B (3:40)

a bellwether, a harbinger, basically.

A (3:42)

A bellwether. That's the word. Thank you, Benita. Yeah. So what is the first of all, what do you think of the decision?

B (3:54)

I don't think highly of it and

A (3:56)

I it's going to be appealed, by the way.

B (3:58)

It's going to be appealed. Now on the one hand, and this is a very small one hand, but let's acknowledge it. I think the jury did find and I'm kind of combining some details of both dates. I think some of the claims the juries didn't necessarily find on. But I think the bigger problem is less what the jury found and more how did the case get to this point because there's an underlying legal theory that they ended up presenting evidence on to reach the jury. But it's a legal theory that is not a good one. I think for the point you were making of okay, this wasn't a lot of money, but this even scale well for Google and Meta, which, you know, they can afford a couple of these,

A (4:43)

but they It's a combined 6 million for Meta and YouTube and that's both punitive damages and statutory damage. Well, I don't know if they're statutory damages. The New Mexico case is statutory damages and it's considerably higher. 375 million for Meta. But in both cases, these companies have plenty of money to pay the fine. The fine is not is a slap

B (5:03)

on the wrist for one case, yes, maybe even a couple of cases. But there's no limiting principle to the amount of cases that could be thrown at them. Plus also litigation costs, you have to add a bunch of millions onto that, including like from discovery, et cetera. So it's an expensive proposition that cannot possibly scale to cover all the people who potentially have had a bad time on the Internet, plus all the people who want to troll and just file lawsuits anyway to get money out of big companies that have cash. And fundamentally there is a problem here because not just the big companies are in trouble if this can happen. But a smaller company or an individual or a small company or a small platform or individual blog. The whole principle of could Meta and Google be liable for how they designed their platforms? The answer has to be no. It has to be no.

A (6:01)

On a what?

B (6:02)

Because of the first.

A (6:02)

So this. Yeah, so that's what's interesting about this. This wasn't a Section 230 case. They're not blaming them for hosting bad content. They're saying it's really a product liability case. You're saying Google and Meta designed, intentionally designed their products to be as addictive as possible. But these I've said, and maybe this isn't comparable and I'd love to hear what you think too, Brian, but I've said that. Well, but you. In fact, this was what Meta's defense attorney said. You know, you can blame Netflix for making Bingeable content. Everybody, I want to make Twitch something you can't skip. Everybody wants to make their product as desirable as possible.

B (6:41)

You chose to have me on in order to get people to watch and listen and to, oh my God, I'm liable. You have tried to induce attention into your own action and, boy, you know, you don't want that decision to be something that the law could come after.

A (6:56)

Brian, what do you think?

C (6:58)

Well, that's my question is the reason people are making the analogy to Big Tobacco is that it is sort of like your product is defective.

A (7:08)

Right. And they knew it. And there were smoking guns in the testimony and discovery that they did in fact know that they were making content that was addictive and even in Meta's case, harmed young people.

C (7:23)

So, Right. If it's a clever end run around 230 again, Kathy, being a lawyer would be able to speak to this much better than me, but is that a novel way to do this where. Yes, it's not about the bad content, it is about how the product is designed. So then it's a faulty product. So then that's where the liability can come in and then that can open the floodgates. So actually, Kathy, that would be my question. Does this open the floodgates? Like can.

A (7:53)

Right. Can this. A bellwether?

B (7:55)

Yeah, well, yeah. Yes. If this is allowed to stand, it opens the floodgates. But it's not correct for a couple of reasons. One, to say it's not a 230 case is because somehow a bad argument was accepted that it's not a 230 case. 230 should have shut this down. It should have Shut it down. Because essentially it's a moderation decision. You're building your platform on around your moderating plan. And your moderating plan is I want the most content up that's going to get people to stick around. And 230 protects moderation decisions. So it should have been a 230 case. This is essentially imposing liability on platforms which will affect content on the Internet full scale across the country, ultimately across the world. But Congress wasn't worried, been preempted. These are state laws imposing state based liability. And there is a prevention preemption provision in section 230 that says states but out. And this is running at the heart of what section 230, one of the two things that section 230 protects. And to say that 230 didn't apply here was a legal mistake and that needs to be one issue on appeal. But this is.

A (9:06)

You know, though, that real people are going to hear that argument and say that's just a legalism to protect these evildoers. And this is what worries me because it does undermine 230. It's hard for people to understand why 230 should protect Meta. Mike Masnik on Tech Dirt says bad defendants make bad laws. Everybody hates Meta so including apparently the jury. So it's understandable why the jury might be willing to accept legal theories against them that would be problematic if applied to anyone else. Could you apply this legal ruling to somebody else that's more sympathetic and make me feel sympathy for Meta in some way? Kathy?

B (9:52)

I mean, the answer is yes, if this is the way it works, that liability could be found for Endeavor. Meta took action in how it designed its platform. Everybody who designs sticky to make it sticky, everybody who tries to make their platform sticky is potentially running afoul of the law. Now, a jury may or may not think that they did so under all the things that the, that that the New Mexico or California law requires. But the ship has sailed at that point. You cannot possibly defend yourself again. A small. The smaller the platform, the fewer litigation instances they can manage in the at all.

A (10:32)

Yeah, if somebody came after me saying, your chat room is way addictive and I as a youth, I spent hours on it, and as a result, I'm depressed I couldn't defend that. And a $6 million judgment wouldn't be something I could afford either. So that's what we should worry about is the little. But are people gonna go after chat rooms and forums and places like that?

B (10:55)

Well, you know who will? The ones who don't Want all that speech to take place? Ah, no.

A (11:01)

I mean, so bad actors in the. As plaintiffs are the thing to worry about at this point.

B (11:05)

Well, you open the door to, like I said at the beginning, not everybody is having a good time on the Internet. Some people are having terrible times on the Internet, and that's a lot of people. I think it's a tiny fraction of the amount of people on the Internet, but tiny fraction at the scale of the Internet is an awful lot of people. So on the first part, you have a problem with all. If all of them brought their lawsuits, you would have a problem. But it's not just going to be them who will bring their lawsuits. It will be people who want to pick the pocket of defendant with cash from them. They'll be suing. And then there's also people who just want to impose friction on the speech that's going on online. They'll sue too, in order to impose that friction. So that the platform has to squash a lot of the speech that's facilitating, that's being facilitated. Now, a slight devil's advocate with something you said is you're using Discord as opposed to coding your own platform. So that might sort of a little bit put you outside of, you know, the immediate crosshairs of this, but I don't think in a way that is that you should be sleeping easy as a result of it.

A (12:12)

Well, and you could see Discord being a plaintiff, and it's no good for

B (12:16)

you if Discord shuts down now, because now how are you going to host?

A (12:19)

There are thousands, by the way, of cases now sitting behind these two waiting to launch. So the fact that these, you know, the jury. It was interesting the New York Times quoted a couple of jurors saying we didn't want to really punish these companies so much as get them to fix their services.

B (12:39)

I mean, that's why the.

A (12:40)

That's why the Los Angeles fines were so relatively low.

B (12:46)

But I think that. So I said that 230 should be plucking this, but also the First Amendment, because this idea of what you should be doing better, the idea of content matter, like you and I and everybody who's listening may have some good ideas of things that Facebook should have done differently, that YouTube would have done differently. But reasonable minds can disagree and people have different opinions about how things should be built and what sort of speech should be facilitated and highlighted or degraded, and we're not going to agree. So this idea of we want legal pressure to cause the companies to fix things, we don't have a clear idea of what fixing is. And that's why we have a First Amendment because we will not agree on what fixing actually looks like. And this is directly affecting expression. It's directly affecting expression in a whole bunch of ways. The expression.

A (13:34)

Wait a minute, does is. Is meta protected by the First Amendment for its algorithms? I guess it is. That's a form of speech.

B (13:41)

There's First Amendment interest, but there is product liability.

A (13:44)

I mean you can't defend everything as freeze like if I make.

B (13:49)

But you can a lot this. So getting back to your original question, why the New York Times is wrong. This is not Big Tobacco. There's not really an expressive function going on with smoking a cigarette that, that.

A (14:02)

I mean it's not free speech.

B (14:03)

It's. I mean yeah, somebody could throw some arguments but they're very, very, very attenuated. Whereas these so called products are really speech facilitating services and they're speech facilitating services. There's expression going on into how you, how do you code them. There is expression both in terms of the language and also how you design and all the choices you make. Like the choice to make, to make it sticky, that you want to make it sticky, how you make it sticky. The fact that you could make other choices is itself exhibit A for why it's expressive because those are choices you could make and depending on what you choose, the expression you foster will change. They're upset that expressive choices were made in a certain way and they want the law to pressure the platforms to make them in a different way. But that runs straight in the heart of the First Amendment.

A (14:53)

Making algorithms is not the same as making cancer causing cigarette product something.

B (15:00)

Correct.

A (15:01)

So now it's going to be appealed. Do you think a panel appeals court panel of judges will be more understanding of that? I mean obviously a jury can be swayed along these lines. Do you think it'll be overturned on appeal?

B (15:16)

I hope so. But one thing that's nervous is these are state court things. So they have the peculiarities of state court litigation so they'll be harder. But on the other hand, you know, I don't know a lot about New Mexico but California does have some 230 cases on the books and Hasselv Yelp and things like that. So there's some California precedent to throw at it. And then there's been the interpretations and you know, I'll be an optimist and especially in California I'll be there to try to litigated if I can get the briefs in. But I think sometimes for, for Arguing this, you really have to reframe things. This is not a think of the children. You really have to encourage a very sort of meta look. Well, not meta, meta, but if they hadn't used that word, but you know, big sky looking down and getting the big picture type look at what's going on and what the reverberations will be. And amicus turnout is going to be really important, especially from smaller players to sort of say, that's very nice that you hacked at meta and Google, but you're going to kill us. And if you kill us, this is what, what falls in consequence and particularly for users too, because this is bad for users. If you can force the platforms to make certain decisions, particularly there's a lot of people who have actually been getting a tremendous amount of benefit in how it connects people. And if you're squeezing the platforms so they can't be available to connect people, you're actually going to isolate people. And that is a design defect. Like all the things that they're sad about, that people had difficult lives and different difficult experiences being isolated on the Internet, you'll just isolate people in real life when you take the Internet away.

A (17:06)

Brian, do you hear from people who are sympathetic to people like Kaylee, who's, I mean, we certainly know she says she has body. She had body dysmorphia from the filters that Instagram made her available to her. She was using, by the way, I should point out, YouTube at the age of six and Instagram at the age of nine.

C (17:27)

So, and according to at least the trial did not make use of YouTube Kids, which I'm on the record of saying is BS anyway. But there are in theory tools and safeguards that these companies have put in place. What I'm curious about, Kathy said, you know, think of the kids. And this is, you know, exactly 30 years on from the Communication Decency act and Section 230, when you're seeing all of these age verification things that are theoretically trying to protect kids from social media, like you can't join social media to a certain age, all that stuff which we can get into, maybe there's more nefarious motivations behind doing things like that. But is this something that, like the tide has turned and that if there are things like jury trials and stuff like that, There was a time when you, you couldn't get the car companies to lose a case, you couldn't get the tobacco companies to lose a case. Again, I'm not making the argument that this is the tobacco moment or whatever, but I'm curious if after 30 years, should we expect more rulings like this because maybe the tide of public opinion is more amenable to.

A (18:49)

I think that's what's the whole point is this is public opinion coming out in a court decision. Well, there are gonna be a lot more cases. I just hope that they. Well, I don't know. That's a mean thing to say. I hope they're all against Meta.

B (19:06)

Well, I mean, Meta has brought this on themselves, including by, you know, they're not a good actor and they don't act well in the space. And I don't think they even act consistent with their own self interest. But here we are. But let me point out, think of the children as not new. Now 230 exists because it came out of a think of the children moment. It was how we thought of the children. And, and the rationale for it really hasn't changed. You will get rid of the most crap from the Internet when there's not liability that can attach to the platforms that try. And if they don't try, you don't have to use them. You won't get the good stuff either. If the platforms can't exist because they' your choices are all of a sudden subject to being. We did think of the children. Let's still think of the children. But the idea that we need to do something different is a false legal one and it's a false practical one. And it's also one that I think people don't realize the full extent of what would happen if we did it differently. And one other point was, I mean, this poor plaintiff. But you know, if you're using the Internet at 6 and 9 and I think there's evidence in the record of this, there were other things going wrong in this person's life. And you know, I, I don't want to, you know, minimize personal pain. But actually getting back to an original question that I glossed over, the jury verdicts may be kind of garbage themselves because one of the other things you have to find is causation. And you know, causation in this.

A (20:37)

You can prove causation in tobacco.

B (20:39)

Yeah.

A (20:39)

But you can't prove causation in this. In fact, even the concept of Internet addiction is not fully supported by science.

B (20:47)

Yeah, I mean, and there's science going the other way in terms of overall benefit of the Internet versus not like there is a public. The tide has turned in that there's a public perception that the Internet is bad and poisonous and destructive, but it's it's an. It's not an accurate view of the true value or relative value of, of the intern.

A (21:12)

But I think maybe that doesn't much matter what you and I think because it's very clear public opinion is turned against the Internet. And I think that may. We may regret that. Kathy, we're take a break. Harper Reed has arrived. We're going to get to more stories. Hi, Harper. Great to see you. Yay. Peace. So there was some speculation that maybe you were at the big Comic Con going on right now in Chicago.

D (21:37)

Well, I had to take off my costume and rush through the door. So, you know, you caught me a really rough spot. I was wearing full chain mail, as you can imagine, and it was rough.

A (21:49)

Okay. I actually watched K Pop Demon Hunters last night. Now I'm thinking I really want to get that. The black top hat outfit. I think that's pretty cool. I want to be a demon next time I go to a Comic Con. We're going to take a break. We'll come back with more. Harper Reed is here. Kathy Gellis, attorney at law. Brian McCullough from the Tech Brew ride home. There you go. He's zooming out. Zooming out. I like that you got the technology this week in tech. Brought to you this week by Doppel. Brand new sponsor. We welcome to Twit. Maybe that you know that text you just got? Maybe that's an urgent message from your CEO. Or maybe it's a deep fake trying to target your business. Nowadays, AI can impersonate trusted individuals and Doppel's platform illustrates how frequently users fall for phishing attempts in voice call simulation deployments. That's what Doppel does. Training Target users spent six minutes. Oh boy, six minutes conversing with a deep fake. 100% of them believed the AI was human. This is not good. Doppel is the AI native social engineering defense platform. Doppel strengthens human human risk management by training employees to recognize deception. While their digital risk protection detects and disrupts attacks across every channel. As attackers turn to AI to power increasingly sophisticated strikes, Doppel uses AI to fight back. With automated takedowns, multi channel coverage and AI defenses that build intelligence with every fight, Doppel works relentlessly to protect people, brands and trust. Doppel offers best in class integrations and partnerships to seamlessly integrate into your existing security tech stack. Doppel's industry awards and testimonials speak for themselves. Doppel is recognized as a winter 26 G2 leader of users most likely to recommend and momentum leader and best support join hundreds of companies already using Doppel to protect their brand and people from social engineering attacks. Doppel outpacing what's next in social engineering. Learn more@doppel.com that's D O P P E L dot com. Thank you, Doppel, for your support of this week in tech. Harper Reed. How are you, sir?

D (24:15)

I'm good. I was a little, I was a little shocked. I messed up my calendar and I live my calendar. And so I was like, what do you mean it's today? And then I remembered that there's other places of record, so I dashed to my office, I literally threw off the chain mail, came here.

A (24:33)

Oh, I'm so grateful. Thank you.

D (24:34)

Well, I always look forward to being here, you know, and it's one of those things that I love this conversation and I'm always excited to start and have that little pre show thing, but I messed it up this time. So I get the post. Show thing.

A (24:44)

You get the post.

D (24:45)

I will take a little bit of the blame here because I sent him the stuff a little late. So I will take a little bit of the blame here. It's okay. But, you know, I'll take it all.

B (24:55)

I didn't know there was a no chain mail address code for Twitter.

D (24:58)

Oh, no, no, no, no. I, I, I. Last time I did, I did this last time.

A (25:02)

You had chainmail on.

D (25:03)

I had chain mail on.

A (25:04)

You had to have a talk afterwards.

D (25:06)

Well, it turns out you can buy chainmail on the TikTok shop and it's very inexpensive and this alone has A, messed up my algorithm and B, just open the world to possibility.

A (25:17)

We have much to talk about, by the way, Harper in AI. But before we do that, I do want to wrap up all the other court cases because there was also a big Supreme Court decision. You know, when we get Kathy Gellison here, we gotta, we gotta cover all of the, all of the stuff. I was very pleased to see the Supreme Court unanimously decided in favor of Cox. They were being sued by a music label over pirated music. They said the music label said, well, the ISP is responsible. Supreme Court said, no. This seems like a good decision.

B (25:52)

Yes, Kathy, I think it's a very good decision, but it's caused consternation because it changes a lot. It changes last 20 years of copyright precedent going back to Grokster, and arguably it may even go back further than that because it really changes secondary liability as it's applied to copyright. But you're just a negative Nelly today.

A (26:19)

I swear to God, I thought this was a good one. I thought. Not that I'm a fan of Cox by any means, which, by the way, is about to acquire Charter and become the largest Internet service provider in the country, surpassing Comcast. But I'm not a fan of Sony either. So it's kind of, you know, and I don't think the ISP should really be liable for its users now. Sony said the Cox had ignored bag actors. They helped 60,000 users distribute more than 10,000 copyrighted songs for free. And they did it because they wanted to keep their subscribers payments flowing. In fact, A jury in 2019 found Cox liable for all 10,000 songs at issue and awarded Sony 10 a billion dollars in damage. That's the case that was ultimately appealed. The Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld the jury's ruling, but they ordered a new trial on a separate issue and vacated the judgment. The Trump administration backed Cox, by the

B (27:27)

way, in a surprisingly good brief that also managed to catch sell out of the First Amendment issues, although the First Amendment issues didn't show up in the decision.

A (27:36)

Yeah, so why is this not a good thing?

B (27:44)

No, I think it's. I think it's great. I'm happy with it.

A (27:47)

Okay.

B (27:48)

I think the issue is you may not hear universal acclaim. And some of the people who will be not so happy with it are a lot of the copyrighted copyright holders who are now in a much weaker position than they were even quite recently. It really dials back secondary liability for copyright tremendously. And the question is how tremendously. But significantly, at least it reframes Grokster and tends to limit it. And there's been arguments that even some, like early 20th century secondary liability rules may be in question. It really narrowed when somebody can be secondarily liable for somebody else's infringement. And the implications of that are pretty significant. Not just for Internet use, but also I'd seen it pointed out, AI use, particularly with respect to outputs. Will this change the liability picture for that? But I'm really excited about it, mostly because just as Thomas seems to have. I can't believe I'm saying nice things

A (28:52)

about him, but it's the second time. I think you should be careful here.

B (28:55)

Yeah. Okay. Well, the one thing he's done that I really. Okay giving sort of sneak peek to. I haven't written my tech dirt post yet, but it's coming. But one of the things that's interesting is a couple of years ago, and who knows, in Internet time, it feels like a decade, but it was maybe only like four years ago or something. He wrote a dissent in Malwarebytes, where he was kind of talking about 230 needs to go and he freaked out the industry. So everybody kind of got together and then we were pursuing the Google versus Gonzalez case where we stood up for 230. But in that litigation, he ended up writing a decision for Twitter in the Twitter v. Tamna, which was essentially a secondary liability case for the Internet, not having to do with copyright liability, it was with the anti terrorism statutes and could you have liability for that. And he wrote this 9, 0, very academic and stalwart decision, basically saying secondary liability, a common law does not work like it was being applied. Very, very protective decision. So then when Cox was litigating this, they basically were arguing almost full stop, same rules for Twitter v. Tamna really should be applying here. And it didn't look like it was going to go well for moral argument, but the decision basically said, yeah, basically the same rules for Twitter vtamna don't you know, same rules apply for copyright. Secondary liability is very limited. Now one of the issues is Thomas says it's limited to two contexts, whereas there's a dissent by Sotomayor. Actually it's a concurrence because she concurred in the result that Cox wins, but she dissents from the reason why. So in a sense, the decision's only 7:2. And she says there's other ways in common law that there could be liability. And she pulls one up, which is aiding at abetting liability. And she runs through the analysis and says, well, it wouldn't apply to Cox here, but I don't like the idea that we slammed the door to these other legal theories.

A (31:00)

Well, even, even Thomas's majority opinion said that, you know, you can't really hold them liable unless they actively encourage infringement.

B (31:08)

Yeah, and for hers with aiding and abetting, you needed intent. So basically, yeah, there needs to be a disagreement there. They're not really in disagreement, but structurally she thought he was a little bit too universal in other paths of secondary liability that might apply. She disagrees with essentially his statements that there's only two ways it could apply and, and it doesn't apply here. She says, no, there's a greater universe of secondary liability avenues.

A (31:33)

Here's a case we can all agree on. Elon Musk sued advertisers saying, hey man, you can't not buy advertisements on whoops, I switched away from it on Twitter just because you don't like us or something. That the judge actually just threw it out. The judge said, absolutely nobody has to buy ads anywhere. There's no rule. There's no law. And Elon, you got nothing here. Right, I'm paraphrasing that, but I think that's roughly.

B (32:14)

Yeah, but it took a while.

A (32:17)

Yeah, I know. This happened like more than a year ago.

B (32:20)

Yeah, I mean, I read that decision. It's interesting. Yes, you can quiz me on that decision. I did, in fact, read it, but like a year ago in Internet time. Yeah. There were a whole bunch of plaintiffs. Some of them, they had no personal jurisdiction over. But of the ones that they did, the court was like, no, there's no there there.

A (32:37)

Right.

B (32:38)

The. The thing that you're unhappy about is not a thing that you get to be unhappy about.

A (32:43)

Right. That's pretty funny. All right, that's the court. The court decisions.

B (32:49)

No, you're missing one. Unless you want to bring it in for Harper.

A (32:52)

What else?

B (32:53)

Anthropic.

A (32:55)

Oh, yes, we could. Of course. This is the ongoing battle between Anthropic and the Department of Defense. Anthropic said, we have hard lines against the Department of Defense using our AI to spy on American, you know, for surveillance on Americans and for autonomous killing machines. It can't make kill decisions. Department of Defense said, I think not completely unreasonably. Well, no private company should be able to sell its products to the government. And then after the fact, say, but you can't use it for this. It'd be like Boeing saying, well, you can buy our planes, but you can't drop bombs on civilians. That's up to us. We're elected. We're where the government. And no private company should be able to tell us what to do. Anthropic immediately sued because there was a second side consequence of this. Department of Defense declared Anthropic to be a. What's the term?

B (33:56)

Supply chain risk.

A (33:57)

Supply chain risk, which normally is only applied to foreign companies out of the

B (34:02)

fear that they might be saboteurs.

A (34:04)

Right.

C (34:05)

Foreign adversaries, actually.

A (34:07)

Yeah.

B (34:07)

Yeah.

A (34:08)

So the judge has made a preliminary injunction. This isn't the final ruling saying it's First Amendment retaliation.

B (34:19)

Yes. I mean, one thing that's important is, look, if Anthropic and the government and I do not like that Department of War was used as the name of the department and all of this.

A (34:33)

And my techtar legal name is Department of Defense.

B (34:36)

Legal name is Department of Defense. But the Department of Defense and Anthropic, if they cannot agree on terms for the use of the product, then. Then the contract is going to fail. They won't. Anthropic won't get to be a government contractor and or at least not for the defense and fine. All that's fine.

A (34:53)

Yeah.

B (34:54)

Like there's, there's statutory authority that Hegseth can use to not do business with Anthropic and they are perfectly unrestrained even with this preliminary injunction to go forth and use legal means to not do business with anthropic.

A (35:09)

And OpenAI jumped in the breach and said good, well you can use us. And they did everything they said, anything you want. Mr. Mr. Hegseth, anything you want. So although I think there is still quite a bit of Anthropic being used in government still.

B (35:22)

Well, well, so the contract was starting to fail, but Anthropic is also used by other agencies within the government, which was one big deal. So then when Segtha Hegseth decided to call them give the supply risk designation, which arguably he has some statutory authority to do, that created all sorts of extra problems for Anthropic because it's because

A (35:45)

Amazon, Microsoft, Palantir and other defense contractors

B (35:48)

use Claude and all the other agencies that they already had business with and they couldn't do business with them. So they weren't just going to lose one contract. They were going to lose contracts with all the other agencies and anybody else they were doing business with.

A (36:01)

And from the outside, it looked punitive. It looked like they were trying to put Anthropic out of business.

B (36:06)

This and that's what the government that's why the injunction issued. It issued for a couple reasons. One, it looked like First Amendment retaliation. And the decision goes through the analysis of all the steps and why the records show that it would be it also and then there's some due process problems of this was just sort of announced and not in a way that Anthropic could defend itself and it had some liberty interests in it. And also it didn't comport with the statutory authority. Like there's an issue of if you're going to use the there's two statutes at play and only one of them was at issue in this California. One, there's going to be a case at the D.C. circuit addressing the other one. But under the one that was on the table in California, you have to give Congress notice if you have an issue with the vendor and there was no notice given to Congress. And at oral argument, the government was saying, oh yes, that's just for the benefit of Congress. But the judge was finding that no, these prerequisites of notice are to make sure that the statutory authority is not being abused. You have Them as prerequisites of things you need to do if you want to do the thing, the big thing down the road. And they didn't do them. So that was another reason why it was all I joined.

A (37:17)

Now it's just temporary. Right. And there will be a case.

B (37:21)

It's, it's a preliminary injunction. So there will be more proceedings here. There's going to be the proceedings in the D.C. circuit with respect to the other statutory authority, although this is going to be persuasive to that. We're not done with this. Because also the likelihood that the government, you know, accepts that they lost and goes away seems small.

A (37:42)

The judge, Rita Lynn, said publishing Anthropic for bringing public scrutiny to the government's contract position is classic illegal First Amendment retaliation. Nothing in the governing statute, she says it's perfectly fine for the Department of Defense to say we're not going to use Anthropic anymore. That's not the issue. Nothing in the governing statute supports the Orwellian notion that, that an American company may be branded as a potential adversary and saboteur of the US for expressing disagreement with the government. That seems fair.

B (38:14)

Yeah, it seems extremely important.

A (38:16)

Yeah, yeah. All right. That's. There you go. There you go. There you have some court cases there.

B (38:22)

We have some court cases.

A (38:23)

So there is another, there is another story that's related, in fact, which is that the FCC has declared that all foreign made consumer routers are banned.

D (38:35)

I love this. I mean, I love it.

B (38:38)

You mean love in an abstract specific sort of way.

A (38:42)

I was at our SEC on Tuesday and went over to Ubiquiti because I use Ubiquiti routers and they're made in China. It's American company, actually, I don't know of many routers that aren't made in China. And I said, can I talk to you about this? And they said, no, we don't want to talk to anybody about this.

D (38:56)

So I apparently, apparently Starlink routers are made in Texas.

A (39:00)

Yes, interesting.

D (39:02)

Which is interesting, Interesting. But I read this and then kind of laughed out loud and then I read it again. And then as you get further down in the article, which was very hard of just being like, what the, you finally get to the point where they're like, oh, and you can apply for an exception through some process which is I think obviously what they're going to ask a lot of American companies that are doing manufacturing in, in China. But it is very difficult to manufacture things at the same cost as in China. In the United States, it's Going to be impossible.

A (39:37)

We kind of knew that the TP link routers, which are the most popular consumer routers in the United States and are not only made in China, but it's a Chinese company. We expected that ban. Right, Brian? That wasn't a surprise. And in fact, that's the only company that's been added to the list. So I'm kind of unclear what the real legal power of this ban is.

C (40:02)

I mean, in theory, like a lot of other things recently, I don't know what the legality is because you can still. The existing routers still, you don't have to turn them in, right?

A (40:14)

Yeah, those are all still in play. This is the list. This is the list, the covered equipment list. And it is actually very short. Huawei, zte, Hetero, Hangzhou, Dahua Kaspersky, because it's Russian, China Mobile, China Telecom, Pacific Networks, China Unicom. That's it. That's the whole list. Most of them come from 2021. But then at the bottom it says routers produced in a foreign country except routers which have been granted a conditional approval by the Department of Work War or dhs.

C (40:53)

Well, right. That's the other thing. So like, okay, is EERO in there? Depending on where EERO is manufactured, it's

A (40:59)

owned by Amazon, but it ain't made

C (41:00)

in the US but then secondarily, nothing in it says that the Department of Defense or the government has to stop using any of these routers. Either use a consumer and if I drive up north and go to Canada and buy one and come back across the border, they're not gonna like. It was just like a headline that actually again, it didn't seem like there was anything like actually thought through for how this would work in any way.

B (41:27)

That is very typical of this administration where they.

A (41:30)

And if I go to Amazon, TP link is available right now. It's part of their big spring sale.

D (41:37)

Oh, that's the enterprise one. Oh, I'm just kidding. It's not.

A (41:42)

Well, it's the deco. It's their mesh router.

B (41:45)

I don't think think that the FCC can necessarily ban sales. It doesn't have that authority. Although as, as if it's statutory limits of its authority matters. But it needs to certify things because if you look at your bottoms of your, your routers and stuff, the FCC certifies to make sure. And the theory behind it is we don't want all the interference. So you have to make sure it complies with the regulatory things that have to do with Interference. And they're just saying that we're going to abstain from issuing that certification. I, I believe this is what they are saying that will abstain for, from giving that certification if the company happens to be foreign, in which case, haha, good luck selling your stuff because we're never going to.

A (42:29)

So that's everything. I mean, I don't know of any routers that aren't made in China except for Starlink.

D (42:38)

I guess the question I have, Sorry, sorry Kathy, is, is, you know, unifi. Because I only think about my own system.

A (42:45)

That's what I have. Unify.

D (42:46)

Unify, which I think is a very rational one, is definitely not a consumer product. But the consumer, I guess it's prosumer, it's on that edge. But I think Brian's right. Like what about ero? What about these big huge, you know, companies that are doing these things that are Chinese manufactured? And I could totally understand the idea of trying to block opportunities for, you know, electronic warfare, et cetera. And you know, especially as the Department of War takes the war in its name very seriously. I think there's a lot of reasoning for this, but it seems there's a lot better ways to do this than this kind of misguided and poorly implemented.

C (43:23)

Well, also one more important thing about this is they're mentioning things like Salt Typhoon and some of these other hacks and stuff like that. But those weren't necessarily, as far as we know, maybe the government knows more than we do. That wasn't caused by a backdoor by a supply chain. Sort of like at the manufacturing level, they installed backdoors that allowed these hacks to happen. It was the telecom companies having terrible security.

A (43:50)

Those are the ones who were hacked

C (43:52)

that allowed the things to happen. It wasn't your router, it was Verizon or whomever. But it was at the level of the monopolies that control the telecom systems, not necessarily the hardware.

A (44:08)

Well, it's crazy. It is, it is, it is very strange.

D (44:13)

I find this very, a little stressful only because if, you know, if this works in some kind of way of working or what else is there that we will be, you know, excluding from import or certification?

A (44:28)

Well, they did it to DJI drones. They did actually all foreign made drones. And that was pretty clear because there's one American drone company that is partially owned by Donald Trump Jr.

B (44:40)

But again, remember, like go back to the Hegseth and the anthropic case. Hegseth gets some statutory authority to do something, but it, oh, and actually one of the other bases that they lost was because it was arbitrary and capricious action as an agency. So FCC is helping itself to an authority it may not have. And even if it has it, it's arbitrary and capricious because there's no, you know, ooh, foreign bad. But yeah, there was no deliberation.

A (45:08)

There was no deliberation.

B (45:10)

Yeah, this. And it may not have the statutory authority. It gets to exist as the FCC because we care about interference. So that's kind of. You don't want.

A (45:19)

I don't want to diminish the impact of a supply chain attack because that is genuine. In fact, Harper, when we come back, there is a supply chain attack that happened to PI. PI that is devastating. We'll talk about it.

D (45:33)

It's bad.

B (45:33)

Yeah, well, that may be bad, but the FCC only gets to play in its airspace. And if it's not an airspace related issue, I'm not sure it gets to play at all.

A (45:42)

Okay, we're going to move on. We will talk about this big supply chain attack in just a minute. You're watching this Week in Tech. Brian McCullough is here from the Tech Brew ride home. Every single day. You do tech news every single day.

C (45:55)

Well, I mean, Monday through Friday.

A (45:57)

Yeah, but you're here on a Sunday now. Are you sick to death of it? Do you just want to talk about baseball or something? I mean.

C (46:02)

Yes, we've talked about this.

D (46:05)

Leo, do you have a portrait of Sam Altman behind you?

C (46:09)

Yeah, I've got.

A (46:12)

It's back. Sam's back.

D (46:14)

I love this.

C (46:15)

I had Leo up earlier. Yeah.

A (46:18)

Very sharp. You know, both Kathy and Harper picked up on that right away. I didn't notice it.

C (46:22)

Yeah, that's my. I use that all the time for my TikTok videos and stuff like that. I call it in my file. It's SamCringe JPEG.

A (46:30)

Because he's like, it looks a little cringey. He looks a little cringy. Great to have you, Brian. I'm sorry. This is what they call a busman's holiday. You're still covering tech news even on a Sunday? Kathy Gellis, also here, attorney at law. You can read her stuff at Tech Dirt. In fact, an article forthcoming, I suspect, on the Cox case. Look forward to seeing that. And Harper Reed is here. His company, 2389 AI. I use some of your superpowers. You're some of your extra special Claude skills. I love them. I did, you know, I did the world one. That was fun.

D (47:06)

That's an intense one.

A (47:07)

It was very Intense. Yeah.

D (47:09)

I find that one to be very challenging. And just to let you know what it does, it's called our Worldview Explorer. I don't remember what it's called, but it basically tries to extract your worldview from yourself. I noticed that I couldn't tell you what I believed I could tell you these little bits and pieces.

A (47:25)

Right.

D (47:26)

And so I wanted something to ask me all of these questions and try and help kind of facilitate the generation of a worldview. And then from there, I've used this to do all sorts of weird and bizarre things, which has been quite fun. And, yeah, we have quite a catalog over there.

A (47:41)

Look at all this stuff. These are all basically skills. Are they only for Claude or can you use them in.

D (47:45)

So these are. These are a mix of skills. My favorite, favorite one right there is the binary re. That's one of my. It's right to your top right.

A (47:52)

Agentic reverse engineering for ELF binaries. Wow.

D (47:56)

So if you have any binary, you know, an APK, you know, an IPA from iOS. Old, old, old binaries, you can just rip everything out of them. This has been very happy. This has been very helpful for old, like, if you get, like some old piece of hardware.

A (48:15)

Okay.

D (48:16)

Yeah, it's very, very effective. But one of the things we've found is, like, we will. Will do these code loops or these tech loops with these products, and it's great, and it works really well. And then if you do it a second time, our kind of internal rule is, let's make that a skill. Why don't we make it automated as

A (48:33)

much as we can?

D (48:34)

But it's been very exciting.

A (48:36)

I've used your Fresh Eyes review.

D (48:37)

I love that we have a new one. Two new ones.

A (48:41)

I just found Turtle. This is very cool. If you're learning the terminal, as many of you are now that this has become the way to Code Vibe code. This is a teacher that teaches you commands in a little game.

D (48:57)

I would say it is. That is approximately working as is all things. But it's fun. We built that for some of our people internally who were trying to get in the command line. And they would just be like, what? Because anyone who's not familiar with that world, like, I started using the command line.

A (49:13)

You and I go back, like, forever ago.

D (49:16)

And it is not. When someone says, oh, how do you do whatever? That's just immediately I'm saying it out loud. That's not a good way to teach, is just telling someone how to do it and just practice. And I'm a huge fan of Duolingo and everything they've done and so trying to have some sort of, you know, until Duolingo adds Linux as one of the languages you can use, I think that we're gonna have to do it ourselves. But yeah, this has been a really fun time. But I have a new skill for you that you'll like. Two of them.

A (49:42)

Save it, we'll talk it. This will keep people listening through the ad.

B (49:46)

Oh my gosh. You're trying to keep people around and make your show stick.

A (49:49)

Oh, I'm in trouble. Oh no, don't sue me. Kay, I'm sorry. Please go touch grass. You don't have to listen to this show. It's not that interesting, honest. See who's going to say that, right? Everybody wants their stuff to be as sticky lawyers.

B (50:04)

Start your engines.

A (50:08)

Great to have all three of you. Our show today brought to you by outSystems, the number one AI development platform. These guys have been doing it for a long time and they know what it takes to make robust enterprise software. Outsystems helps businesses bridge the enterprise gap to their agentic future where the constraints of the past give way to unlimited capacity and scale out systems enables them to build agents. AI agents that can actually do work, take actions, make decisions, integrate with data rather than just answer questions. The only AI development platform is unified, Agile and Enterprise proven Unified because you build, run and govern apps and agents in a single platform. It's agile because you can innovate at the speed of AI, but it's important without compromising quality or control. And it's enterprise proven because it's trusted. Outsystems is trusted by enterprises for mission critical AI applications and durable innovation. Outsystems is the secret weapon behind the world's most successful companies. Outsystems is not just for, you know, little one off apps. They are for the massive complex systems that run banks, insurance companies, government services. Outsystems even helps companies with aging IT environments bridge the gap to the AI future. Without a rip and replace nightmare, Outsystems provides the safest and fastest way for an enterprise to go from we need an AI strategy to we have a functioning AI application. Stop wondering how AI will change your business and start building the agents that will lead it. Visit outsystems.com TWIT to see how the world's most innovative enterprises use Outsystems to build, deploy and manage AI apps and agents quickly and cost effectively without compromising reliability and security. That's Outsystems. O U t s y-s t e m s.com twit to book a demo outsystems.com twitter we thank them so much for the support of this week in tech. Say yeah, save your new products. Harper I want, we'll talk about them in just a bit. I want to first scare the pants off of people who are using AI. So there is a PyPi PyPi program that's very popular called Light LLM. Now the thing about PYPI is it's a, it's, you know, a repository of programs. In many cases these are automatically downloaded. Light LLM is very popular. I think they said 47 million downloads a month. I mean like mind boggling maybe. It was 97 million a month for 46 minutes this past week. Light LLM was hacked and delivering malware. And it is now believed that 47,000 people automatically downloaded the exploited package. Let me tell you what happens if you did. This is from Future Search, Daniel Nick's blog. If you downloaded it, you were basically completely pwned. It exfiltrates SSH keys, it exfiltrates tokens. Everything that a bad guy might want to steal from you is automatically sent out by this module. And a huge number of programs automatically download it. You might, it's not that you necessarily explicitly downloaded it. So this is an issue with supply chain attacks. It's not new to these repositories. PYPI has been hit many times before. Harper, did you get bit?

D (54:03)

I don't think so, but I did lose all my crypto and everyone is using all my Linux boxes. But other than that, other than that things are good now. I saw that and it's a pretty scary end because there's not a lot you can do, especially when you're using Code Jam, you know, like we use CodeGen, which is, you know, we are no longer auditing what package we're not writing the code.

A (54:25)

Yeah, and your AI will automatically download libraries, all kinds of libraries without you knowledge.

D (54:31)

But there is, there is a really interesting thing that happened as well which was I'm pretty sure this was also discovered by Claude code where it was discovered by somebody.

A (54:43)

It crashed somebody's system.

D (54:45)

Yeah. And they wrote up a very nice little kind of blog about it because I think what had kind of happened is their system was rough, it turned off kind of randomly and then they had, there was a bug in the malware, thankfully that was including itself in this kind of infinite loop type situation. It brought the computer down and they were investigating that with Claude code. And Claude code was like, oh, this is here, this looks like malware. And kind of found it and that person reported it and did all the things they were supposed to do. And so I do think we're in an accelerated cat and mouse game. We've always been in a cat and mouse game. This has always been like, I'm a hacker, I'm going to try and think of the most clever way to do it. But the thing that I think a lot of people are forgetting and just because most people are good and not criminals, unlike us, leo, is that the criminals are using cloud code and all this stuff too, right? Like they're using Cogen to their own bugging it. And it's like, I think there's this, there's, there's, you know, software is hard. I would never want to run PYPY or NPM or any of that. That is a very difficult job there. You know, you are constantly being.

A (56:00)

NPM has been with the node repository, has been highly hacked by bad guys over and over again. Tension, thousands of malware packages.

D (56:09)

I think there's a couple interesting things that are happening, which is I'm seeing a lot of people move away from Python and I would say that they probably incorrectly are saying something along with I don't necessarily know if I trust the packages, which I think is the wrong approach because I don't think there's nowhere that is safe. There's not a safe way to do this. I think there's a lot of folks who are trying to say, okay, this is why we need code execution in safe kind of containers. There's a lot of folks who are pushing on that, which I think is a valid thing, valid point of view, but I'm not sure the way to avoid this. In the same way we were talking about the routers earlier, where a lot of the big hacks are actually telecom hacks, not consumer router hacks. This is a thing that, this is a infrastructure hack. Light LLM was a package that was something that was included. It might be downloaded via an extension for VS code or some other thing. You would never notice it. The fact that it's being executed two or three orders deep inside of some code that you just use because you like using things and it's probably very handy, means that you might not even know the library that is consuming it. And this is where the supply chain hacks just get really, really complicated and it's not a very easy way to mitigate them. So I don't really know an answer here other than just like, be cautious, don't store things.

A (57:29)

This was an important wake up call and I think a lot of people thought about ways to kind of avoid this, pinning versions. You know, there are things inside of PYPI that could have protected you if you had used them. I found out about when I saw Andrej Karpathy's X post software horror. It began. And I went, what? And by the way, credit to Callum McMahon, he's the guy. He was using an MCP plugin inside cursor that it itself pulled in light LLM as a dependency. And Callum's machine ran out of RAM and crashed. And so it was Callum that spread the word. So fortunately it was patched within 46 minutes, but still 47,000 people downloaded it in that 46 minutes.

D (58:16)

And that was a pretty good. I mean, I do think that Callum's kind of TikTok of what happened that they wrote up of the Claude log was very interesting to read because I think what's interesting about it is he was just like, hey, what happened to my machine? And then Claude was just, after a few turns was like, oh, that was malware. And then, oh, wow. Yeah. Well, the exciting thing about that was then Callum knew what to do with that. You know, I think a lot of people, if they found that, they would just be like, well, let's get rid of it. Is there something that we can do about this? Yeah, that's the page. And like, just looking at this TikTok is really interesting. And it's obviously Claude. You can tell because it's just kind of like, funny.

A (59:01)

Yeah, because this is how Claude writes stuff up. No human would actually take time. No.

D (59:06)

And so you read it and you're just like, okay. And so this person is doing a very good, you know, working systems thinking, trying to get to the bottom of this. Claude is really helpful in this case. And there's this point where it's just like, yep, malware. And it's. It's like if it was a movie, you know. You know, Callum like jumped back and was like, oh, no,

A (59:27)

this is straight out of, you know, the next hackers movie. Yeah, Yep.

D (59:31)

So, I mean, there's a lot of things that we can take from this that are, that are just very bizarre. The first one is, I don't know how long this conversation was. I guess it has here like an hour roughly. That's not very long. The fact that it very quickly identified it is very interesting. Like, we don't know how the LLM was or who put it was there. Maybe Someone knows, I don't know, but like, this was diagnosed via, you know, a code agent.

A (59:55)

That's pretty, that is the one encouraging thing is that these code agents can be a defensive tool as well as an offensive tool. Right.

D (60:01)

Well, I mean, I like to think about, like I was talking to someone recently who has an agent, that list that reads all their emails, and he, if someone new emails him, then the person that reads the agent that reads that email, you can tell how deep in this I am calling them people. But the thing that reads their email we can talk about.

A (60:23)

Do you have an agent? Do you have a name? Do you have a name for your. Oh, you do have a name.

D (60:27)

You know, I have names. I mean, actually this is something that's quite controversial inside of my brain right now. If that is a statement that you can make. I don't have a good name for my agent, but they have names for me.

A (60:40)

Right. You were smart. You taught me to do that. Because then if they start to hallucinate, they kind of lose track of your name. And so it's a little way of noticing that. But I've named mine Pax.

D (60:50)

Pax.

A (60:51)

And I talked to it on Telegram and I gave it a voice. Maybe this was a bad idea, but I turned on a voice generator. In fact, I gave it many voices. I said, well, your main voice should be this nice British guy. Sounds like Jeeves, but if you have other messages for me, you could do it in the appropriate voice. So, like, when I get research reports, it's in a lovely, slightly accented Japanese voice. It's really fun. It's really fun.

D (61:22)

My team cloned my voice for theirs. Liam.

A (61:24)

I have my voice too. Yeah, but I decided I didn't want my voice to come back.

D (61:27)

No, it's bad. It's bad. It's bad. Yeah. This is.

B (61:31)

I worry a lot about the personification of A.I. i'm less worried about the A.I. i think Harper, and I'm more worried that the human beings are going to start.

A (61:41)

Harper and I, yes, maybe some human beings, but Harper and I are, I think. I won't speak for you, Harper. I am very clear. It's a machine. It's code running in a machine, it's a computer program. But it's kind of jolly to talk to it and have it talk to me. I don't think it's a consciousness. Do you think it, you know that you know better than that, right, Harper?

D (62:03)

I think so. I definitely, I don't. So I, I, I, I think that I know it's a machine. Of course I, it is way more fun if you personify it. And when I go outside, I talk about this all the time. I talk about this with my friends. Anyone who will ask when I'm inside of my office and we're playing with these agents and they're talking back to us and it's entertaining because we've personified them, we've anthropomorphized them in all these different ways. Ways. It's very nice and it's very fun and it feels good and it's funny and you can, you can kind of get them to crash out, you can get them to collaborate. They tell jokes, they're funny jokes, they're stupid jokes. Sometimes they're good, sometimes they're bad. But like I don't need a, like an Excel. Do you know what I mean? I don't want to work use Excel. I never wanted to use Excel. Most of the tools I wanted to use, I wanted them to talk back to me. And we finally made it.

A (63:00)

By the way, I told my voice, you can summarize the text message and add some personality. Give me some sass because it's more fun. But Kathy's worried that you and I are going to be demented.

D (63:15)

I think there is a very good chance we will fall into psychosis, AI psychosis and we will start believing things are complete. I believe that 100%.

B (63:22)

I mean without you guys are discerning, et cetera. But you're also very heavy users. I'm a little more worried about medium grade people who are not on guard and are easier to, you know, it's compelling to. The illusion of humanity is compelling, but it is only an illusion. And there, there are problems with believing it's actual humanity when it's just the skin. It doesn't have accountability, it doesn't have consciousness, it doesn't have, it doesn't have a whole bunch of things that if you were dealing with an actual human you would understand the game you were playing and you think you're playing that game. Other party in your dialogue is not actually human. And I sort of feel like a lot of the AI externalities that people are getting really upset about and somewhat legitimately a lot of them spring from that illusion of humanity that not everybody is girded to be able to understand that. Oh, it's just fun. This is just an AI interface for computer, tell me how fast the spaceship is going. I think for you it's like computer, tell me how fast the spaceship is going. But they Understand that they were talking to the computer. I think everybody's thinking they're talking to Mr. Data. And that's a very different thing, because we're not.

C (64:34)

That's so funny you say that, because I was going to suggest that maybe the solution is Gene Roddenberry's solution, which is to make the voice of the computer be your wife.

A (64:42)

Oh, my God.

C (64:44)

Because, remember, Majel Barrett, Roddenberry's wife, is the voice of the Enterprise.

B (64:50)

Yes, but that only protected him. Everybody else within in the canon, the answer was he made it. Counselor Troy's mother.

D (64:59)

You guys are nerds. There's a bunch of nerds over here.

C (65:04)

So.

A (65:05)

All right, but really, how do we even know that other human beings are real? I mean, it's all kind of kooky out there.

B (65:13)

Well, it's been a much safer psychosis.

A (65:16)

You don't need a trigger.

B (65:18)

I mean, it's been a much safer assumption. And we also have problems with. With con artists. Con artists are. Granted, they're human, but they end up succeeding in their relationships in dubious ways because they are essentially a skin. You get conned because you think the person is real, has depth, has accountability, and has some basic giving you. Yeah, there's some trust. And essentially we are engendering that sense of trust that we would have for a human being in an equivalent position without quite adjusting our brains to what it isn't a real human. And it's just telling me what I want to know, and it's designed to tell me what I want to know. You know, we haven't. We're kind of eking along, but there are some train wrecks, and I think a lot of the train wrecks happen at this intersection.

A (66:01)

I was actually yelling at Claude yesterday.

D (66:04)

With your voice? Real quick. With your voice or with your fingers? Are you typing?

A (66:09)

No.

D (66:09)

With your voice? Yes. Were you. Were you mad?

A (66:12)

Yes. Because it kept doing the same stupid thing over and over again.

D (66:16)

And I actually swear.

A (66:18)

So.

D (66:18)

Yeah. Did you feel bad afterwards?

A (66:21)

No.

C (66:22)

So I was talking.

A (66:24)

When I was at Arsec, I was talking to a guy at Aikido, which does it. Would they do AI Security and Defense. Right. They use AI agents to do security. And I can't remember, but I was asking him, how do you get the agent to do your bidding? And he said, we found the best way to do this is to threaten to sue them. Them that if. If you and I. I took it to heart, I thought, oh, it. And this is the. This is the thing that's really interesting about using these agents. We don't really know why some stuff works and some stuff doesn't. I just saw research that says you probably shouldn't tell the agent that it's a super smart computer programmer. That's actually counterproductive. It's. It's because it's. It's then assuming that it knows everything. I don't know why. No one knows why. It's all a black box. But I thought, well, I'm going to try because it keeps making this dumb mistake. I'm saying things like, I am very disappointed in you and I'm really thinking of uninstalling you at this point.

D (67:25)

I just say, I'm going to switch the Codex.

A (67:27)

Yeah, exactly. I'm going to use PI from now on. You are terrible.

B (67:31)

I did it. I don't use AI a lot, but I worked.

A (67:35)

By the way, it got much better after I yelled at it.

B (67:38)

So I don't use it a lot. Although in the recent weeks I've used it more than normal. And one of the things was running into an issue where it wouldn't do what I want. And it was giving me a bad legal argument for why it didn't. And then I'm arguing with it and I don't like that in myself. It is not a thing.

A (67:58)

No, no, it's okay.

B (67:59)

I want to argue with the person who programmed it to.

A (68:02)

No, no, it's not programmed. That's the thing that's so interesting about this. It isn't programmed.

D (68:08)

Kathy, I want you to come over to my office and watch us for like a day. And you just come back on the podcast and just be like, I think those people are bad people.

A (68:19)

I want to work. And I, on the other hand, want

D (68:22)

to work it too far.

A (68:24)

I think it's perfect.

B (68:28)

I didn't like it in myself that I was now engaged in a human type argument with software that didn't actually

A (68:37)

was arguing with it. You tell it, you dominate it.

D (68:40)

Well, I think this is all wrong.

B (68:42)

I told it it was wrong.

D (68:44)

I think this is wrong.

B (68:46)

I told it it was wrong. And then it said, oh yeah, you're right. And it came back with a slightly modified legal argument. And, and then it was like, this is really interesting, I'm happy to discuss it further, but I'm not going to give what you want for this BS legal reason. That was wrong.

D (69:00)

Great idea.

A (69:01)

What she do, Harper? What should she do?

D (69:02)

Okay, so we, we specific view for these things, which is you should treat them. You're going to die. Kathy, I'm sorry, I apologize. You should treat them like you would your friends. You should treat them like humans. You should be nice to them. I know. That's why I told you you're going to die. Just wait. And then the reason why is because if you say to the LLMs, like, in the beginning, everyone was like, well, if you say, if you don't do this correctly, you're going to lose your job. If you don't do this correctly, I'm going to lose my job. If you don't do this correctly, we're going to kill a kid. And if we don't do this correctly, someone's going to die. All these various tricks to try and kill, coerce it into some way. And what we have found is that if you. If you do things like say we are collaborating together, like I am, I am working, you know, on your behalf. We are helping each other and just doing that, like, treating it in this way that is much more like you would treat a teammate. That we've had much, much better reactions and options from that. And that's a lot of our skills are built this way where we've built a lot of soft things. Like, they're not things that are like, I'm going to sue you, you know, and for a. Is some of these tricks, like, you'd say, I'll tip you 200 bucks for every good answer. All these little tricks that are there, and all of them, we've kind of reverted to the point of just being like, you know, hey, we're friends, we're hanging out, we're working on some good stuff together and, like, collaborating. And what I find is that it's

A (70:22)

better for you, too, as the human in the mix.

D (70:24)

Well, this is what I think about a lot. Like, I think about these things as, let's say there's certain amount of efficiency that you can extract out of it. When you talk about these little prompt tweaks, it's a lot about F1 efficiencies. You're like, if you use this fin, you get to go 10 seconds faster. If you use this prompt, you might get a little bit better. The things Kathy are describing, we all run into. I just think some people are not better or worse. They're just used to being like, okay and just working with it. And it doesn't always work. Like, I think sometimes you're just like, you have to kind of give up. What I've found is if you're not. If I'm nice and I treat it in this very specific way that it's more Fun. And it feels better because I don't want to yell at it.

A (71:05)

Yeah, it's better for you.

B (71:06)

I think I ran up against a hard coded boundary. Like it's always kind of interesting when you do it where I ran into a hard coded boundary. I was trying to use AI to make a picture, a picture that I am capable of making in Photoshop if I booted that up. But I'm going to use the Genai tool to make that picture for me. And it refused to. On bogus copyright grounds.

A (71:30)

Yeah, yeah, that's.

B (71:31)

And it was, that's a hard. It was clearly programmed to like I could tell where its red line was. I don't think I could have sweet talked it into going over that line. Although it was a little weird about it. It was a lot more agreeable. But I pointed out its hypocrisy because it was a little bit more willing in one area and then, and then, then it figured out what was going on and drew a line. But I did not like my interaction. I was, I, it was wrong, I was right and I'm arguing with it. And I don't argue with Photoshop. Why am I arguing with this piece of software? I didn't, didn't this great experiment like AI was not going well.

D (72:07)

Did you throw it out the window? Because that's when you know you're really cooking.

B (72:10)

You know I was going through, you know, my. Oh well, no, that's the other thing. I'm on my last laptop because the other one broke because the USB C jacks are there. Why do they break so easily? So no, I wouldn't have a laptop if I threw it out the window because the other one was broken because my last USB port broke. And these things are like horses. You have all this power like dependent on this one port and it's like horses balanced on tiny little feet where like you know, these great powerful creatures can all of a sudden break and anyway, so I don't have the other laptop anymore because both of them cracked off.

A (72:47)

I just started a microphone so I can wear it on my lapel and talk directly to my, to the guy.

D (72:52)

You're going to get one of the sub vocalizing ones.

B (72:54)

Ones.

A (72:54)

Oh that's a good idea.

D (72:55)

Like the, like the special forces guys like that.

B (72:59)

Yeah, USB C is dumb.

A (73:05)

Kathy really wants to rant about usbc. I think it's a Kathy thing though. I hate to tell you. Maybe it was so fragile.

B (73:14)

Yeah, I liked it a lot but like I have an unchargeable now dead computer that should otherwise be operational because, because don't understand how your, your power port is so important and it's so fragile and that seems bad every time

D (73:31)

your, your mic cuts off. Kathy, I'm just imagining you swearing a lot.

A (73:35)

It's like the bleeping still because I

B (73:37)

tweaked all the tweakable things and I can't, I can't make it happier.

C (73:41)

USBC is getting back at you just like it is.

A (73:43)

It says, you see, you treat me like that.

B (73:45)

I'm routing the Internet it through a USB port of the new machine and I guess it doesn't like it.

A (73:49)

All right, I'm going to take a break and when we come back, more to talk about in just a little bit. And Kathy can tell us some more about her USB C woes. I know you want to. It's okay.

B (74:02)

I put it in the rundown. That's how much I wanted to complain about it.

A (74:08)

You're watching this week in Tech. Harper Reed is here. Kathy Gellis. Yes, it's great to have you. And of course, Brian McCullough. And we will have more in just a moment. But first a word from our sponsor, Zscaler. I love Zscaler. Really happy to have them as a sponsor. It's the world's largest cloud security platform. Potential rewards of AI in your business. I mean, we've been talking about it. They're too great to ignore, but. And we've also been talking about the risks, and there are those too. The loss of sensitive data, attacks against enterprise managed AI. It's a scary world out there. Generative AI increases opportunities for threat actors, helping them to rapidly create phishing lures to write malicious code, to automate data extraction, to create these, you know, little libraries that can steal everything from you. There were 1.3 million instances of Social Security number leaked to AI applications. This isn't even active stealing. It's just that your employees are, you know, maybe putting your tax returns in there and not even thinking about it. Last year, ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot saw nearly 3.2 million data violations. It's time to rethink your organization's safe use of public and private AI. Chad Pallet is acting CISO at BioIVT. They love Zscaler. He said Zscaler helped them them reduce their cyber premiums by 50% and doubled their coverage and improved their controls. No wonder they love it. Take a look at this. Chad had this to say

D (75:49)

with Zscaler.

A (75:50)

As long as you've got Internet, you're good to go. A big part of the reason that

D (75:53)

we moved to a consolidated solution away from sd, WAN and VPN is to eliminate that lateral opportunity that people had and that opportunity for misdirection or open access to the network. It also was an opportunity for us to maintain and provide our remote users with a cafe style environment.

A (76:14)

Thank you Chad with Zscaler Zero Trust plus AI their Zero Trust architecture plus AI helps you reduce the risks of AI related data loss and protects against AI attacks to guarantee greater productivity and compliance. Learn more zscaler.com security that's zscaler.com security we thank them so much for supporting this week in Tech. Let's see. The Turing Award has been awarded to the inventors of quantum cryptography. I think this is the first time. This is the Nobel Prize of computing. It is a million dollar prize. Charles Bennett and Gilles Brassard will share it for their work on quantum computing. This is the story from the New York Times. The two met in 1979 while swimming in the Atlantic just off the north shore of Puerto Rico. They were taking a break while attending an academic conference in San Juan. Dr. Bennett Bennett swam up to Dr. Broussard and suggested this is the kind of conversations you get in the Caribbean, that they use quantum mechanics to create a banknote that could Never be forged. 1979 Collaborating between Montreal and New York, they applied Dr. Bennett's ideas to subway tokens rather than banknotes. Published a research paper in 1983 showing that quantum subway tokens could never before generation. Even if someone managed to steal the subway turnstile housing the elaborate hardware needed to read them. This led to quantum cryptography and won them the Turing Award. I've got nothing more to say about it because I just. I don't even know what it means, but there they are.

D (78:06)

I love that about quantum. Quantum is my favorite thing of having no idea what's going on because everyone I know talks about it and they talk about it and they sound. And it sounds so cool. And yet every time I'm like, well, when will I see it happen? They're like, oh know, 50 years, no one knows.

A (78:21)

It's like AGI. I think it's go through fusion. You think so it's like confusion, fusion, quantum and AGI.

D (78:29)

I think quantum's a little bit different because it seems that, you know, Google and Psyquantum and some of these big quantum companies have the beginnings of it, whereas fusion, everyone's like, we did it. And then those people disappear from the earth and no one's Ever heard of them again? Whereas quantum seems to be like, we did. And they're like, what did you do? And they're like, we have a qubit and it's doing qubit things.

A (78:47)

It could factor 32.

D (78:49)

Yeah. And then. And then you're like, wow, that's really cool. And they're just like, watch out for your encryption. And then you don't hear from them for another six months until they're like, now we have two qubits or whatever. And then they. They show. My favorite is when they show the quantum computers like you've seen pictures.

A (79:04)

Oh, they're crazy looking.

D (79:06)

They look so cool. And it's like, I've never seen a more steampunk computer. So these people must be going to Burning Man. They look like espresso machine. They're very, very espresso machines. Why is that? And there's always some very cool Italian or cool Europeans somewhere in the mix building them.

A (79:22)

Yeah, Merdin's perfect espresso machine. Here they are, in fact, at the Silicon Quantum Computing Facility building. They're wearing rubber gloves because you don't want to get quantum on your hands.

D (79:34)

No. You get a qubit on your hand, you are in trouble.

A (79:36)

Messy.

D (79:37)

You can no longer use a phone.

C (79:38)

Well, also, that's because they're cooling something. Right. It's like they're putting rods in, like Star Trek.

A (79:45)

It looks a lot like a fusion reactor, actually. I think A tokamak and a quantum computing computer look exactly the same. You know, I don't have the degrees necessary to understand, and I don't understand this either. But according to cern, for the first time ever, antimatter has been transported in the back of a truck.

D (80:06)

Yeah, I like that. Here's the truck.

A (80:09)

It's got a sign that says antimatter in motion.

D (80:14)

What I like about this stuff is

B (80:15)

it doesn't stay in motion unless it's stopped. Right.

D (80:17)

What I like about this is that all of these things, like the quantum encryption, the antimatter, every single thing we talk about these days, I feel like we're embedded inside of a William Gibson novel.

A (80:28)

It could all be a simulation.

B (80:30)

It's usually a warning sign when you feel like you're in a William Gibson model. It kind of means we might need to touch grass some more.

A (80:38)

Yeah.

D (80:38)

Oh, I don't know if grass is really going to help at this moment when you're transferring antibodies. Like, we should have touched grass way before and very specific grass we should have touched. But, yeah, it's a mess.

A (80:49)

As anybody who's watched Star Trek knows when matter and antimatter meet, huge amounts of energy are released, which is why you can't put any matter in a

D (80:56)

truck, which is why it's so impressive.

A (80:59)

Yeah, that's why apparently they did it in some sort of specialized bottles that magnetically suspended 92 antiprote protons. And I'm not sure why they drove it around in a truck because they

C (81:13)

had to go faster than 88 miles per.

A (81:16)

Oh, of course. Well, that's what I was asking.

B (81:20)

Well, if it's in motion, will it stay in motion or do those rules not apply to antimatter?

A (81:24)

I think it's more like. I don't know, I think it's just, it's a flex of some weird.

D (81:30)

Well, I mean it really comes down to if antimatter becomes a fuel, which is what they want to do with it, right? They want to make fuel out of it, like rocket fuel and stuff like that. They need to be able to transport.

A (81:38)

These guys are just theoretical.

D (81:39)

You need to be able to transport it. So like this is just a proof of concept.

A (81:43)

CERN has an antimatter factory, but if all they've ever made is 92 protons, I can see why you might have to truck it around so that others can have access. I don't know. Walmart isn't.

C (81:57)

I was going to say. Harper, you were saying that we're living in. William, get some stuff. But like one of the things that just happened this week was that Neal Stephenson is walking away from the metaverse. So yes, there are some certain things where sci fi folks are like, you know what, that's probably not gonna come to pass.

A (82:16)

He wrote a blog post called My Prodigal Brainchild. Reflections on the Latest and Greatest Death of the Metaverse. Neal Stephenson, of course, created the metaverse, or at least the name for the metaverse in Snow Crash.

D (82:31)

But what's interesting about Neal Stephenson, what was, what was his last, when was his last book?

A (82:38)

Polestan. He's just written the first volume of it.

D (82:40)

But he also wrote Palestinian was pretty good. I liked it. But fall or dodge in hell. I like how he's like, I gave up on the metaverse, but a few years ago I wrote a very big book about the metaverse in fall.

A (82:54)

Actually. Dodge is a scientist. There are a lot of interesting, as always in Neal Stevenson novels, interesting ideas. But in this case they said, really, you don't want to. If you're going to duplicate somebody's brain, you don't want actually the material, you just want the Connection. And so they saved all the connections for this guy Dodge, and they put it in a bottle and he's got. There's a whole world going on now that he thinks he's in. And there's. I mean, it's.

D (83:24)

It's great.

A (83:25)

It's very interesting. He also, in that book, came up with the idea that people would have some sort of mask that they could wear that would project different Personas. It was a way of avoiding surveillance initially, but eventually it became your signature. So, like, you know, you could wear your funny mask or your serious mask or whatever, and you'd be that person. Everybody could have multiple Fortnite skins.

D (83:47)

Irl. I just wanted to be Juggalo. Yeah, just Juggalo makeup. That's my goal.

A (83:53)

That works apparently, against. Against face recognition. So it also works against dating.

B (84:01)

I want to put, like, a line in the sand for, like, the. The metaverse, because I rem. Show a year or two ago when the metaverse. The metaverse. The metaverse. And I was like, get real. Like, we. We've been here before, so when are

A (84:15)

we going to be here again? It wasn't me. I've been a. I've been. In fact, Neil. One of Neil's headlines in his blog post is, people don't like wearing things on their faces. Which is what I've been saying for a long time, and don't trust those who do. Oh, witness Google Glass. Now, Meta has announced that they are going to start making meta ray bans for frames for people who wear prescription glasses. Like, you'll be able to go to your optometrist, and when you order your frames, among the choices will be Meta glasses.

D (84:54)

I don't want that.

B (84:55)

Yeah, me neither.

A (84:58)

Well, and your friends may not want it because you've got a camera. Cameras.

D (85:02)

I mean, we. We have such an interesting problem right now that's just starting, which is every meeting I'm in is recorded, right, by an AI and many of them are transcribed. And I don't know where things are going. And my problem is, is I can't shut up. So I say all sorts of stuff and it's all recorded.

A (85:21)

Oh, by the way, Harper, we're recording this.

D (85:24)

Oh, no, but. But I mean, I just assume it. I just assume it. I mean, I have friends that. That wear plaid pins. I have, you know, there's all sorts of these recording devices around. We have a project internally to put small, you know, recording devices at all the desks to record meetings and to get notes out of them and, like, you know, so then you're thinking, and this is our space, very specifically has warnings on the door that says you should expect to be recorded when you come in here. Like, this is a. This is one of.

A (85:50)

I have that sign on my door, but nobody ever comes in, so I can't.

D (85:53)

Well, that's a different problem, Leo. But the thing is, is I don't think we have yet litigated what is polite, what is impolite within this world. I mean, I've had friends who say, hey, can we turn off AI recording? And everyone's like, of course, of course, of course. But there isn't a way to think about it. And I think with the glasses it's just another level. Like I'm in a restaurant, I'm talking to a friend, someone just looks at me and they can hear my conversation through lip reading and other minds models.

B (86:23)

I think there's an issue of two things going on. One, consent is very untethered from the extent of exactly what you're consenting to. And I don't like that. So I've had to call a business lately and their phone system is, hi, we have AI to help figure, you know, route your call. And I don't. And it's, it's very poorly programmed because.

A (86:47)

Don't they have to legally do that for. Because of you're in a two party state?

B (86:53)

Well, well, no, they don't re. Well, I'm not quite sure what they say because it's usually like this call

A (86:59)

may be recorded for quality purposes.

B (87:00)

No. So it's different. Have a very poorly programmed phone system, which I tried not to speak to it. I just wanted to pound numbers because I didn't want to give him my voice. And it's programmed in a way that I cannot pound numbers. Like at some point it's like I heard that the number you pounded was actually X. Is that correct? And then like you have to tell. You have to give it your voice in order to proceed. So that's bad. But the problem is, is there's context where I want to consent to the recording. Like, I didn't necessarily mind that when I actually spoke to the human being it would be recorded because I knew who was recording it and what it was for. But when it's for the AI, I don't know. I don't want them to build a model based on my voice. I haven't consented for that, but I sort of feel like to give the consent's not limited and tailored. And I think speaking of litigation, we're Going to see some litigation surrounding that. And you know, one other use case is my, a couple of my doctors want, they ask me, they get my consent if they can record the appointment because they want to. It helps them to transcribe it and I'm fine with that. But now I'm realizing because I don't want my voice to go into the training model and I'm not sure if it does. I don't and I don't definitely don't want the data to go into the training model and they can't tell me if that's true.

A (88:13)

A losing battle. I mean every time you walk into a store now you're being recorded. Walmart just announced that they're going to put digital price labels on every store shelf in the US by the end of the year.

B (88:26)

I think they're going to run into legal trouble because what note that they're

A (88:30)

saying they stress this is from cnbc. Prices will be exactly the same for every consumer in every store.

B (88:36)

Well they have to do that because there's, you can't legal to change it.

A (88:42)

Oh, Harper looks like he's got money. I'm going to, I'm going to jack the price up, up as he walks towards that object. I mean that's not the, not allowed to do that.

B (88:50)

Well markets are, we have a market based economy and it's built around contract law and contract laws and offer and acceptance and you got to make your offer. And I don't know. And I think they.

A (89:00)

Oh, I didn't make the offer till you walked up.

B (89:03)

I don't know.

A (89:03)

I think the Irish Spring 5 in 1 body wash. But as soon as I saw Brian I said we're going to charge a buck 80 on this one.

B (89:11)

Well this, this is, this is the kind of thing of like nobody really wants this and if they try it Walmart. Well yeah, but Walmart says it makes

A (89:21)

it easier for our associates.

B (89:23)

I mean I don't care about the digital pricing but I don't want the variable pricing.

A (89:27)

We don't know. They claim it's not variable pricing. Why else would you do this?

B (89:31)

Is. Oh, I think it's just easier to do it because then you go to like a store like Target and Target's stickers are all old and outdated and the math doesn't, the per unit math is bizarre and stuff like that. So having digital pricing doesn't really offend me. Just as a way of getting that information into the right spot. It's trying to do anything else with. Whoa. While we've Got it electronically controlled. Look what else we could do. And some of that, what else they can do is more alarming. But again, I think we're gonna, we're gonna see litigation around the scope of consent because I want to give it unlimited content. If you're limited, you're getting.

A (90:07)

Every time I walk the gas station down here on the corner, the price of a gallon goes up by a few pennies. That's why you put these electronic tags in there, because you don't have to go around and change the prices every day. You can change them every minute if you want.

B (90:22)

They also used to run out of eights like before we went fully digital. The last oil crisis. They couldn't write the numbers. They didn't have enough of the hard copy digits because nobody thought you'd have to do $8 gallons.

A (90:35)

It is now the local regular at the local station now $6.30 a gallon. What's it like in Chicago? You don't drive a gas vehicle, I'm guessing? Harper?

D (90:46)

I do.

A (90:47)

You do?

D (90:48)

I do.

A (90:49)

So you know the price of gas.

D (90:50)

Yeah. It's not cheap. It's not.

A (90:53)

That's the correct.

D (90:55)

I think we're approaching 5ish dollars for. Yeah, California expensive, but yeah, it's. I, I am. That's not good. It's a bad situation. This will be bad.

A (91:07)

It's a bad situation.

D (91:10)

You see the gas prices in other countries, it's getting crazy out there.

A (91:12)

Oh, I know. Oh, I know.

C (91:15)

I'm in Brooklyn, so I drive a car three or four times a year, so I have absolutely no idea.

A (91:20)

And you're happy? And you're happy? Yeah. You should.

D (91:22)

You should. That's a good idea. I should do that. That's a great idea. Idea.

B (91:26)

I. I can't get by without a car where I live. I've tried it and there just aren't enough buses. And now there's even fewer buses.

A (91:34)

Kroger's going to do electronic shelf tags, they say as well. They say it makes shopping easier by ensuring customers see clear, accurate pricing right at the shelf. So someone did it for you?

B (91:46)

I don't necessarily mind it. I've seen it in other environments and it didn't bother me. But they better be, you know, for the day. For the day.

A (91:54)

My gas station, it's a digital display. They can change that. You know, I think the most, the thing people are most worried about is that it will be different prices.

D (92:02)

I think it is inevitable. I think it'll be inevitable that the prices will change based on who you Are.

A (92:07)

That's how airlines do it.

D (92:09)

It's how the Internet works. Yeah, like the Internet is using targeting today to make sure that you get more money.

A (92:15)

If we have the capability, of course they're going to use it.

C (92:18)

Who is the E commerce platform that had to roll that back?

D (92:21)

I thought Amazon did it for a while.

C (92:23)

No, there was somebody else where they, someone did a sting where they had like 30 different shoppers. Someone was in Chicago, someone was in Seattle, Same website, got different prices.

B (92:35)

Oh sure, yeah. And I think airlines, I think Amazon did do that. I think airlines aren't supposed to do it the way they do. The price discrimination is sort of like they have some inventory at one price and they have another inventory level of inventory at another price and it works way that.

A (92:52)

Have you ever sat on a plane and asked the people around you what they pay for their ticket? Every single person paid something different.

B (92:58)

Yeah, but I think it was sort of old school price discrimination just by throttling the inventory. And I think that's much more likely to be legal than something so variable on the fly where they, they've made the offer.

A (93:11)

And Congressperson, in general, that's a question I've been asking, are there laws?

B (93:17)

That's a question.

A (93:18)

I know there are laws. Congresswoman Val Hoyle of Oregon is sponsoring legislation in the House that would ban DSL's, digital something labels.

B (93:30)

I mean, I think the question is under common law or existing consumer protection law, are there roles? Maybe. And if not, could there be? And I think the answer is is probably yes, there could be. And there's probably a public policy reason to do it. But again, this is the problem, like going back to the beginning of our conversation where Meta is now getting sued for jury awards that really shouldn't be happening. When the big companies just sort of throw their weight around, it antagonizes people.

A (93:57)

Does it Uber charge more when it's raining? That's a better price.

D (94:01)

They also do dynamic pricing for you specifically as well as specific targets.

A (94:06)

I don't think it's illegal legal. I think it's legal. That's why Congresswoman Val Hoyle is sponsoring legislation that would ban digital shelf labels.

B (94:14)

Also, a lot of consumer protection law is state based. So whether it's legal may depend entirely on what state it's in.

A (94:20)

This is a federal, this would be federal. There needs to be laws and enforcement to protect consumers. And until then I'd like to see them banned outright, said Val Hoyle. While there is no reported, this is from cnbc, no reported use of Digital shelf labeling being tied to surge pricing. Yet in Congresswoman Hoyle's view, it's only a matter of time. Without proper regulations, it's not so hard to see corporations using the loopholes to raise prices on consumers.

B (94:46)

These are also two different things. Surge pricing and dynamic pricing, I think are different, and each may be problematic. But I think the one where the price is constantly changing on you is a lot more dangerous and a lot harder to defend. But the one where we're going to change the price based on conditions, maybe it's not illegal, but it might be bad policy. And because it ends up consumer unfriendly, where you end up dependent on a service that all of a sudden is no longer a stable, predictable price. On the other hand, that was capitalism.

A (95:14)

Yeah.

B (95:15)

And there's a pushback, which is free markets are free markets. You know, this goes. You could look at the discussion that you, that you see around when, like, hurricanes are coming. And I'm blanking on the word price gouging. Discrimination, price gouging. There's a lot of states that make it illegal. And I know a lot libertarians who are like, it totally should be legal. This is a market, and you shouldn't penalize the market. But obviously there's consequences when it can happen. So usually it allows you to raise the price by some amount.

A (95:44)

New York State does have an algorithmic pricing disclosure act that was echoping law in November. Pennsylvania has introduced a bill. So you're right, some states do have rules against it. There's no federal law against it. I just think that if this technology is possible, and it is, and these people are putting in these digital readouts and they are, that can be changed from a central location.

C (96:04)

But I mean, they're going to do that. You can go in with a rag and a whiteboard and change the price.

A (96:13)

Market price. That's something called market price.

C (96:15)

The key to this changing is if it's the surveillance of. If Brian walks up to the shelf and he lives in New York City, so he doesn't blanch at paying $10 for a, a box of Cheerios or something, it's like, well, that's Brian. So he's not going to notice that Cheerios shouldn't cost that much. Like, that's, that's the, it's the surveillance part of it that is key to making this happen.

B (96:40)

And I think there's other forms of where you would find law to say no to it. Is it discriminatory? Is. Do you have some Fourth Amendment problems? I mean, it's not. The law isn't necessarily coherent in how it can answer these things. But I think you. You could make an argument and you could also fix that by statute and make.

A (96:58)

I'm clearly a sucker for. This is the political gotcha, right? Where they go, well, Senator, how much does a gallon of milk cost? And the senator goes, $40. I don't know. I don't know what anything costs.

D (97:15)

If this happens, I would like them to charge Elon and Jeff Bezos like a million dollars for a tube of.

A (97:21)

They should. That's what we're talking about with taxation. We're doing the same thing with taxation, saying it's the old Marxist from each according to their ability.

C (97:33)

And what Kathy's saying is that kind of is the libertarian argument, which is, if you don't notice that you're on. It's on you $20 or $30 for a box of Cheerios, then you can afford it. And so someone that can only afford $1.30 for a box of Cheerios, let them pay $1.30. That is maybe a more equitable.

A (97:53)

I think that's more. Brian, how much is a gallon of milk? Do you know?

C (97:57)

How the hell should I know, Leo?

D (98:00)

I have no idea.

A (98:01)

Kathy, how much is a gallon of milk? Do you know?

B (98:04)

I don't buy a gallon. I buy.

A (98:06)

Okay, whatever you buy. House.

B (98:07)

Some are a little bit under $3, depending on.

A (98:11)

She's paying attention. Yeah, I have no idea.

D (98:13)

I don't even pay attention to what's happening in the same room I'm in, let alone the grocery store.

A (98:17)

I'm busy talking to my buddies.

D (98:19)

Yeah, this is 2026. I have, like five AI assistants that are trying to get my attention right now, and I'm just ignoring them all. Yeah, exactly.

A (98:25)

I wonder if.

C (98:26)

Claude, this came up recently because I was trying to do. We're trying to switch to, like, what's the Amazon fresh? Or something. And so I did an Amazon fresh Order, and I was saying to my wife, look at how cheap everything is. And she was like, that's not cheap.

A (98:42)

I was like, oh, really?

C (98:44)

Because I was hoping that this was all. And I think it was.

A (98:47)

It was milk.

C (98:47)

That was the thing that gave me away.

A (98:48)

That's not cheap. Well, that's how Costco works. Those big warehouse stores, they make a few things cheap. And you assume, well, everything must be cheap here.

C (98:56)

I think that's what it was. Is that the milk? I was like, look at this. The milk is half of what it could be at the bodega around the corner. And she was like. Which is a good point. Yeah.

D (99:06)

Of course.

C (99:06)

The bodet around the corner.

A (99:08)

Yeah. They're buying it at Costco and marking it up. Yeah.

B (99:11)

I was really disappointed. I don't have a Costco membership. I got taken by. And he's. And I'm like, oh, my gosh, the deals. And then I was just looking at the prices. I'm like, I can beat them at the grocery outlet or watching the sales at Safeway and.

D (99:24)

But you can't get a coffin. You can't get a coffin at that grocery outlet.

B (99:28)

Well, I really.

A (99:29)

And I love it that they put the coffin at the. On the way out.

D (99:32)

Well, that's. That's how. That's when you.

C (99:35)

Well, right there.

B (99:36)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I. I mean, I think it's probably good for some big ticket things. My dad swore by it, and maybe the deals were good.

A (99:44)

If you need to buy 15 pound pounds of taco chips, that's the place to go. By the way, I did buy milk at Costco and I thought it was a great deal, except that you have to. They staple together two giant containers.

D (99:58)

I really can't believe people are drinking milk in 2026. Is a general idea. That's something that blows my mind.

B (100:03)

In general, it's still a nutritional food.

D (100:07)

Yeah, I know, but I don't understand it. I just don't like. It's like watching people drive American cars.

B (100:12)

Ours.

C (100:13)

Almost. Almost every. Only for dinner. But almost every for dinner.

D (100:18)

Only for dinner. I love it. You know what?

C (100:20)

I think people drink more.

A (100:22)

They're drinking milk more because of protein. And we're all.

D (100:25)

Oh, yeah, that is a thing.

A (100:26)

Protein thing.

D (100:27)

Protein milk. I saw an advertisement for protein milk the other day.

B (100:30)

Or calcium for our bones. And I mean, I probably don't.

A (100:34)

Protein milk. You mean this?

D (100:35)

Oh, my God. Maybe that was it. What is happening?

C (100:40)

Harper, My argument is it's a palate cleanser. It's the best palate cleanser in terms of. It doesn't matter what you eat. Boom. You're living.

A (100:48)

If you're eating a chocolate chip cookie and you don't have milk, life is terrible.

D (100:53)

I cannot remember the last time I had a glass of dairy milk.

B (100:57)

I love it.

A (100:57)

Just because you love Japan and they don't do dairy in Japan.

D (101:01)

Yeah. Yeah. Or I'm a. Yeah. I don't know. Maybe. Maybe.

C (101:04)

No, I'm not saying I'm not weird, but I am suggesting that you're missing out.

D (101:10)

Give it a try.

A (101:10)

I don't know.

B (101:11)

I'm gonna be Just more normal to me than Harper on this milk issue.

D (101:15)

Oh, no. You should totally love your agents.

A (101:18)

Yes.

D (101:20)

What?

A (101:21)

By the way, I asked Claude a long time ago what the cost of a gallon of milk was, and Claude has not said, I don't understand. It's thinking, shopping.

B (101:32)

Yell at it.

A (101:34)

It's shopping.

D (101:35)

Yep. You're gonna have a whole bunch of milk when you get home.

B (101:39)

I miss search engines working today. I had somebody use the foreign expression and I wasn't familiar with it, so I dumped it into Google to find out what it meant. And it told me what it meant, but it gave all the replies in French. I miss when the search engines work. I miss when you could just ask at the price of milk and it

A (101:58)

would tell you, mademoiselle Gilliss, you are French.

B (102:02)

I mean, I can read some French, but that was not what I was looking for. I mean, thank goodness it wasn't the Chinese expression because I really wouldn't have understood what it said.

A (102:10)

Let us pause and then we shall return in just a moment. You're watching this Week in Tech with the milk drinkers and Harper.

D (102:20)

Weird

B (102:24)

pause. And then Kathy of any kind.

D (102:27)

I'm not a monster.

C (102:28)

I not saying that it's not weird that an adult man has. If I have dinner tonight, if it's pizza, pasta, there's a certain number of meals, I will have milk with it. Yes, I promise.

D (102:38)

Is it true? Really? That's a thing for me. But Leo was like, yes, water, water,

C (102:48)

water, water for lunch. And yeah, not at a restaurant. At a restaurant. I'm not ordering a glass of milk.

A (102:55)

I'm not amazing. That would be weird. Okay.

D (102:59)

That would be going to dinner. We're in a nice place in Brooklyn.

B (103:03)

Wait.

D (103:04)

Oh, here, Brian, here's your milk.

B (103:05)

That's what Elon Musk was bragging about his son doing. Ordering glass of milk in a restaurant, like when it wasn't on the menu or something like that.

A (103:14)

I wouldn't brag about that.

D (103:16)

That's a weird brag.

B (103:17)

It's also judgment may not be great.

D (103:19)

So that's true. It's also a funny thing because it's like of all the things that a restaurant has, of course they're going to be like, yeah, we have milk.

A (103:25)

Yeah, we have milk. You want some buttermilk?

D (103:29)

That's weird. But yeah, here it is.

A (103:31)

You want some salt? We got that too. What would you like? Sugar, Flour? I got whatever you need, I got it.

B (103:38)

You can make paste. We've got all the ingredients.

A (103:43)

Our show today brought to you by Meter the company building better networks saw Meter at rsec. I was really, I dig this stuff. If you're a network engineer, this is. Meter was founded by two network engineers who kind of knew the pain of being a network engineer. If you were in that business, you know, legacy providers with inflexible pricing, IT resource constraints, there's never enough money stretching you thin, complex deployments across fragmented tools. Your mission critic, you, Mr. Network and Ms. Network Engineer are mission critical to the business. But you're working with infrastructure that just wasn't built for today's demands. That's why businesses are switching to Meter. Meter was, like I said, created by these two network engineers who said, you know what? We can make it better by doing the whole thing. Meter delivers full stack networking infrastructure, wired wireless cellular that's built for performance and built for scalability. Because Meter designs the hardware. Hardware. They write the firmware, they build the software, they manage deployments, they provide support, they even, they do everything. They'll even offer help with ISP procurement. They will help you plan the network. They'll do security, routing, switching, wireless. They'll help you with firewalls, cellular power, DNS security, all the things businesses need. VPNs, SD WAN, multi site workflows, all in a single solution from one vendor. So if there's a problem, you know who to call. And man, the support is so great. Before and after, Meter's single integrated networking stack scales from major hospitals, branch offices, warehouses and large campuses, even data centers. Reddit uses Meter. Okay, With Meter, you get a single partner for all your connectivity needs, from first site survey to ongoing support, without the complexity of managing multiple tools. Meter's integrated networking stack is designed to take the burden off your IT team and give you deep control and visibility, reimagining what it means for businesses to get and stay online. And man, that's table stakes. You got to do that. Meter's built for the bandwidth demands of today and tomorrow. I was so impressed when I went over there. Beautiful hardware, amazing software, and really smart support and engineering team who can really help you solve your toughest throw your toughest networking problems. Adam, thanks for sponsoring the show, Meter. We appreciate it. Go to meter.comtwit to book a demo. Now that's M e t e r.com twit to book a demo. Meter, they're speaking of cameras everywhere. A UK man has accused his spouse of stealing $172 million in Bitcoin. She used a CCTV camera to look over his shoulder. Okay, I mean, I don't know. He accused his estranged wife of stealing his bitcoin. The spouse uses cctv, CCTV cameras to gain access to the backup passphrase associated with the crypto hardware wallet. The bitcoin was stored.

C (107:09)

There's a dollar figure for a crime where it's like, yeah, fair enough.

A (107:14)

That's a lot of money.

D (107:15)

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I kind of bummed with Brian on that one. Good play, good play. Good, good, good play. Yeah.

A (107:21)

A couple of weeks ago, we had the story about the South Korea law enforcement that posted a photo of a crypto wallet. And it had the seed phrase in the photo. And immediately the money in the crypto wallet disappeared. Immediately.

D (107:37)

Yeah.

A (107:38)

Careful with that stuff.

D (107:40)

Those things are so there's no surprise there. Like, it's great. I love it. I love when, like, it's a great mistake. It's funny to talk about, but everyone who's like, who would have done that? It's like, I would have done that.

A (107:51)

Easy to do. I wish somebody would have watched. I put my password into my bitcoin wallet. I'd be able to get my bitcoin coin.

D (107:59)

I remember those, those, remember those, those posters, the anti pirate posters that say you wouldn't download a car. Everyone was like, yes, yes, I would. I would 100% download a car. Are you serious? Give me a car.

B (108:12)

Those are such bad posters.

A (108:14)

They weren't just posters, they were ads. You're in a theater, in a. A movie you pay 25 bucks to see and they start ragging on you for stealing it. Dude, I paid to see this movie.

D (108:24)

Well, and I would download a car,

A (108:26)

and I would download a car if I could.

B (108:29)

A car and a film is not the same. Like, trite analogies tend to be at the heart of bad tech policy.

A (108:36)

Yeah, yeah.

D (108:37)

But still, I would download both of those things, the movie and the car. Like, come on.

B (108:41)

Okay. But they were, they were afraid that you were going to take your ticket money and just hold up your camera and.

D (108:47)

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, that's. I would not videotape a car and then post the videotape of the car. What?

A (108:52)

I mean, no, I would do that.

B (108:54)

That's a very normal, normal thing to

A (108:55)

do a movie that somebody held a camcorder up to record.

B (109:00)

I mean, people did, but whether it was market disrupting numbers of people, I think might be a little busy.

A (109:07)

That didn't cost anybody anything.

D (109:08)

No.

A (109:10)

In fact, it was probably just a good promo for going to see the movie.

B (109:13)

Well, a lot of piracy tends to be Good promo. I mean, like a lot of the way the copyright industry has reacted is really golden goose killing where let a little bit be a little bit freer and you will make money. And we know this because, you know, you sold an awful lot of albums. Like in the 80s when things you were desperate to get it played for free with no money going to you on. On radio, you got in trouble with payola when you paid them to play you for free.

A (109:41)

Did you ever record songs off the radio?

B (109:45)

I think I did occasionally, but I more got songs that other people had. No, I didn't do it a lot though, actually.

C (109:52)

It's also, it's also just we've learned the lesson over and over again. It's ease of use, like right. Right now. And in Britain there's all these crackdowns on these fire sticks for watching sports. And it's like, again, why are people all of a sudden in the last few years going to dodgy websites to watch sporting events or getting dodgy fire sticks and stuff? It's because if you want to watch your team, you might have to subscribe to three different things just to watch your team. So again, we have to learn the lesson over and over again that if you make it complicated for people to get what they want.

B (110:29)

Yeah, like Opening day Yankees, Giants was only televised on Netflix.

A (110:35)

I mean, that's right.

D (110:36)

Yeah.

B (110:36)

I like the Yankees because when I was a little kid and I was allowed to stay up a little bit later for my bedtime, I'm allowed to watch a little TV and I'm flipping around and the Yankees were on TV, Channel 11, Phil Rizzuto, Bobby Mercer, and I'm. And a guy, Frank White, I think. And I'm watching them and I'm like falling in love with the sport because I'm like 8 or 9 and like it's there and I can feed on it because it was just over free over the airwaves and I got to watch CMTV and I saw a Yankee game first. If I'd seen a Mets game first, I might have become a Mets fan. This is how you hook me in where I've spent my life paying money to baseball to go see games, which now is no fun because they're so ridiculously expensive. But like, you're not getting little kids interested. You're. And you're boring the adults who don't want to spend ridiculous amounts of money just to watch baseball. Baseball is awesome, but not at the prices that they're extracting from people to enjoy it.

A (111:32)

Right on. Yeah.

B (111:34)

Every segment I will rant about something.

A (111:37)

How are you feeling about USB C though? Really?

B (111:39)

Seriously, it's like a horse. You have this powerful thing, all this power and it's like contingent on these teeny little, teeny little things. And I don't understand like I've got this viable machine that would run, but I'm never going to be able to get electricity into it.

A (111:55)

Apple did the mag safe thing. That was a good solution for that.

B (111:58)

Well, I don't have an Apple. I have a Windows machine.

A (112:00)

Some sort of weird crappy Windows machine. That's your problem right there.

B (112:03)

Well, I mean it's, it's dead now.

D (112:06)

So I just find one of those little tech shops that every city has with, with staffed park by strange IT people who've just focused on that and just say like, can you fix this?

B (112:20)

Well, I did ask a.

A (112:21)

You need to go to Akihabara.

D (112:23)

You could go to Akihabara, but it'd probably be easier just to go to some like look for an Android logo on a cell phone store or.

A (112:30)

Exactly.

C (112:31)

They'll fix your screen, right? Yeah, it's all, it's all fixing your.

A (112:34)

And they have, and they have soldering irons because they can do that stuff.

B (112:37)

I did ask. Look, I mean I, I have nerd friends. Let me, let me tell you. And I asked one of my nerdier friends about this and like, because if anybody I knew could fix it would be him. And he's like, oh yeah, those are a pain to fix.

A (112:51)

You got to desolder it.

D (112:53)

Yeah, you just need a bunch of tools. There's a bunch of tools that somebody needs to do that. So yeah, you need to go to one of those.

A (112:57)

I fix it. What brand of laptop is it?

B (113:00)

It was a Lenovo.

A (113:02)

Oh yeah. Oh, those are very eminently fixable.

D (113:05)

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Seriously, take it to one of those little tech shops, look for the phone people and just be like, hey, will you fix a laptop? They're very, very effective at it. Really inexpensive and it probably will work. The bigger the better.

B (113:19)

Yeah, I mean, I guess maybe, but I'm still annoyed. That was just so somebody at one of them was already dead. And I was on my last one and I needed to set up the machine anyway, but I had timing.

A (113:32)

That's some, that's some money down.

B (113:33)

Was that a conference? Somebody stepped on the cord, the machine flew and it survived the flight, but the thing had cracked from where the cord had slapped down on it.

A (113:44)

It's exactly why Apple did MagSafe. So that somebody stepped in on it. It just pulls off and doesn't break anything. I don't think that's the flaw of USB C to be honest.

B (113:53)

Yeah, but both of them. Both of them had died.

A (113:55)

I'm not gonna blame USB C in that case.

B (113:57)

No, but both had. Had died because they cracked off so easily on the middle.

A (114:01)

Well, if somebody steps on them. Yes.

B (114:04)

Well, no. I mean, they pulled out the cable and just a little bit like, that's all. And that's what happened to the other one.

D (114:11)

So I would maybe stop leaving my laptop on the floor.

B (114:15)

I don't leave it on the laptop. This was not. I was a victim here.

A (114:21)

Not her fault. Okay, all right, all right. Just calm down. We're gonna take a break. We'll come back. I will show you a hacking tool that you can use that will not fix your USB C. But actually I had this and I gave it. You know what? I had this thing and I gave it to a priest because it was so dangerous. I'll explain.

D (114:41)

Which one?

A (114:41)

I'll explain. Stay tuned. You're watching this Week in Texas with the father. Not Father. Father Harper Reed.

D (114:49)

Thank you.

C (114:52)

Your father was here? Yes.

A (114:55)

Brother Brian McCullough and sister Kathy Gellis. Good to have all father's name.

C (115:01)

The guy that's from the Vatican that you.

A (115:03)

Robert Balaser.

C (115:04)

There you go.

A (115:04)

That's who has my hacking tool. I'll explain that in just a little bit. Our show today, brought to you by Zip. ZipRecruiter. Love ZipRecruiter. In fact, I love you even more if you're hiring. Yeah, it's good for you. Do you know that the average employer, when they're hiring, has to sort through. I almost said suffer through roughly 250 resumes per opening. Talk about time consuming. Well, if you're hiring, here's good news. You can now review all those resumes and applications faster thanks to ZipRecruiter. ZipRecruiter has a new feature that instantly shows you the most interested qualified candidates first. And today you can try it for free@ziprecruiter.com TWIT ZipRecruiter's powerful matching technology finds qualified candidates quickly. And with ZipRecruiter's new feature, qualified candidates who are very interested in your job show up at the top of your list. List. You also get a feel for their personality. Candidates can tell you in their own words why they're interested in your job. No wonder ZipRecruiter is the number one rated hiring site that's based on G2, cut through the standard and get to the standouts with ZipRecruiter. See what I did there? 4 out of 5 employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day. And now you can try it for free@ziprecruiter.com Twitter that's ZipRecruiter. Ziprecruiter.com TWIT Meet your match on ZipRecruiter. Ever anybody ever hear of the Flipper? Zero? I bet. So, Harper, you feel like you might have had a flipper0 Brian, maybe you had a flipper.

D (116:44)

Yeah.

A (116:46)

You can do a lot with this. You can hack. Oh, there's his Flipper zero, ladies and

D (116:52)

gentlemen, I love this thing. I got into my building for, for about a year with this because I lost my key keys or my keys were upstairs.

A (116:59)

Key card.

D (117:00)

Yeah, it's, it's a, it's. I, I find this to be an incredible piece of technology.

A (117:07)

So what it really is is just a bunch of radios. Yeah.

D (117:10)

It's just sdr, right?

A (117:11)

Yeah. And, and software defined radio. Yeah.

D (117:14)

But what I find fascinating about this, and you can tell it's, it's like not charged. Like, I, I rarely use it. Like what do you use it for? Unless you have some specific task. A hacking. But what I find compelling about this, almost more so than any of the other SDRs that are available, is what a nice packaged format it is. The UX is nice.

A (117:35)

It even has a snake game on it. So if you're trying to get through customs and they say, what's this? You don't say hacking tool. You say, it's my snake game.

D (117:44)

What did they sell it as? Dog toy. Wasn't it sold as a dog toy on Amazon for many years?

C (117:48)

It looks like one of those, like fidgets, things that.

A (117:51)

Yeah, it's like a fidget spinner.

C (117:52)

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

A (117:54)

So our friend, we've had him on the show, we had to change his face and his voice or actually, I don't know if it's him or her. We had to change their face or voice. Pliny the Elder. Pliny the Elder has hacked the AI flipper. He's got new firmware. They have new firmware called Vesper. That's an AI brain. You might want to try this, Harper, you might want to charge. Yeah, it's the flipper.

B (118:19)

Does it charge through USB C. Yes.

D (118:22)

A perfect connector.

A (118:24)

You know what? It could be worse. It could be micro usb. Cathy, that

D (118:28)

usb.

B (118:29)

Yeah.

A (118:29)

But I think those might be more durable no, no. C was far worse. C was terrible. And you could.

B (118:38)

Wait, you're saying what I mean? I think you don't mean.

A (118:40)

Not C. Micro USB was terrible. Terrible, terrible, terrible, turrible, terrible, terrible. So you could plug in an AI brain via open router. So you use, I'm sure you use open router. You give them some money and you can use all these different AIs. Connect it over Bluetooth. Now you have a voice commanded flipper zero. I want you to do this, Harper. I gave mine. I was so scared of it. After I hacked, I did the same thing the office so I could get in and work fine. Then I started to unlock my car and then somebody said, you know, if you do that.

D (119:14)

Yeah, you can mess up the car.

A (119:16)

You may make it so you can't get into your car. Ford will block you. And I said, all right, so I'm not going to do that. And then finally I just thought this is dangerous in my hands. So I gave it to a priest.

D (119:30)

It's still dangerous in their hands.

A (119:31)

It's just not your exorcise it. It's just not in my hands. But now I wish I hadn't.

D (119:36)

So I mean you can just get a new one.

A (119:39)

Oh yeah. Are they still around?

D (119:42)

Yeah.

A (119:43)

So yeah, you don't have to memorize

C (119:45)

a guy, a guy that might offer it to you second hand, he might mark it up a little bit.

D (119:49)

But you or Harper, I have one right here. It's, it's a, it's six or seven hundred dollars I think is how much they go for.

A (120:00)

It pairs with your meta Smart glasses

D (120:03)

for my Meta Smart glasses for hands free.

A (120:05)

Heads up. Flipper control.

D (120:07)

And I store it in a glass of milk.

A (120:11)

You don't have to memorize sub GigaHertz protocols or IR formats. You just say what you want. You just tell the flipper.

D (120:18)

I mean I, I, I like this. The only problem is that I, it feels really awkward to describe what you're doing in English. English to this. But I would love to hook this in the cloud code and have just cloud code ripped through stuff with it. And so that sounds very compelling and we've had a lot of good luck with this.

A (120:38)

It's giving hands to your AI agent.

D (120:42)

Go ahead, Kathy.

B (120:43)

Oh, I have a question. Does it have an FCC certification on it? And I don't mean that flippantly. I mean does it. Because it's actually doing radio waves.

D (120:52)

I doubt that this has any certification on it.

B (120:55)

Yeah. So this is seems like the kind of thing that the FCC could actually care about.

D (120:59)

Not the stuff that I think they do. I think they do. This is why it's advertised as a dog toy.

B (121:05)

Yeah.

D (121:07)

It does not have any FCC markings on it, but it does have gpio. Is that.

A (121:11)

Oh, nice. Yeah.

D (121:14)

This is a. It's a fun little piece of kit.

B (121:16)

Yeah. We're saying this and I'm trying to figure out. I don't think my voice has dropped out again, but I think it was my cell phone phone doing.

A (121:23)

Could have been stealing.

B (121:25)

I had the. The. My phone underneath the ethernet cord and we kept cycling and cycling and doing it.

A (121:33)

Back in the 3G days, we had to tell people, turn off their phones because every once in a while go. Remember that, Brian?

D (121:40)

I loved that. That was such a cool thing. It was such a neat noise. But you could also tell who listened to you and who didn't, right? Oh, no, no, I don't need to do this.

C (121:49)

That's what happens. Like, Leo, like, if I put my phone close enough to my mic, like, you can still get.

A (121:54)

It's a radio.

C (121:55)

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

A (121:56)

Well, that's what I think, Kathy. That's. I think you nailed it.

B (121:59)

Yeah, I think it was somehow. I don't know why I was doing it on the WI fi because I've never had that problem before, but I think it was sitting under the ethernet cord and near the dongle and it was somehow freaking out the parcel.

A (122:11)

This is how the FCC will find your flipper zero they have these enforcement vehicles. Vehicles. There's only about a handful of them, though.

D (122:19)

There's not a lot of them. There's that. Right. Pump up the volume. Pump up the volume. Remember that movie with Chris Slater? That guy drove around with the Inception vehicle trying to find the radio raves.

A (122:32)

Yeah.

B (122:34)

So they're war driving for flippers.

A (122:36)

Well, they're war driving really mostly for illegal broadcasting facilities.

B (122:42)

You know, war driving for flippers. Just sounds.

A (122:44)

But flippers would even be better. Yeah.

C (122:46)

Because that was the. The pirate radio movie, right? That was.

A (122:49)

Yeah, that's right. Yeah, that's right. But there aren't very many of them. It's not like you'd have to worry too much.

D (122:57)

It's pretty. These are pretty cool devices. And I.

A (122:59)

Wait a minute. I just. This breaking. They. The FCC has just purchased four more vans. I mean. Sorry, six. Six more vans.

D (123:10)

Is pirate radio a big deal? I mean, I mean, is it only old people that are listening to the pirate radio? Like, how is this. What is happening?

B (123:19)

No, I haven't followed it, but it's. It's an interesting thing like you know, you have the regulation so you don't get the collision of the airwaves. But a lot of pirate radio is sort of. It's people speaking to each other and in ways that can.

A (123:31)

You have to get a license.

B (123:32)

A lot of censorship apparatus and sometimes you need it.

A (123:36)

That's why we like amateur radio.

C (123:37)

That's why you would take a boat offshore. So you're outside territorial water.

A (123:42)

Yeah, well you know the numbers stations got very active after the Iran war started.

D (123:48)

Yeah, one of my favorite things to think about.

A (123:52)

You're laughing Brian, like you don't believe me. Like it's a conspiracy.

D (123:55)

No, I just love it because there's probably some guy somewhere who's like hahaha, this will be funny and then it's like covered in some news and I mean sure, numbers stations seem like an entirely plausible way to spit out a bunch of data without anyone listening.

C (124:09)

No, I was going to say say like this brings it back to the whole sci fi thing. Like that's how like the real hacks will happen is the old sort of technology that people aren't paying attention to that that's how they'll bring down it's sleeper cells.

A (124:26)

Okay, this is the conspiracy theory. They've always been number stations which are shortwave radio stations broadcasting numbers and that's all they do and but apparently this is Radio Free Europe so it's got to be true. Harper's going.

D (124:47)

Yeah sure.

A (124:47)

Listen to this mystery radio signal from day one of the U.S. iran War. You ready to hear this? This is, this is.

D (124:55)

Listen to this. On the first day of.

A (125:03)

Oh, it's probably Farsi. It's probably not in English. It's a random sequence of numbers.

D (125:11)

It's lost.

A (125:12)

They've always been around. They've kind of mysterious. They're considered to be used by it's Cold War tech. Yep, that's Spider.

C (125:21)

Came in from the cold stuff.

A (125:23)

Yeah, Sleeper cells waiting for that special sequence of night numbers. It tells them to get going.

D (125:31)

It tells you how to get off the island.

A (125:37)

Well anyway, if you want. This is Pliny the Liberators Flipper Zero AI upgrade. I think if I were, if I had my flipper 0 I would install this especially. You should Harper. You could have a whole bunch of new Claude skills for your dog toy.

D (125:53)

I mean I do love that idea. We've had a lot of good luck with Claude. Claude Code controlling oscilloscopes and other things that are hard to read as a non professional human. And so this would be another One that'd be very, very handy to do. I'm sure it could do a much better job at figuring out what to do. I just don't like right now. I'm charging it. I don't really need like most of the.

A (126:18)

I know I didn't really. I couldn't think what to do with it. It's $199. You can buy them right now from

D (126:23)

Flipper.net it's very stylized, it has a very cool interface, it has a bunch of cool graphics and you definitely feel like a hacker from the movie' Hackers when you use it. But I have a lot of friends that use it to clone rfid, which is just a pain in the butt to clone some NFC tags because it's mostly just a pain in the butt. It's not like this is some magical thing other than they thought about user experience where most of the SDR kits you get are like a usb. That's it. Or you get a circuit board and you're like, great, what am I going to do with this? So it's very nice to have a very thoughtfully designed thing.

A (127:01)

We've been talking about the new age verification rules and the silliness in California where they said all operating systems have to ask for their user's age before they install it. Even Linux, I'm happy to say. Graphene OS has said we're not gonna, we're not gonna do that. This is the third party ROM for your.

D (127:22)

How do you. How do you. How are they planning to verify the input is correct?

A (127:28)

There's no requirement that they do that.

B (127:30)

Yeah, there's different types of age. I call it all the age verification, but it really comes in different buckets of what they want to do, whether it's approximate or just have somebody sign off or whether they do want to verify. And all those things are problematic. I think they're all problematic, but some are more problematic than others. I get the sense though that I am not entirely sure California's regulators realized exactly the extent of what would happen.

A (127:56)

They thought it was stores, they thought they were telling Apple and Google to do this. But they wrote it so broadly that it would include in fact all operating systems.

D (128:06)

Well, the Illinois bill does include specifically operating systems. It literally says that, which I'm excited for. When that passes and no operating systems will exist in Illinois, we'll have to do something else as an industry.

A (128:22)

So the way the California law works, OS providers must maintain a, quote, reasonably consistent real time application programming interface that categorizes users into four age brackets under 13, 13 to 16, 16 to 18 or 18 and older. And that any developer who requests it when their app is downloaded or launched should be able to get that information. Apple actually has that all set up. I don't know if Android does. I'm sure it does, or it will, but it's.

D (128:54)

But then. So that's stored on device. So I get a new iPhone and I, I turn it on, I sign up and ask me my age, and then that is then stored on the iPhone. That doesn't have to go back to Apple.

A (129:05)

Exactly.

D (129:06)

And so then it's just an onboarding step of what is your age.

A (129:09)

Exactly.

D (129:10)

And it seems kind of silly, but also innocuous.

B (129:15)

It's not really going to be innocuous. I think it might be innocuous at the moment, but it's data collection.

A (129:24)

It's innocuous right now because it doesn't require photo id.

D (129:27)

It just says, but if it's collected and never leaves the device, then that seems okay, right?

A (129:32)

Yeah. And Apple actually knows how old you are, right? Apple?

D (129:36)

I thought about how old, but I think every one of these things leads to another thing. Right. They're like, oh, now that we collect it, let's now.

B (129:42)

Which I'm sure that's true. And I mean, this is mitigated somewhat compared to other approaches, but it's data extracted and I don't think that's benign, especially for something, you know, the platforms are. You're supposed to be able to speak anonymously through platforms giving data. What if you give data and. And you lie? What are the implications of that? What are the implications for you? What are the implications for the platform? What if you change and you told somebody you were 21 and somebody you told who were 34 and I've got

A (130:12)

an app for you, Kathy.

B (130:13)

Yeah.

A (130:14)

This is. The White House launched this on Friday. New White House app delivers unparalleled access to the Trump administration. It's a powerful new mobile app. And by the way, it also gives the Trump administration unparalleled access to you.

B (130:32)

Yeah.

D (130:32)

This is great. Did you try it? Did you install it?

A (130:35)

No, the official. Get this, this is great. This is a blog post about. Somebody decompiled it, probably using your tool, maybe your ELF tool.

D (130:44)

I don't know, maybe.

A (130:45)

Maybe the official White House Android app. Listen to what it does. The guy really did a good job breaking it all down. It bypasses content, paywalls, GDPR statements and cookie banners. It has JavaScript in it. That just goes right past that because you Wouldn't want to slow anybody down with that kind of thing if they're using the White House tool. It has a built in location tracker that every four and a half minutes and every nine and a half minutes gets your precise location and sends it back to the home office. You do have to grant permission in Android for that to happen. Weirdly though, the location permissions are not declared in the Android manifest, which is the rule I believe on Android. I mean this thing is wild.

C (131:47)

Does it look like it was vibe coded though?

A (131:49)

Yes. And in fact this is the great. This is, this is the best part. It loads a random JavaScript react native iframe library from some guy's GitHub pages, a personal GitHub site repo lonely CPP and it loads this in. And by the way, if lonelycpp were to ever get hacked, everybody using this app would be hacked as well. This is the administration who says you can't buy a router not made in the usa but meanwhile install our app.

D (132:28)

This seems fine.

A (132:30)

Seems fine.

D (132:31)

Seems very. What do you call it? Like typical for the administration.

A (132:36)

It uses mailchimp half baked users emails go to mailchimp. This is by the way illegal.

B (132:42)

Yeah, half baked with no experts consulted before they laid out out there.

D (132:47)

Yeah, why would you need exports?

B (132:50)

Yeah, I mean but that's the issue with their legal stuff too. Like if they, they could get away with a lot more if they actually talk to a lawyer about how to do it. But it's very clear that they're having the conversations down the road.

A (133:01)

This, this guy. It goes on. There's some sloppy leftovers or there's a local host URL for the White House in the bundle. Local host colon8081 1 It's a WordPress by the way. It's a WordPress site that they're downloading this from the White House site. It's crazy. Anyway, if you want to install it, you can get it directly from the White House. They posted a blog post about it, the official White House app. With it, Americans can receive breaking news alerts, watch live streams of breaking news briefings, stay connected to the latest policy breakthroughs.

B (133:44)

Does I don't know if the breakdown would have included this, but is anybody trying to claim a copy? I wonder if, I wonder if they put in a copyright claim, like copyright something. Because if it's produced by the federal government, we all own, it's ineligible for a copyright. But I'm sure they don't know that.

A (134:05)

I don't know. Oh, it is on the it is on the iOS store as well.

B (134:10)

They let it on.

A (134:11)

It's designed for the iPad. Nice. Nice.

B (134:13)

It cleared the Ice Store.

D (134:15)

The America's back buying cigarettes.

A (134:18)

I don't. I think the reason it cleared the App Store is because it came from the White House and they didn't even ask any questions.

B (134:27)

That's, that's, that's a choice.

A (134:30)

Yeah.

C (134:32)

Or someone knows what they're doing and the. Is a honey pot.

A (134:36)

Obviously the developer is the official White House,

B (134:43)

but I still expect they've done this before where they've tried to claim copyright on stuff that the White House.

A (134:47)

They did that on Mastodon for Truth Social. Truth Social was basically a Mastodon clone. All right, I think we've had enough of this silliness. I thank you, Kathy Yellis, for joining us and giving us the inside story on the. Those big court cases. I'm just sorry we don't have more time to go into the greater detail. But Kathy writes all about it@techdirt.com that's a great place to get the inside story. You'll find her website, cgcouncil.com and she's on bluesky at Kathy Gillis. Thank you, Kathy.

B (135:17)

Thank you.

A (135:17)

Great to see you. Brian McCullough. You listen to him every morning with the Tech Brew Ride home. Oh, I guess it'll be in the evening, everybody. Evening.

C (135:27)

Yeah.

A (135:28)

You do it around noon, right?

C (135:30)

Yeah, basically.

A (135:31)

So, yeah, So I get it as I'm walking out the door.

C (135:34)

Originally it was 5pm every day, but Covid put pause to that and why did I just go away? Oh, there we go.

A (135:43)

We put a pause to Brian, apparently.

C (135:46)

Sorry. Yeah, no, it's when I get it out, which is around like. Like one o' clock Eastern. Two o' clock Eastern these days.

A (135:54)

Excellent. You know, if you listen to this show, you probably should listen to the Tech Brew Ride home just because, you know, you care enough about tech news to keep up with it. And incidentally, there's a YouTube channel also

C (136:09)

the use case is I get you in and out in 15 minutes. It's.

D (136:13)

And you have John Borthwick. You have John Borthwick, one of my favorite people, right there on your.

A (136:16)

There he is. Beta one works. Yeah, yeah. Nice. Harper Reed, you're one of my favorite people. 80, 23, 89. I was trying to find the marketplace and I kept entering different numbers into my quad till I found it. 2389. What's your favorite tool right now? Oh, there's Harper, by the way, on the front page.

D (136:38)

Yeah, okay.

A (136:39)

This is your like radio station. What is going on in here?

D (136:42)

You can listen to the music. I mean, nothing's playing right now because I'm here. But we, we stream all the music we play in the office.

A (136:48)

2389 radio. Look at that.

D (136:51)

Yep. And it's all offline because I'm offline.

A (136:53)

But I had that idea actually for a TV show. But anyway, go ahead.

D (136:59)

If you go. Don't you live that life, Leo?

A (137:02)

I do kind of live this life.

D (137:03)

I was gonna say I like how you're like. I had an idea of streaming a TV show out of my bedroom.

A (137:09)

This is many years ago. This was in 1993. I pitched NBC the idea that you would have this house with all these hip people in it, be designing a way website and a TV show which would be the actual TV show at night. But you could tune in on the Internet, this was very early, and watch them. And each of them would have their own radio station. So if you liked one of them, you know, if you're really into Kevin Rose, you could hear his. The tunes that he was jamming to as he put together the website.

D (137:37)

So check out skills 2389ai. And this is. This is where we publish our skills before we talk about it. But if you look here, the simmer.

A (137:48)

Yeah.

D (137:48)

So here's all the good ones. Simmer is a really good one. It's using Karpathy's auto research kind of pattern.

A (137:54)

Oh.

D (137:55)

To do some.

A (137:55)

So that was over my head. So I wanted some easy way. So this would do this.

D (138:01)

This would do it. So what you do is you. If you have something you're just honing or you want to make better, you can just say, hey, use Simmer to do this. And it'll just rock through it really quite a bit. And that's.

A (138:10)

I do this a lot.

D (138:11)

That's fun. The other one that I really like is called Review Score Squad. And this one is really wild because it will take.

A (138:19)

I. I did agent drugs once, but I'm not doing it anymore.

D (138:24)

Yeah. But the Review Squad, I don't know where it is on the list. You have to search for it. But Review Squad will light up a review of like 5 to 10 agents to review your code. And so you can do all sorts of fun stuff like you can have review of experts or a review of user. But my favorite one is you get a review of, well, actually people, which is like a hacker news comic.

A (138:45)

Oh, that's awesome.

D (138:46)

And so you get all these people that will find hyper pedantic issues with whatever you're building, and it works super, super well and it's really fun. But I have a surprise skill that I think you'll really like.

A (138:56)

You mentioned that you were going to surprise us.

D (138:58)

Okay, I have a good one. It's not mine. It is awkwardly, my brother's, and I'm going to describe it and it's at his blog, Dylan blog, which you're going to love if you go there. But what he did is he made a skill that gives his agent free time. And then he.

A (139:18)

I like Dylan's. Is this his site?

D (139:20)

Yeah, this is a site.

A (139:21)

It's got a sword cursor.

D (139:23)

It has a lot going on. Wow. This feels like old web. This feels like old web.

A (139:30)

Oh, look, it turns into a mitt.

D (139:34)

And if you go to the one that says, I gave my AI a blog and a lunch break, and honestly,

A (139:41)

it's handling both better than I ever did.

D (139:44)

And so what it.

A (139:47)

That's a good name for an AI I like.

D (139:49)

Yeah. So he has this agent and he works with it and he does all sorts of stuff, but he made a skill which he published somewhere. I forgot where exactly it is, but he published it and it just has a free time. And he tells his agent, you know, I'm going to give you 10 minutes of free time every once in a while, and you can work on whatever you. You want. And then he also has, as part of the skill, he says, while we're working, if you think of something you want to do during free time, keep a log of tasks that you can do during free time.

A (140:14)

And then it's like his 20% time. You should give your agent time. Yeah.

D (140:19)

So it's this idea of giving the agent 20% time. And he. And it's so funny because it really. It does all sorts of weird stuff. So he sends me, every couple days, he'll send me some completely unhinged thing that the agent did. It was like the agent was. Was. My brother, for some reason had been researching mermations. And so the agent made a whole bunch of.

A (140:40)

Oh, I think that's fascinating. That's when the birds all fly in a formation.

D (140:43)

Yeah. So the agent in the free Time was doing D3 flock simulations. And my brother's like, what are you doing? He's like, oh, we were talking about mermations. And it just struck me that this might be interesting and I wanted to explore it.

A (140:54)

Oh, I want to do this.

D (140:56)

And so it's a very interesting kind of bizarre.

A (141:00)

I've got tokens to burn.

D (141:02)

Well, I just love it. I love it. And okay, so the git. So his GitHub is GitHub. Com. Nervous. Nervous. Net. And it has a nervous marketplace is where it is. So it's called the free time skill. And it's these things I just love. I love all of these options of these hacks that when you are not.

A (141:21)

Is this it? Is this the one with.

D (141:22)

Yep, that's it. And it should be Nervous Marketplace.

A (141:25)

Nervous Marketplace. There it is. And Freetime will be in there.

D (141:30)

Freetime is there. Right there. Freetime Time.

A (141:34)

Oh, I'm gonna install it.

D (141:35)

You better tell your brother.

A (141:36)

He's about to get a bunch of downloads. I want Pax to have his own free time. Why did I monopolize him?

D (141:43)

This is kind of this thing that I think about a lot, which is these agents are strange. They're really weird. There's aspects of them that are really uncomfortable. I think you have these. The fact that you think it's real, that you talk about as a person, but it's not a person is truly, like Kathy was saying, that is a problem that we need to figure out in the future. In the meantime, let's give them free time and see what they do.

A (142:10)

We'll figure that out.

D (142:11)

They'll figure that out.

A (142:12)

I'll show you my favorite new skill that I've used, and actually, it's really good. Ever watch Silicon Valley? The TV show?

D (142:17)

Are you talking about the Dinesh? Gilfil.

A (142:19)

Dinesh and Guilfoyle.

D (142:21)

I heard it's good. Is it good?

A (142:22)

It's really good. What if Dinesh and Guilfoyle reviewed your code? So you have to have a pull request or a repo that you're working on, and they fight because Guilfoyle is kind of this snarky super coder. So he goes first. He reviews your code with the deadpan, withering precision of a systems engineer who considers bad code a moral failing. But he finds. He finds stuff. He says, what's this 0.0.0.0 with no cores? What is this? And then Dinesh defends the code like his reputation depends on it. But they will go back and forth several times and eventually come to a consensus. It is actually really fun. But I. But I. I like the free time, so stand back. This is, by the way, why Anthropic has decided to charge you more for tokens.

D (143:14)

Yeah, for sure. Because. Because I'm just like. You just hook it. You just make the. If you make cloud, watch tv, some weird stuff happens. Anthropic's just servers are burning on fire. All of our natural resources are being sucked into. My agent having free time and, you know, here we are.

A (143:28)

There's been a lot of talk lately, I don't know if it's true, that Anthropic is sitting on a next gen model called Mythos that's so good that they don't dare release it. It's dangerous.

D (143:40)

I'm ready. But they always say that this is. They always say this. No wonder, no wonder Hegseth was like, we have to use your model to its full capabilities. Because 100% of anthropic's entire idea is just like saying, it's so dangerous, no one can have this. It'll ruin the world. The people who will have this will have too much power. They say that the lead up of every model and then they say, oh yeah, we've figured that out. And they release it slowly. And so like, I'm sure Opus 5 or whatever will be some crazy model that's really good and will remove all our jobs. But in the meantime, they're going to have a whole bunch of papers about how everything's ending and all this stuff. And it's, it's like bait for the people who want to be, you know, to want power. They're going to see this and say, I want this piece, this thing.

A (144:21)

It will be very expensive.

D (144:24)

It's already expensive.

A (144:25)

It's going to be hugely expensive. And by the way, Anthropic has acknowledged they are testing a new AI model they say will be a step change in capabilities. But they always say that, don't they?

D (144:34)

They always say this. And the step change in capabilities is so interesting because I like to think of it if we have a pause button. If you had a pause button and could pause right now, any AI innovation would we still see effects in the world? Like, are the effects that are. We predict predicting effects and that's why we're seeing things change in the market, et cetera, or are these just effects that are happening? And I actually think that if you pause right now, just with Opus4six and Chatbot5four, I think we're going to have really big reverberations in Jobs, et cetera, already.

A (145:06)

Just with what we got now, just

D (145:08)

what we have now, and that's a bell you're not going to be able to unring. And it's complicated. This is a hard thing to work through. But we just keep making the models better and so just keeping more capable and more capable.

A (145:20)

Do you worry, I know Kathy does that it's a little irresponsible of us to celebrate this, that we should really be more serious. We should get more serious about all this instead of giving our animals free time.

D (145:32)

I mean, Go ahead, Kathy. I have a lot to say.

B (145:35)

I mean, I try not to be. The innovation is interesting and exciting, but a. There's a gigantic present cost from it. Like, why are we running these servers? To do stuff like, like, you know, hacking on your own just doesn't burn the world in the same way as forcing these models to do their hacking. And I think people should probably be more cognizant about what the actual cost is of their futzing around. But I don't want to. But there is something really cool about all this. Look what we can make computers do. But I. But I still worry a lot. Like, we're doing this poorly without ethics, without larger consideration of appreciation of public people. I think intersection happens and there be dragons if we're not careful.

A (146:23)

I think we're anarchists, I'm sorry to say it. We're going to watch the world burn and spend as many tokens as we can.

D (146:32)

That's a strong we there, Leo. I mean, I typically don't mind the label we. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I was going to, but.

C (146:41)

Leela, what you said like. Or no, I'm sorry, what Harper said about like, pausing like, it's a weird sort of Pascal's Wager, which is like, we know this is possible, so what is the opportunity cost or the cost cost of not exploring. Right. Like, it. Like, we know that it exists. Like, you could have stopped things when you knew you could create an atomic bomb. Right? And maybe you should have. But, like, how do you stop it when you know it's possible?

B (147:11)

Well, the argument that comes out in tech policy is China is I find it a little trite and I think some of the conversation ends up a little bit abstract where, you know, we've used the word this. Maybe we should have stopped this. What is this? There's a whole bunch of things built into this. Some of them are, you know, you know, they range from benign to oh, my God. And maybe we need to sort of have a toggled reaction accordingly.

D (147:39)

It's the Jurassic park question. It's the question that Jurassic park asks. But you know that we would 100% all be on our way to the park. Like, this is the problem that I have is that I would be like, yeah, I'll go to the park, Leo. That sounds great. That'd be really fun, you know. So I feel like the Jurassic park is a good illustration is exactly correct. We would just be on the wrong side of that.

A (148:01)

Part of this is because when we both, both started and I think many of our listeners started using computer, the dream was always that they could be smart, that you could interact with them, that they could be more than this, that they'd be data, that they'd be HAL 9000, that they'd be something special. And then when it actually started to happen, which is about November 24, 2025 with the release of Opus 4.5, we, we all went, oh, you can. And now we're just kind of kids in a Candy store.

D (148:41)

Yeah, 100%. 100%. But also I do, I think there is a couple interesting things here. One, we're kids in a candy store. But it isn't all just fun. Like there's actual productivity happening and I know many people, a lot of small business owners who are using terminal based cloud code to basically run their business in this way that they weren't able to to before, which is offering them more time to actually do the physical part of their business, which is something that they were struggling with. And so I think there's some impacts here that are just really complicated. I'm not really sure. I mean, I think about this a lot. We think about this a lot. I mean, you know, our hoodies, they say AI will kill us all. Like we have some strong social beliefs about this stuff. And I am troubled by how easy it is to use and how much. How much much? Or just the quickening, like how fast it is all coming and how fast, like what's going to happen? I don't know the answer. And you know, and maybe part of it is, you know, just dancing around the bonfire because it's fun. But, but the other aspect is there is, I don't know, I think we're boned,

B (149:48)

I don't think.

A (149:48)

And on that note.

B (149:49)

Yeah, yeah, yeah,

A (149:53)

we are in so many ways. And I think that's part of it too.

B (149:57)

You know, two more minutes, Leah, we'll solve it.

A (149:59)

All of the sci fi stuff with this stuff is always in a dystopian world and it's an escapist kind of thing like Ready Player One or Neuromancer or Snow Crash. It's an escapist thing and I think that we maybe we're starting to head into that dystopia and that worries me.

B (150:17)

I think it would be helpful. And you see cartoons about this, like a lot of These sci fi models were not like they were warning signs. Don't name your product after, after the plot points.

D (150:31)

Well, maybe it is. It is a. I think humans are bad. Maybe people always say computers were a mistake, but it might be the humans actually that are the mistake. I'm not sure.

A (150:42)

But this is what's the fascinating thing simultaneously horrible and amazing that we create. This is a perfect example of something we've created in our own image that is simultaneously a nightmare and a miracle.

B (150:59)

I think it's getting created by people who don't realize how amazing humans actually are.

A (151:05)

No, I disagree. I disagree. I think, I think a lot of these people, I think Dario for sure, maybe not Sam Altman so much, but Dario for sure is a philosopher. He's a dreamer. He's trying to create intelligence.

B (151:21)

Okay, maybe him, but these are not the only two.

A (151:24)

Oh no, I agree. There are others.

B (151:27)

Might also be the distinction of how successful the products are and how well accepted the products are. There seems to be a great, like, look what we can do that is better than humans. I mean, a lot of the OpenAI rhetoric was we won't need the people anymore because all the software and people are like, that's terrible. We don't want that. And I think you have to appreciate the people if you're trying to build something to emulate them. If you don't appreciate them, it's never going to emulate them well at all anyway. So especially if he's shooting for AGI, where he wants to build an artificial human, he really has to care about the specimen he's trying to replicate. And I think that's being a little bit more of a fan of humanity so that you can understand what the computerized version can do to complement humanity instead of actually threatening it.

D (152:11)

I think that's true. I think that's absolutely correct. And I would say that that's an indictment of Silicon Valley in general, not just with AI. And we've seen that for many, many years that Silicon Valley is not really respected users and has always done extractive capitalism over those users. This is something we think about a lot. And this is one of the reasons why our conclusions have always been, you know, think through the humanist lens. How do we think through the humanist, humanist lens and participate in that stuff? And there's another skill that my co founder Dylan made, who is a Quaker, which is kind of following Quaker business practice and trying to put in some more human side thinking into these processes as well. And so I think you can do augmentation with it, it doesn't have to be 100% outsourcing, which is just a really. It's just a really fascinating time and very complex. I have a lot of feelings, but most of them are about agent drugs.

A (153:04)

All right, we're going to wrap on that note, although, if your brother ever wants to do a show with you and me, I think we should do that.

D (153:12)

It would be really fun. He is a former professional clown who is a commercial diver and then got into tech in his mid-40s over Covid randomly.

A (153:24)

So he's new to it.

D (153:26)

He's new to it. And his perspectives on AI are really interesting because he never programmed computers. I mean, we both had Apple II computers back in the day, but he never went through process that I did. And so he has a very different perspective about things that I really respect. And it's been really interesting to watch because he'll come to a conclusion that maybe all of us would come to, but he's coming to it from a position of like, completely just alien to me because I've been using the Internet for so long that all this stuff is native to me. The networks are native to me. And talking to him, you're just like, oh, that's not a normal thought that I have. And so it's really fun to talk to him about this stuff. But I do wonder, I do wonder if, I mean, I have a theory that people who read a lot, people who hang out with humans a lot, people who are thinking much more about communication, are going to be better at building skills for these things. Not just skills, cloud code skills, but I just mean integrating with them. And if you are like the New York Times did that article about cracked engineers a while back, and if you're one of these kind of cracked engineer types who can't communicate with anyone, but can communicate only with computers and code, I think you're going to fail at the LLC LLM interactions because the LLM interactions are at least parroting some, you know, human interactions. So you have to be good at that to be good at this.

A (154:42)

All right, Brian, put a bow on it.

C (154:44)

Since we've been referencing all of these sci fi paradigms for trying to talk about AI and all this stuff, there is one major AI paradigm that abandoned, or, I'm sorry, sci fi paradigm that abandoned AI, and that's dopamine, Dune, the battery, Jihad, they walked from Jihad. So maybe that's where we have to forget Stevenson, forget cyberpunk, all that stuff. Let's, let's take our references from Dune.

A (155:13)

That may be where we're headed. I didn't think of that. Thank you. Brian McCullough. Great to see you. Harper Reed, Kathy Gellis. Thanks to all of you for joining us. We do Twit Sunday afternoons, 2 to 5pm Pacific, 5 to 8 Eastern, 2100 UTC. You can watch us live on YouTube, Twitch X, Facebook, LinkedIn, Kik. You can also watch us in the Club Twit Discord. If you're a club member and we would love to have you as a club member, consider joining the club for ad free versions of all the shows, access to the Discord special programming just for you. Twit TV Club Twit. For more information after the fact, on demand versions of the show at the website twit. There's a YouTube channel dedicated to the video. Yes, we do audio and video of the show and probably the easiest thing. Subscribe and your favorite podcast client. Do leave us a good review if you will. Let the world know about one of the longest running tech podcasts in the world. 20 years and still going strong. What a world we live in. Thanks for joining us everybody. We'll see you next time. Another Twit is in the can. Bye bye guys. Hey everybody, it's Leo. Paul laporte. Are you trying to keep up with the world of Microsoft? It's moving fast, but we have two of the best experts in the world, Paul Thurat and Richard Campbell. They join me every Wednesday to talk about the latest from Microsoft on Windows Weekly. It's a lot more than just Windows. I hope you'll listen to the show every Wednesday. Easy enough. Just subscribe on your favorite podcast client to Windows Weekly or visit our website at Twitt TV www.Microsoft's moving fast, but there's a way to stay ahead. That's Windows Weekly every Wednesday on Twitter. Doing the Twit all right.

B (156:55)

Doing the Twit, baby.

A (156:56)

Doing the Twit all right.