in order to do
Speaker 1: that will be seen as a more valuable leader than
Speaker 1: someone who isn't. While the CEO's revelation about potentially automating
Speaker 1: thousands of jobs outright is I think a controversial one,
Speaker 1: I think mister Thomas's point is much less controversial. It
Speaker 1: makes sense as long as you're talking about using AI
Speaker 1: to augment your ability to do your job. If he,
Speaker 1: in fact is talking about managers using AI to eliminate
Speaker 1: entire divisions of actual employees, then no, I can't. I
Speaker 1: can't sign on for that. I think that's a bad idea.
Speaker 1: Microsoft's quest to acquire Activision Blizzard continues to hit more roadblocks.
Speaker 1: The competition regulator of the UK has now passed an
Speaker 1: interim order that forbids the two companies from purchasing an
Speaker 1: interest in one another, so they can't like Microsoft would
Speaker 1: not be allowed to purchase any ownership of Activision or
Speaker 1: vice versa. While the UK is standing firm against this acquisition,
Speaker 1: the European Union is expected to actually approve the deal
Speaker 1: sometime this month, So if you're keeping score, Japan has
Speaker 1: already approved this deal, the EU is on the way
Speaker 1: to approving the deal, the UK has voted against the deal,
Speaker 1: and the US is teetering toward opposing the deal but
Speaker 1: has not yet firmly come down, So it's really still
Speaker 1: kind of a coin flip situation. And I honestly don't
Speaker 1: know how things go if every one other than the
Speaker 1: UK approves this deal, Like, I don't know how that
Speaker 1: ends up working, because global company structures and the rules
Speaker 1: regarding them confuse the heck out of me. So maybe
Speaker 1: some people out there probably know exactly how this would unfold.
Speaker 1: I am not one of them, so I'm not going
Speaker 1: to try and guess. Disney Plus saw a drop in
Speaker 1: subscribers for the second quarter in a row, with four
Speaker 1: million people deciding they would let it go. Let it go. However,
Speaker 1: at the same time, the company reduced the losses that
Speaker 1: it has experienced running the streaming service. So while more
Speaker 1: people have left, the actual financial losses have decreased. They're
Speaker 1: still operating at a loss. They're not profitable, but they're
Speaker 1: not losing as much money per quarter as they had been.
Speaker 1: So producing content for streaming is expensive, as you might imagine.
Speaker 1: Right now in the US, it's impossible at least four
Speaker 1: US base operations. It's impossible because the Writer's Guild of
Speaker 1: America is on strike. But on an earnings call CEO
Speaker 1: for the second time now, Bob Eiger said that the
Speaker 1: company will unite the Disney Plus and the Hulu streaming
Speaker 1: services into a single service. And for someone like me
Speaker 1: who subscribes to one of those, that being Disney Plus,
Speaker 1: but not the other, that being Hulu, that sounds pretty great.
Speaker 1: One thing that's less great is that the plan is
Speaker 1: also to increase the monthly subscription fee for those who
Speaker 1: want an ad free experience. So yes, you will have
Speaker 1: access to more content, but you'll also be paying more
Speaker 1: to get that content if you don't want ads. I
Speaker 1: don't know about the ads supported one that may remain
Speaker 1: the same. The price hike could get here before the
Speaker 1: unified streaming platform does. That also raises the possibility that
Speaker 1: the price could go up again a second time once
Speaker 1: Hulu and Disney Plus have tied the knot. I don't know.
Speaker 1: Iiger said, this unified platform should launch before the end
Speaker 1: of the year, and I may have to find someone
Speaker 1: who is an expert in streaming strategies to come on
Speaker 1: the show so we can really talk about the challenges
Speaker 1: that streaming companies face when they're running these services. We've
Speaker 1: seen it a time and again, from Netflix to Warner Brothers,
Speaker 1: Discovery to Paramount Plus and beyond. There have been a
Speaker 1: lot of examples of services trying new approaches to generate
Speaker 1: revenue and to reduce costs, and in some cases to
Speaker 1: merge with other services. You know, war Brothers Discovery and
Speaker 1: Paramount Plus have both gone through that and now discuss
Speaker 1: Disney is doing it too. So as someone who just
Speaker 1: can't bring himself to subscribe to everything that's out there,
Speaker 1: I'm actually in favor of a little consolidation in the field.
Speaker 1: I don't want it to go out of control, but
Speaker 1: to reduce the different number of streaming platforms so that
Speaker 1: I'm not having to, you know, manage eight different subscriptions
Speaker 1: or something that sounds good to me. I just don't
Speaker 1: want to see streaming subscriptions reach the same height as cable, right,
Speaker 1: because then we're just back to the model that was disrupted. Now,
Speaker 1: it may be that it's necessary to do that in
Speaker 1: order to fund the platforms so that they can actually
Speaker 1: create the content that we want to see in the
Speaker 1: first place. But yeah, this is that complicated nature about streaming.
Speaker 1: That's why I need to get an expert on the
Speaker 1: show so we can kind of talk it out and
Speaker 1: really understand all the different factors that go into the
Speaker 1: streaming platform business. All right, I've got three more news
Speaker 1: stories I want to talk about that are pretty interesting.
Speaker 1: But before we do that, let's take another quick break
Speaker 1: for our sponsors. Okay, we're back, and this is potentially
Speaker 1: really exciting news. So Heleon Energy, which is aiming to
Speaker 1: bring fusion power not just into reality, but to make
Speaker 1: it a viable commercial service, has announced that it has
Speaker 1: landed its first customer, which is Microsoft. Microsoft has agreed
Speaker 1: to buy a certain amount of energy from Helion Energy
Speaker 1: once its fusion reactor goes into commercial service. So fusion
Speaker 1: power is what the sun runs on. Stars run on fusion.
Speaker 1: It is the opposite of fission, which is what traditional
Speaker 1: nuclear power plants rely on. So fission nuclear fission is
Speaker 1: where you take a heavy atom and you expend some
Speaker 1: energy that causes this atom to break apart. As the
Speaker 1: atom breaks apart, it releases way more energy and you
Speaker 1: harness that to generate electricity. Typically you do it by
Speaker 1: superheating water into steam, which then turns turbines and generates
Speaker 1: electricity that way. That's your typical way of creating electricity
Speaker 1: through a nuclear power plant. It's not that different from
Speaker 1: using other types of energy to heat water up and
Speaker 1: turn it into steam so that you can turn a turbine.
Speaker 1: It's just it's on nuclear now. Fission power plants have
Speaker 1: some real perception problems. Some would argue that that's all
Speaker 1: they have, that those are the only problems. It's perception,
Speaker 1: and that everything else is totally you know, cromulent. I'm
Speaker 1: not quite at that level, but I do think that
Speaker 1: the opposition to nuclear power is perhaps predicated more on
Speaker 1: outdated concerns. Not all of them are moot, but some
Speaker 1: of them are. Anyway, a lot of people associate nuclear
Speaker 1: fission power plants with nuclear waste, which is understandable. It's
Speaker 1: scary stuff because it can remain dangerous for tens of
Speaker 1: thousands of years, and thus nuclear power plants are also
Speaker 1: often seen as a potential threat to safety, also understandable
Speaker 1: because we've had some high profile examples of that happening.
Speaker 1: Even if you could argue that, and you can, you
Speaker 1: can argue that our reliance on things like fossil fuels
Speaker 1: have led to far more deaths and medical complications over
Speaker 1: the course of its history than all the nuclear mishaps
Speaker 1: and disasters added up together. Right, So nuclear fusion doesn't
Speaker 1: have these perception problems because what it does is you
Speaker 1: take very light atoms, stuff like hydrogen, and then you
Speaker 1: use some energy to fuse them together. So classically we
Speaker 1: would take hydrogen and then applying a lot of energy,
Speaker 1: really focusing these atoms so that you can overcome the
Speaker 1: nuclear forces that would otherwise resist fusion, you overcome that,
Speaker 1: they fuse together and then you get helium, and that
Speaker 1: process also releases an enormous amount of energy. So there
Speaker 1: have been several experimental fusion reactors around the world that
Speaker 1: have achieved fusion. They have done it, but there are
Speaker 1: still hurdles in the way of making that a viable
Speaker 1: means of producing energy. So, for one thing, most of
Speaker 1: these experiments actually required more energy to fuse the atoms
Speaker 1: together than they got from the reaction. So if you're
Speaker 1: expending more energy then you get out of the process,
Speaker 1: that's a net loss. That doesn't work right, Like, you
Speaker 1: might as well be using that energy directly to produce
Speaker 1: electricity as opposed to using this middleman where you've got
Speaker 1: a net energy loss. Even in the cases where you
Speaker 1: could argue you got more energy out and there are
Speaker 1: a couple, but they very narrowly focus in on specific
Speaker 1: parts of the process and ignore everything else. But even
Speaker 1: if you get past that, you still have the challenge
Speaker 1: of making this a persistent reaction so that you can
Speaker 1: continue to produce energy and not just have like a
Speaker 1: spike of energy production. Then you have to essentially refuel
Speaker 1: and do it all over again. So there's that hurdle
Speaker 1: as well. So this is very very challenging to do.
Speaker 1: It's hard to do. However, Helium says it's aiming for
Speaker 1: commercial power generation by twenty twenty eight. That's crazy soon
Speaker 1: way earlier than what most folks have predicted. Now, I
Speaker 1: would love to see this happen. I have my reservations,
Speaker 1: I have my doubts, but if Helium can actually pull
Speaker 1: this off, well, it could serve as an incredible model
Speaker 1: to totally overhaul our energy infrastructure. Fusion could provide a
Speaker 1: source of clean energy without stuff like carbon emissions or
Speaker 1: nuclear waste. The actual fuel we'd be using would be well,
Speaker 1: I mean, technically, it's the most plentiful stuff on the planet,
Speaker 1: although you do have to spend a lot of energy
Speaker 1: to get it. But if we could do that without
Speaker 1: it taking a huge chunk out of the energy we're
Speaker 1: producing through the process, it's worth it. So it would
Speaker 1: mean that we could rapidly transition off of fossil fuels.
Speaker 1: That would be like literally ancient technology in comparison. But
Speaker 1: we have to hope it all works out. We can't
Speaker 1: assume it's going to work out. Hoping, I think is okay,
Speaker 1: but assuming is not. And I should add there are
Speaker 1: experts in the nuclear fusion field who remain skeptical of
Speaker 1: Helium in general, who have said that it's a company
Speaker 1: that has shown more on paper than in reality. So
Speaker 1: whether this company can actually produce energy starting in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty eight on a commercial level. Remains to be seen.
Speaker 1: I hope it works out because if it does, that
Speaker 1: would be transformational, absolutely transformational. But you know it's I
Speaker 1: don't I don't know how how sure A bet that
Speaker 1: is up in Canada, specifically in a suburb of Montreal
Speaker 1: called Brossard. That community is testing out a new traffic
Speaker 1: light and it's a traffic light that's kind of like
Speaker 1: Santa Claus, except of knowing if you're sleeping or if
Speaker 1: you're awake, and knows if you're obeying the speed limit,
Speaker 1: and if you're not, no green light for you. So
Speaker 1: this traffic light is meant to calm traffic and it
Speaker 1: monitors a driver's speed as they go down the street
Speaker 1: and they're approaching the light, and if they're going above
Speaker 1: the speed limit, then the light turns red and then
Speaker 1: the driver has to slow down and come to a stop.
Speaker 1: But if the driver is within the speed limit, the
Speaker 1: light stays green and they can just pass right through.
Speaker 1: So those of you all in Europe might be saying,
Speaker 1: we've had traffic lights like this forever, but this is
Speaker 1: the first time it's been used in Canada and for
Speaker 1: those who are in like Canada or the United States
Speaker 1: and you're having trouble imagining this. This is not a
Speaker 1: traffic light that's at an inner because that would be crazy, right.
Speaker 1: If it's a light that would just be green whenever
Speaker 1: people are going the speed limit and red if they
Speaker 1: were going too fast and it's at an intersection, then
Speaker 1: you just end up with a lot of you know,
Speaker 1: low speed collisions that it would be the intersection everyone
Speaker 1: would avoid. No, this light is just right smack dab
Speaker 1: in the middle along the side of a street. So
Speaker 1: I would love to actually see these kinds of things
Speaker 1: rolled out in my neighborhood because I sometimes see people
Speaker 1: zipping down our little side streets way too fast in
Speaker 1: an effort to bypass traffic that's on the main streets.
Speaker 1: And there are a lot of kids who live in
Speaker 1: my neighborhood and I worry about them because folks who
Speaker 1: are frustrated with traffic on a big road are aggressively
Speaker 1: driving down side streets where you're not meant to go
Speaker 1: that fast in order to just get around it. So
Speaker 1: I would like to see this incorporated in other places.
Speaker 1: Then again, I also don't drive so maybe the drivers
Speaker 1: out there screaming at me saying no, I don't want
Speaker 1: to have a light, tell me I can't speed. And finally,
Speaker 1: an enterprising young woman who has already created a successful
Speaker 1: career as an influencer is doing something a bit bold
Speaker 1: and perhaps controversial. So her name is is Karen or
Speaker 1: maybe it's Karenne, it's cr yn, So I'll say Karenn
Speaker 1: karenn Marjorie, And my apologies if I just picked the
Speaker 1: wrong pronunciation. I am old and KARENN Marjorie's like twenty three,
Speaker 1: so we are worlds apart. I don't I have never
Speaker 1: heard of her before, but she has like two million
Speaker 1: followers on Snapchat, so lots of people do know who
Speaker 1: she is. And she teamed up with some developers who used,
Speaker 1: you know, thousands of hours of her content to essentially
Speaker 1: build an AI version of herself. And you might say, well,
Speaker 1: why would she do that? So she does it so
Speaker 1: that she can rent out artificial Karennes to folks who
Speaker 1: want to have her as a friend or maybe a girlfriend,
Speaker 1: or maybe a casual fling. So the AI version of
Speaker 1: Karen has a computer simulated version of her voice. It
Speaker 1: is Telegram based so it's like a voice chat based
Speaker 1: AI version of her, and supposedly it has essentially a
Speaker 1: copy of her personality, or at the very least some
Speaker 1: version of her public personality. So interested customers can rent
Speaker 1: time with Aikrinne for about a dollar a minute. And
Speaker 1: she actually launched the service like a week back as
Speaker 1: a beta launch, but this week it became you know,
Speaker 1: it emerged from beta and it's called corinne AI so
Speaker 1: c r y nai. Fortune reports that the beta test
Speaker 1: netted more than seventy one point five thousand dollars in
Speaker 1: one week. Yaoza. So users can connect to the on telegram,
Speaker 1: they can talk about whatever they like. It may not
Speaker 1: come as much of a surprise to most of you
Speaker 1: that the overwhelming majority of people who tested it out
Speaker 1: happen to be male personally. I think it's a clever
Speaker 1: business move. Karin is leveraging her influence as well as
Speaker 1: leveraging technologies capabilities. She's kind of turning the turning the
Speaker 1: tide on things like deep fakes, right because a lot
Speaker 1: of times when we look at deep fakes, they're being
Speaker 1: used to mimic someone without their consent. She's saying, well,
Speaker 1: I want to be in control of this. So I
Speaker 1: am going to actually be the person creating this and
Speaker 1: marketing it and benefiting from it. So instead of being
Speaker 1: a victim, I have agency. I am in charge of it.
Speaker 1: I should add, however, there are experts in ethics who
Speaker 1: are really worried about this sort of thing, not Carinn specifically,
Speaker 1: but generally speaking, a trend toward these humanized AI agents
Speaker 1: because they worry that interacting with them, especially interacting on
Speaker 1: a more frequent basis, could start to reshape how people
Speaker 1: interact with other actual human beings. And based upon what
Speaker 1: we've seen with the web and how that has influenced
Speaker 1: how people interact with one another, I think that is
Speaker 1: that's a realistic concern. It's something we should actually really
Speaker 1: think and talk about. So I feel conflicted about this.
Speaker 1: On the one hand, I think that Karin is absolutely
Speaker 1: right to take charge of her own identity and public persona,
Speaker 1: and on the other hand, I worry that people will
Speaker 1: become too dependent upon this, that it will become a
Speaker 1: kind of crutch that will possibly warp the way that
Speaker 1: they interact with other people, and that that in the
Speaker 1: long term, can be harmful to themselves and the people
Speaker 1: around them. So yeah, it's complicated, but it is interesting
Speaker 1: to see someone take charge like that. And she doesn't
Speaker 1: need me to say it to say good luck to
Speaker 1: her because she's doing just fine based upon making more
Speaker 1: than seventy grand in a week. She definitely doesn't need
Speaker 1: any will which is for me to see success. As
Speaker 1: for the rest of you, I hope you are all well.
Speaker 1: And that's it for the news for this week, so
Speaker 1: I'll talk to you again really soon. Tech Stuff is
Speaker 1: an iHeartRadio production. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
Speaker 1: favorite shows.