AI寡頭勢力が中間選挙で大敗した理由

Has your podcast stalled? Or maybe you have a show you keep meaning to launch and you aren't sure where to even begin. Well, let's figure it out together. I'm Jason Howell, and I run a podcast consultancy called PodTuneUp. I've actually spent the last 20 years building shows at CNET, TWIT, and right here on my own network. And now it's time to help you with yours. Go to PodTuneUp.com and book a free 30-minute call with me. We'll take a look at your show or your idea, find out what's getting in the way, and map out your next move. That's podtuneup, one word, dot com. Humans will never be more intelligent than AI. There's going to be two types of companies. Those are great at AI and those that went out of business because they weren't. How do we build a future that is human-centered? I'm Rana Elkayubi. And on my podcast, Pioneers of AI, we answer that question and so many more. As an AI scientist, entrepreneur, and investor, I know what it takes to build AI that works for everyone.

Every week, I sit down with the pioneers shaping our future, and we take you behind the scenes of the AI that's transforming our lives. Find Pioneers of AI wherever you tune in. coming up next artificial intelligence was on the ballot last night here in the u.s for the midterm elections and what is the result well data centers lost big time also anthropics updated ipo filing says self-building ai may actually be imminent google tells schools you can turn off our ai you'll just lose search too for your students and so much more coming up on this next episode of the AI Inside podcast. What's going on, everybody? Welcome to another episode of AI Inside the show where we take a look at the AI that is layered throughout the world of

technology. I am one of your hosts, Jason Howell, joined from the other side of the country by Jeff Jarvis. Good to see you, Jeff. Good to see you, boss. How are you? I'm doing good. I'm feeling good. It's a little cold in this house because things are cooling. Probably not as cool as things are where you're at. 74 degrees today. Are you kidding me? Oh, wow. November. It's quite lovely. Our heat died briefly two days ago, but it seems to be back working, not wood. It was a lovely walk. More than you want to know, I even sweated. I know what you're talking about where you go outside and you don't expect it and then at the end of it you're like wow okay yeah it is different like maybe the air is a little heavier too but you know sometimes it's like humidity and whatever but yeah it's a little cooler outside here today or has been but yeah good well I'm happy you had a pleasant walk I'm tired as hell because I stayed up for one o'clock in the morning with the election with my friends Julia Roginski and Michelle

Kitty. So what is the podcast? Every Friday I do a media podcast called Breaking the News on the Midday Network with the two of them. They're both political operatives. So we talk about media, but then last night they were going to be on from 7 p.m. on. I thought I'd visit for a little while and finally at 1 o'clock we all, AM, we all finally said, okay, we're tired now. 1 o'clock East Coast time. Yeah, that was about the time that I headed to bed on the West Coast. and a little bit of a wimp in regards to that. But, yeah, last night, big moment here in the U.S. And I would say, you know, worldwide, there's been a lot of reaction from all over. I posted things changed. Not quite, but I go to the German papers. And I think I saw this on threads, right? Right. Which is a paper I love. They're just brilliant. They had one where they said, with a picture of Trump clowering in a darkened room with just a little light on his face,

that says, schluß mit daddy. Enough with daddy. Enough with daddy. Oh, I think I found that. That was their lead story. Bloop. And then the Spiegel had another one, which I'm not going to find right now, but it basically said this is the new face. Oh, here it is. This is America's new guard. They talk about this is the new face of democracy in America now. Yeah. So, yeah, I was fascinated last night I was looking at these, and they're covering our election as if it's their election because it affects their lives. Absolutely. Yes. I really noticed that, too. Like, as I was going to bed last night or right before I was going to bed, I was kind of checking some of the socials. You know, we were podcasting doing Android Faithful, and actually you and I were just talking right before we opened the stream. The Android show that I've done since 2010 has always been a Tuesday night show. And so every election night, me and the cast, Ron Richards and Florence and Wynn and whatever,

we're always podcasting during this really monumental moment. And it's like, God, do I even dare open a browser because I'm in the middle of this thing and I don't want to distract myself and either be elated or disappointed or whatever and everything. And so I didn't, I forced, like, not forcefully, but purposefully didn't pay attention until I knew I had time to pay attention. And so when I was going to bed last night, I logged into, like, threads, I think, and noticed that, like, on the other side of the world, people were waking up and seeing what we knew at that point. And just, yeah, it was really interesting because it did seem exactly like you say, like they're as invested as we are as U.S. citizens in the consequences of not just an election, a U.S. election, but a midterm election. I think one of the comments I saw is like a couple of years ago, I couldn't even tell you what a midterm election actually was. But this year I was tuned in. I couldn't peel myself away from it.

You know what I mean? Yeah. Yeah, and it's also great to get different perspectives on this. The New York Times, the day before the election, declared identity politics dead. And the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which is a conservative paper in Germany, the day after the election said that this was a case of diversity winning. So you see a different perspective. And let's just pause for a quick moment. At the wonder of the Internet, we can see these perspectives now, Now, as they occur all around the world, we can get them translated, and it just opens up our perspectives. All you have to do is go looking for them. It's really quite a wonderful, amazing thing. It is, and you get those perspectives immediately. I mean, you know, the Internet is an incredible technology. Yes. There are probably also people that look at it and be like, yeah, but the Internet has, like, the Internet promised to unite people through this immediacy of shared knowledge,

but it's actually divided people because of all these other unintended consequences. And probably a little bit of this, a little bit. As I am fond of pointing out, Gutenberg may have printed a Bible, but they also quickly printed Malleus Maleficarum, which was the manual for hunting and killing witches. the technology is used in multiple I haven't heard that one before yeah, absolutely it led to the scientific revolution it also led to the increase of the spreading of alchemy and disinformation so you know, yeah, ever thus it's about us, it's not about the technology it's about us corrupt humans yeah, that's true, right at the end of the day well, yeah, so and you know I would say that this podcast, we don't normally talk a lot about, like, politics from, like, a taking sides perspective or anything like that. We recognize that everybody who watches and listens has their own, you know, their own background and their own beliefs and all that.

I do think that it is important, though, to spend some time talking about the election. And I think you would agree because there are immediate and direct impacts. Tangible impacts. We do talk about on this show all the time. There's been so much brewing around support for the leaders of these AI companies, the competitiveness of the U.S. to other countries like China when it comes to AI and the need to be a superpower in artificial intelligence. Or I'm sorry, what is it? Super intelligence. Let's not call it artificial anymore. I think we're not allowed to call it artificial. I think so. I never stopped calling it artificial intelligence. But, yeah, anyways. But how this all really directly relates, as we'll talk about, is that a big kind of wedge – what is it called? A wedge position? Wedge issue. Wedge issue has been the development of data centers and data centers and the necessity of data center build-outs

for this rapid proliferation development of artificial intelligence to keep the United States competitive and leading in AI, blah, blah, blah. Well, now this has been definitely an issue that a lot of the people who won their election and actually won in the face of Republican opponents were pushing against the development of data center or at least slowing it down, putting pauses in place to take a more, let's say, measured approach as opposed to the who cares, let's just go full steam ahead and see what happens. And so a lot of people are interpreting this as a moment where AI, you know, the big AI companies might and likely will be forced to kind of make some changes to how they operate in the coming couple of years. Would you say that's pretty fair? Yeah. So I'm in a crib here from Padre, who's hosting Intelligent Machines later today, from the Vatican.

Oh, awesome. I love Padre. So he put in his notes, I'm a caged from him, if he doesn't mind, from Ballotopedia. There were 50 ballot measures in 13 states that dealt with banning, approving, or advising DC projects, data center projects. And so a lot of legislation was there. As you mentioned, the politicians who won, the governors who won, won in part of this. When I was on the podcast last night about the election, a really smart pollster named Ben said that one of the key things was they stuck to the messaging about data centers, data centers, data centers. And it was a way to garner support. So I think that data centers are borked. Also, the states where they were going to be heaviest is places like Texas. Yes, Texas, right? Which, I mean, a monumental, which is probably to say the least, monumental turn in Texas going Democratic largely away from Republican.

Every statewide office, legislatures as well. Couldn't have guessed that that would happen. So, you know, there are red states where they will welcome data centers, I suspect. But even there, they're unpopular with the right as well. So that's going to be an issue. So that's – I think data centers are worked right now. And we talked about this the other week. I think they're going to hide in other forms. I think, you know, the Lord and Taylor near me may have some big crates moved in from NVIDIA. Yes, the whole let's bring data centers into the shopping mall strategy that we talked about weeks ago, which I still think is something – It's not a data center. We're going to talk about naming it in a few minutes. But the other thing, Jason, is my concern is – and I said this to the pollster last night. I keep saying the data centers are the MacGuffin. They're the device that people look at because it's something tangible I can point to. And fine, data centers are, because there isn't enough electricity,

they're running horrible noxish fumes with jets and jet engines and turbines. They have some effect on water. We're not exactly sure what at this point, but it's on how they're built. They're ugly. They don't have long-term employment. All that is true. All that I stipulate, Your Honor. But I don't think the issue is really data centers. I think the issue is oligarchs. The issue is the AI boys who have too much power, too much wealth. We thought too much sway, though. Which is impressive because they were loading a lot of money into this election, too, right? They had Elon Musk. Super PACs and stuff. Had a huge defeat. However, in California, I'm jumping around our rundown now. No, it's fine. The billionaire tax, and it was defeated 55 to 44 percentages. Though it was a really, I think, badly written law. That was my interpretation of it, too. Yeah. And the problem is you can see it expanding, that if that sets a precedent and you're a farmer

and you've had a bad year and now you've got to give up N percent of your farm's value to a tax when you don't have any income this year. But that's the fear people have. We have to figure out how to redistribute the wealth that occurs at that high level. People resent these oligarchs. They resent, again, the power and the concentration of wealth and the lack of equity, number one. And number two, I would argue that we've got to focus attention on the nut balls who are nutty and the cultists and the problems that exist there. and our media cover these guys as if they're just another good entrepreneur, when in my mind they're not. As I keep saying lately, the wrong people are in control of AI. So the question becomes, can the discussion about AI get more focused on outcomes? If you kill a data center in your state, fine, great. That ain't going to kill AI. That doesn't kill their power. They're going to put them under the ocean. They're going to put them in space, for God's sakes.

Google has its first center up there operating, writing haiku, literally. Elon Musk is already saying data centers in space looking pretty appealing right now. Of course, he has rockets, right? He has SpaceX and a whole lot of incentive to do something like that. So I think it would be a mistake to concentrate on the data centers. And if the politicians stop there, they're going to find themselves surprised by the left flank coming in. They're still threatening they can kill us all. They're still taking all our money, and they're still doing nasty things with people. Have you watched Cupertino, the CBS show? No, no. You've mentioned that, and it's on my list. So I wanted to watch it today, and I won't go into great detail about it, but it's from the creators of The Good Wife and The Good Fight, who I like a lot. And it's interesting. It's good. It's two lawyers who get ousted from their Silicon Valley firm. They create a new law firm, and it sets up continuing storylines. And it hasn't hit data centers yet, but it's demonizing.

It's making negative these tech companies and their moguls. They're the bad guys. Not cartoonish, really, but just bad guys. That's why I think the culture is speaking. The politics are speaking. The culture is speaking. The media aren't yet speaking because they don't really understand the full depth of what these guys are like. But to me, that's the election issue we've got to move forward on. So I know I have a new representative in my district. Yay, I fought for her, Rebecca Bennett, and she's saying the things about data centers. And I want to try to get to her office and say, let's have a conversation about something else here. And it's bigger. So meanwhile, so kind of like the data center is the stepping stone to the real problem. Exactly. You go one step higher and it's not just a data center. So data centers are screwed, number one. Number two, we'll stand at this for a second, which is OpenAI's hilarity. They're going to solve the problem. What are they going to do, Jason? Marketing. They're going to change it so that we don't talk about it.

Just as the Trump administration said, we can no longer say artificial intelligence. Super intelligence. OpenAI says, well, we're not building data centers. We're building AI compute campuses. A campus. Doesn't that sound nice? Let's go meet the student union and get ourselves a little data and a latte. It needs a, yes, these data centers, it's not a problem, the data centers inherently. It's a marketing issue. It's a quad. Meanwhile, they've been data centers for so, so long. Why suddenly they are an issue is just, yeah, yeah. That requires a new marketing term. I don't know. And I come back to the issue of the turbines, the gas turbines. You know, Google leading the way for years has said they were going to go energy neutral. And we're celebrating the time when renewable energy became cheaper than coal, which were there. But because there isn't enough supply of energy, of course, they're putting it in turbines.

One story this week from the Times is that old jet engines surplus or old jets engines, surplus engines are being pulled to make turbines for data centers. They're noisy. They're polluting. They're awful. This is not the way to win friends and influence politics. So this is the data center thing again. All right, so data centers is one focus, I think, post-election. The next, which we've already touched on, is taxing the billionaires. I think that the backlash against technology is a backlash against oligarchs. Yeah. Both the companies and the investors, people like Peter Thiel and all that. So I think we're going to see now efforts to find ways to tax them, and nobody's going to stand up for them. Yeah.

And Gavin Newsom can't protect you from federal taxes. And for the next two years, you may not get it passed, but, you know, you can't pass a budget at all without the House. So I think we're going to see efforts to tax these people and these companies. Two. Three is regulation of AI, which will come from four, investigation of AI. So we're going to see a ton of hearings on Capitol Hill about AI, about these companies, pulling them in. What special deals did you do? What damage can you do? It's going to look like Zuckerberg and company on Capitol Hill, but worse, I think. So, okay, my civic knowledge is not always on point. It's not something that, you know, it's something that I fully recognize I could do better to learn more about it and to understand how it all works. But so House and Senate, now blue. You still have Trump and the White House and their strategy, still have that executive branch. They're full in on this, you know, all in on the build out and the friendships they've made with the oligarchs that you're talking about.

So what – if you had to guess what the next two years – like I understand that's the likely direction. That's the dynamic that's at play here is like, well, we've been given a message that it's time to approach this differently. But what can actually be done to that end given that the House and the Senate are blue but the executive branch is still red? And the courts are mixed. And the courts – yeah, the courts are not necessarily – Things get up in the Supreme Court. You really don't know what you're going to get. Or you know what you're going to get and it's not very good. Right. A few things. One is I don think it purely a blue issue I think Republicans are going to be grasping for things Yeah To make themselves and it kind of you know who loves Sam Altman Who really wants to stand up for Sam Altman? Unless you were put in office by Peter Thiel and his money, then you love Sam Altman. Yeah, right. And you're J.D. Vance. You're going to do that and so on and so forth. But there are Republicans, I think, who may even come across the eye.

Let's say they don't. Even with the blue majorities, the first thing you have is the House's ability for oversight and hearings, both House and Senate. So if they try to subpoena Hegseth, odds are he's just going to ignore it. You put him up for contempt. Who enforces that? Department of Justice. They're not going to go after him. That's that, right? Right. The only thing they can do really is impeach him. But if you're a corporate executive and you spent the last either two to six years buttering up the right wing that is now so resoundingly defeated. You get a subpoena to appear on Capitol Hill. And if you're if you're Mark Andreessen, if you're Peter Thiel, you're still going to be hostile. But if you're Jeff Bezos, and if you're his replacement, and if you're Sundar Pichai, certainly, and if you're the new CEO of Apple.

Zuckerberg. Even Zuckerberg, who shifted views, I mean, his policy guy who put him in line with the Republicans just left. I think it's almost coincidental. They're going to have, A, they're going to have to appear. They can't avoid it. And B, they're going to start singing different songs. I think so. They seem to be pretty flip-floppy, if that's the word. Yeah, not high on principle. Yes, that's a great way to put it. That's a great way to put it. And so the other part you get to, so I think they're going to do a lot of dancing about stuff like regulation and, oh, no, no, no, we're the good guys and so on and so forth. But they are going to be pushed hard. The second thing is budgeting. You can't have a budget without the House. so yes any budget could get vetoed by the executive true but at some point he needs a budget and if he as the sole representative

of republicanism causes a government shutdown that's not good for all the people who want who are looking at the next election so at some point I think the democrats depends on what they choose to use do they want to defund ICE do they want to fix health care? Do they want to fix foreign aid? Do they want to tax the billionaires? There's going to be some matrix of those things that could affect these companies. Then the other thing that I think matters here is the regulatory functions are executive functions. So the SEC and such won't touch these companies for now. They're safe. But they've got to recognize the chance of in only two years, the executive flipping as well to blue, and if both houses stay blue, and if they redo the Supreme Court, they can't be sitting here acting like it's last year for the next two years.

They've got to start changing strategy about how they operate. So I think there's a lot of subtlety here in how this goes. Now, the other thing that's interesting to me, and then I'll shut up, which is a lie. I love it. Is the billionaire tax again. It lost in California. Not a little bit. It kind of lost it. Right. And there was also that California is so amazingly screwed up because of these initiatives that you could have one initiative on the ballot that contradicts another initiative on the ballot. So there were, I think, two other initiatives that basically would have voided this initiative in any case. and then there was an argument about how this one would be changed. It's all confusing. Yeah. You've got to read a whole book, right, to vote in California. Right. Yep. But I think it showed that if you could change it, something else would happen. And I think other states could do it. And so I think we're going to see taxation as a major issue on these companies.

So as you see these huge IPOs coming, as you see these big profits, And what happened to the stock market today? Let me look at what it is right now. I think it went up. Oh, did it go up? Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. No, no, sorry. I'm thinking of some of these tech companies. Okay, we're going to get to that, right. So the NASDAQ is up 2%. NVIDIA is down, last I looked. And really interestingly, SpaceX and Tesla took a major hit. Oh, big surprise. Yeah, because Elon Musk has lost, I think, a fair amount of clout. Yeah, I mean, he's pretty closely tied to the way things have been the last couple of years for a lot of different reasons, Doge and many other reasons. He's become, to a large degree, kind of a poster child, I'd say, for, well, yeah, I don't need to dance around it. He's become a poster child for the oligarch that you're talking about. Yeah, absolutely. He is the symbol of that.

So SpaceX is down, as we speak here on the day after the election, 3.68%. And let's see Tesla. He was planning to merge these two companies. Yeah. Down 2.35%. Amazon is up 7.44%. Wow. Wow. Because they took hits recently, and now it's a buying opportunity. Google Alphabet is up 4.27%. NVIDIA, let's see here, is down 1.3%. I think that's a lot of it. It's still a complicated market. Yeah. There has been a little bit of a cozying, though. Jensen Wong is certainly in that camp of cozying up to the previous administration. Right. And so, you know, there's going to be some correction potentially on his side. I will be curious to see how this changes that dynamic, right, The flip-flop kind of aspects of how these companies do business, you know,

and how they course-correct in the face of such a major kind of shift in people's minds and their votes that back that. I wouldn't know what I'm doing or where to go, but I also want to go down to Washington to K Street. I was sort of there today and go into the bars tonight to hear the lobbyists for the various technology companies who've had to spend all day changing strategy on a dime. Yeah, right. I need a drink. Yeah. Yep. Yep. Yeah. Well, and, you know, tying into this before we hit a break here is the Anthropic IPO, which I think it's a real interesting time because you've got Anthropic, you've got OpenAI, both of them the largest frontier AI companies targeting the biggest IPOs on record and in history, and that may still very well be true when it happens. But that was happening in a version of the playbook that just got completely undone or rewritten or will be rewritten.

So how do you think this moment, the election and the results of all of it and all this talk about oligarchs and data centers and everything impacts this upcoming IPO for Anthropic? Does it have a direct impact? Or is Anthropic suddenly in a position of like, oh, shoot, I kind of wish we weren't doing this right now. We had done it a couple of months ago or something. They're already swimming in the ocean. And I think that if they delayed it, it would look really bad. Yeah. I mean, I still think the valuation is absurd. Yes, completely absurd. But the question is, will there be enough to buy the stock at that absurd valuation? And the stock market's going up, as we said today. So, in that sense, yeah, the risk is high. One thing I didn't put in the rundown, I saw a story about Oracle getting in deeper due because they're borrowing, I think, $20 billion between stock purchases and bonds.

This is what we talked about last week. Ellison is highly, highly leveraged right now. And Anthropic has a purchase commitment of $895 billion, as reported in the S1. So there's a lot of other dominoes waiting for those checks that they count on as well. So I don't know, Jason. is Anthropic too big not to IPO? Is it too big to fail? Right. Well, I mean, we've been asking that question about OpenAI for the last couple of years. Is OpenAI too big to fail? I wonder, is OpenAI, this is just pure guessing, probably pure coincidence, but is their delay of IPO to next year part of a potential kind of consideration of this happening. I wonder about that. I think everyone's guess was, or my guess was, I won't put it on anybody else,

that Anthropic pulled ahead of OpenAI, mainly because of their focus on code and claudibilities. And so they, OpenAI said, you know, we're going to be sloppy seconds. No. So I'm not sure it was because of the election or anything else. But I think they're in a more enviable position right now. I'm giving it cash credit. Yeah. Sorry to say that again? They're in an enviable position right now vis-a-vis the IPO because they can wait and do it in due time. Yeah. That's kind of how I'm feeling too. They're possibly – they're breathing a sigh of relief so that they have the ability, you know, they have the time on their side to be like, look, we will get there. It's not a matter of if but when. But now we don't feel this sudden pressure. So, like, if I was in the Anthropics shoes, I'd be far more nervous now than I was before because, holy moly, the ground just shifted underneath you, and you're kind of already, like you said, you're already on that train track going to your destination. So we'll see what happens.

You have Elizabeth Warren who sent them four pages of questions. They can't necessarily subpoena them to a hearing right now, but they can put a lot of heat on them. The other thing about OpenAI was they were doing another capital raise, and it came in short of what they wanted, and the valuation was lower. So it's caution time for them. So let's see. We're starting to get more information about Anthropic. They had $17 billion in Q3 revenue. That's new figures that got added into their S1. and that's an impressive number, no question about it. I still don't really understand where all that's coming from. I think we said that they have maybe five customers. They're vulnerable there. We don't know who those customers are. We don't know what value they're in turn getting out of this. I still think there's a fair house of cards here.

But Anthropix says they are ever more powerful. They say they're ever more powerful. Oh, that's right. Oh, I almost forgot about that. I was about to go to a break, but there is the RSI, the recursive self-improvement, now buried inside of the risk factors. It's basically saying that they believe that their future models, they estimate anyways that their future models indicate that we may imminently meet the responsible scaling policies definition of this recursive self-improvement, dramatically accelerated progress attributable to AI, which is essentially AI speeding up the building of the next AI. Which doesn't necessarily mean evil and destruction. No. It just means it's more powerful than what it can do, but also you can control it more. I mean, AI is doing a lot in building all sorts of other things via code, so it makes, you know, and they are, all of these companies are using their AI,

their current AI or their future AI to develop further down the road. like they're using it in some way, shape, or form. This sounds more like an AI that can just kind of go full auto, develop the next thing, and you can imagine that just that accelerated kind of circular thing. Yeah, it feeds into the prior discussion about regulation. Yeah. Because, oh, my God, the doomers are out there saying, oh, but it can do this. That's what it can destroy the Earth. That's the point at which it's too dangerous. Yes. But meanwhile, just to get ready, in case it can't kill us all, in case it does become our all-powerful new master. Anthropics says that we really should not be mean to Claude. I didn't read this one. Tell me about it. I didn't remember what the rationale was. It's not about feelings. So in their AI usage policy, along with banning it from bioweapons and illegal drugs, they added a new line. Users should not, quote, engage in sustained and needless abusive or cruel behavior toward our models.

They want the ability to end conversations with people who are persistently harmful or abusive, which presumes that you can abuse a lawnmower. That's a good way to put it. Yeah, what are you doing when you throw away a lawnmower that doesn't work anymore? Poor thing. Don't you think of a thought? You're giving up on the thing. Yeah. Lawnmowers are people, too. Get a spark plug, for God's sakes. Seriously. So, okay. So, if you're anthropic, why? Is this a morality stance to say, like, hey, we need a friendlier world, and so therefore this is, like, one way that we can tip the scales to make people be friendlier or to not outwardly be mean? or is this them saying our models, our AI is so like humans that it too has feelings and don't do that? I don't even know what this actually means. I don't really see a rationale in here from Anthropic. Yeah.

And Mustafa Suleban made fun of them and said that we shouldn't be concerned about their feelings. They don't have them. Thank you very much for a rational thought here. But it's just the absurdity that these people are going to be worth $2 trillion. Jesus. It's an upside down, topsy-turvy world we cover here. There was a time when I said thank you at the end of my prompts. That was very long ago. I was going to say please, just because it's a habit. Sometimes it comes out. Yeah. I mean, yeah, I don't know. I don't know. That's a funny one. I missed that one. But, you know, people like me could regret my tough stance. You know, there may be a time. They're going to come after me. And Claudebots are walking the earth, and they remember. They don't forget anything unless it sits outside of their context window, and they have to flush it out and summarize it. And maybe in the process of summarizing it, they drop the exact thing you said and just kind of allude to you saying. Jarvis is a jerk.

And the world would be better off without him. eliminated all right we're going to take a break before we do i do want to thank our amazing uh patrons at patreon.com slash ai inside show few of you of note john garrison tim epperson just a couple of our amazing patrons who uh yeah who support us on a deeper level of patreon uh which supports the health of this show. Enjoy hopefully the AI Inside Daily podcast. I had a technical issue on Monday, so you got a supersized version of it on Tuesday, yesterday. But, you know, hey, I try to always come through, even if I mess it up. Like getting two slices of cake. Yes, but just a little. Because you didn't have one yesterday, so it's okay to have two today. The cake isn't perfectly fresh and moist, necessarily. The crusts are, you know, a little hardy. Not in a good way. Yes, exactly. So patreon.com slash AI Inside Show.

If you like the taste of the cake that we're cooking or we're baking, come on over and help us out. We're going to take a break. When we come back, I think we have some fun stories to bat around, including Google saying it's AI search or nothing, school kids. That's coming up here in a moment. The Wired Newsroom is known for award-winning reporting on how technology shapes our world. On Wired's Uncanny Valley, we take that curiosity even further. Each week, journalists from Wired break down the biggest stories in tech while speaking directly with the people building, challenging, and reshaping the future. Is the AI boom sustainable? How do you protect your privacy in an age of constant surveillance? Uncanny Valley tackles the questions driving today's tech debates and lighting up your group chats. Listen to new episodes every Thursday, wherever you get your podcasts. Google has a new plan for its relations with schools, kind of like a new deal that it's cutting with schools,

basically saying next year Google plans to turn off its AI tools for K-12 students unless school admins choose to turn them on, right? So what is that? So turn it off if it's off by default. Yes. Oh, the default becomes off, and it's only on if you choose to turn it off. Yes, I didn't realize that. The Korean TechCrunch plans to disable the tools for K-12 unless administrators explicitly turn them on. Okay. So it's opt-in, not opt-out. Opt-in for AI. And so, you know, because a lot of schools and a lot of parents, I imagine as well, are nervous about their kids using generative AI, I say we don't want them using Gemini at school or whatever in Google. You know, the Chromebooks are everywhere. So don't let them use that. Don't let them use Notebook, even though Notebook is a really great tool for classwork, I would imagine. Gemini in Classroom and Google Search. Wait a minute, what? So Google Search going away for students.

If the school restricts AI, basically it loses Google Search entirely because Google is saying that search and AI are so deeply integrated that you can't possibly remove one from the other. They're just going to not have access to search entirely. It's unavailable. So this is particularly getting anger from people, people abusing this. I saw somebody who said, I used to work at Google. This is BS. They could do this. My default here is that, number one, AI is so deeply integrated in the search, I don't see how you would separate it out. I think there are ways. Well, then the second thing is they're changing the user interface here in that you can now, when you get to the one box, whatever they call it, You can ask it questions. You can have a dialogue with it. You are then, right then, in Google. You're not going to Gemini. You're not going anywhere else. But you are having a chat discussion through that box in what is now Google.

And that is how that service operates in all ways So I don see how you turn that off and revert to only keywords Don ask me a full question I can do anything I don't think it's easily acceptable anymore. Unless you literally reverted to an old Google. But even then, I don't know how it's architected. I don't know how you do that. Yeah, I mean, when you look at a Google search box right now, when I pull it up, you know, yeah, like you said, this search box is, for all accounts, it's a Gemini. So if you type in there, explain gravity to me, it's not going to come up with 10 blue links, it is going to give me an eye overview. With illustration and everything, right? So you're already in a chat interface. Full stop. Yeah, I mean, if I didn't know that I got here through Google search, I would think that I was in Gemini.

It certainly looks a whole lot like Gemini. I can add in, you know, I can create images from here, add in images into the query or whatever, keep going down. Oh, and then that box goes away. So basically the box goes up, and now we get to the blue links. But even then, it's interspersed with more explanation, different features, and other kinds of things. I don't know how much that's AI generated. So then the problem for Google becomes, well, where's the line? No chat. Oh, okay. No chat. Then if a student asks a question, we have to say, I can't help you with that. That's chatting, by the way. Only blue links. Well, that's not how search is now architected at Google. Yeah. I mean, it's a legacy thought of the legacy view of what search is. I put in a query. It gives me a bunch of links. I decide which link to push. So if I go into this more section, I get web. If I go there, you get blue links. This is just web search.

It's a very good point, yeah. So there's that. If you scroll down there, would you? Oh, sorry. Let's see if it breaks out of that. Nope, it's all blue links. Yeah, it's all blue links. Okay, all right. That's a really good point, Jason. There it is. Okay. All right. All right. I stand. There's web. Modified. There is. Now, mind you, I did not come up with this. We talked about this on DTNS yesterday. Tom Merritt pointed out a few alternatives. Okay, so I wasn't even aware that the web was a destination you could get to. So there's that. That seems like an easy one. I don't know how easy it is to decouple or turn off the other things, but, you know, mind you, there is a place you can go where you just get web results. There is also something you can add, and I haven't tested this, so let's test it. Explain gravity to me and UDM equals 14. If I do this, no, that didn't work. So my understanding is that this is supposed to turn off the AI overview thing,

but it doesn't look like it does. So that is not a thing. So I guess the web tab. Yeah, I guess Google, could you just activate the web tab and deactivate the AI mode tab? But I don't know the architecture to make that happen. And what are you taking away from students? Well, that's another issue, but I think it's another issue. You're denuding it. And if you don't use Google for search, let's say, what's it called? Bing. What other kind of searches even exist anymore? Explain gravity to me. So, hmm, boy, Microsoft, you're behind. It's blue links. it's like I don't know what gravity is explain gravity to me so it's blue links it's Wikipedia that's Wikipedia oh that's Wikipedia okay it summarizes Wikipedia it does do a little AI magic on that

but it's still Wikipedia okay that's pretty light though by comparison it does ask any as possible questions in Does it have a web? No. No. Interesting. Oops. It does have an AI mode specifically where you go into the obvious kind of AI conversation interface. Okay. But the all tab is essentially the web. I mean, it's not. There is a little bit of AI going on. A little bit. It's not nearly as fully integrated and everything as Google has on it. Yeah. What strikes me about this is that it seems that Google started this discussion. Rather than having a school administrator out there who screamed, we won't use Google unless, okay, well, this is the deal. They seem to come up with this policy after having talked with administrators. So I just don't fully understand how they got here because it's not great PR.

That's Google. Yeah. They don't always handle the same. They just have a T-shirt, Google, not great PR. Not great PR. Or branding. Branding. Your branding, yeah. Good product, not great PR and branding. Stick-to-it-ed-ness is not always great either. Keeping things out of a killed-by-Google graveyard, that's a challenge. Yeah, but I do think, you know, touching back on what you were talking about, there's that, there's the technicality, the technical capability or incapability of removing AI from search. There's also what are we doing with students at a time when AI is this emerging and incredibly important technology. We're teaching them that that's a tool that they absolutely cannot use, even though they will. They're just not going to use it there. And we're not teaching them the skills to use it as a critical user. Because a lot of people will say, well, they're going to get wrong answers from the AI. And it's like, yeah, that's kind of how the technology works.

And so as you work with it, you start to understand how to get it to say, how to either check it or, you know, check the links that it offers or use it as a starting point and not as the overall truth. And these are skills that you don't immediately just inherit the first time you use AI. You kind of have to use it a little bit before you get that understanding. And that's kind of what school is all about is teaching you how to do things, you know, with a healthy perspective, I guess. Yeah. Yeah. yeah so I think there's more nuanced ways to present this and I understand I mean K through 12 for God's sakes yeah if you're first grade yeah how do I make a bomb right but it's the whole world you're bringing the whole world's information in and there's no predicting what it's going to bring in and there's risk there so it's always there in a library yeah Yeah.

That's always been the case that the web brings with it the possibility for seeing things that you don't want to see. I don't know. I mean, as a parent, like I don't necessarily – yeah, I think at the end of the day as a parent, I don't want an education for my kids to pretend like AI doesn't exist. I feel like that sets them up for failure or for potential disaster because they just don't know what they don't know, you know? Yeah, and so you set outcomes and you set the pedagogy so that you know what skills you're going to teach them. Yeah, and how you're equipping them. How you healthfully or responsibly integrate AI into the curriculum in a way that teaches them how to use it properly and how to not use it improperly. improperly. Yeah. Yeah. Agreed. Motion carried. Okay.

Another one. This is data from ActiveTrack that says this is an analytics company, basically, for workplace analytics company. They sell monitoring software. I can only show you so much of this Bloomberg article. At least it shows you the headline. On New York Times, when I pull up their unlogged-in state, it doesn't even show you the headline anymore. It just shows you, like, a word or two. It's so frustrating. Anyways, ActiveTrack tracked computer activity for more than 9,000 workers at 467 companies for a few months, April through September. And they found that AI users' workdays ran 8.5 to 9.1 hours long, whereas users who were not using AI, their workdays were less, 7.6 hours by comparison. 90 minutes longer, basically, when you're using AI. Heavier AI users also had shorter focus sessions, about 38 minutes,

versus like 48 for users who might use AI lightly by comparison. So what does that mean, that heavy AI users have less, or it seems to imply that they have less ability to focus on a single task? Or does that mean that the AI is making them more efficient, so they need to spend less time on something? I don't know how you think. Or I think the hope of the argument is, by the way, one little trick, Jason, besides the illegal ways to get content, is I find Bloomberg syndicates enough that if you put the link in search, you'll find a rewrite of it somewhere else. Right. So right now on Gizmodo, I'm reading a quote that AI may help employees complete tasks faster, but our research shows it contributes to longer work days, more application switching, and shorter focused sessions. A few possible interpretations. One is that they're getting more done and feeling more effective. Another is they're enjoying it more. Another is that their bosses are saying, oh, now I'm going to throw more work on you because you're more efficient.

Another is, oh, there's this slop I've got to get through to get my job done. It's worse. They don't know. They don't know. Yeah, very interesting. ActiveTrack representatives said, AI may help employees complete tasks faster, but our research shows it contributes to longer work days. It's early research. Early research. Correlation doesn't always mean causation, blah, blah, blah. There's that. And OpenAI had its own survey that kind of found the opposite, of course, as OpenAI. But they said of 9,000 workers a year ago, back in December, people said AI saved them 40 to 60 minutes a day. So I don't know. Who knows? I guess it depends on who it's coming from. But, you know, I can kind of – when I think about yesterday, last night, you know, Tuesdays are my long day.

And I had a very busy day, multiple podcasts, talked to people. building out rundowns for this show and our Android Faithful. Like I was very, very jammed. And at the end of Android Faithful, I was also working with ChatGPT to create a process that would make some of my post-production work with Android Faithful a little easier. And I didn't step away from here for like two hours after Android Faithful ended. And I was fine with it because I was really like in the mode of like, I want to figure out this system and everything like that. But in that case, I would have walked away two hours prior, but I chose not to because I was so invested in building this tool. But maybe that's true. And you're your boss, so you only have you to blame. That's true. Yeah, totally. I don't blame the tool for that. I blame my own inability to turn it off because I was inspired in the moment. So at least there's that. Lee, thank you for the super chat. Lee is watching the live stream on our YouTube channel, AI Inside Show.

says, and I think this ties in with the Google and schools story that we were just talking about, says, maybe I'm completely wrong on this, but Google has used machine learning tools in their search product for 25 years. Difference between machine learning tools and modern generative AI, I'd say there's probably a difference there, right? Like, generative AI is a different ball of wax versus using machine learning behind the scenes on what are the right search results to appear and that sort of stuff. But I get where you're coming from, Lee. I don't know. What do you think about that? Same, same, but different? Yeah, I think we're there now where companies are trying to find it. I think the token maxing age has already ended. It's too expensive. Yes. It's giving money to the big companies. The open-weight models provide opportunities. I think the key will be how it mixes, how you do something with the upper-weight model, and then you have the expensive model check it or check the security on it or whatever,

or do the tasks that it couldn't otherwise do. So I think this is going to be the trend. And again, this goes to the Anthropoc and OpenAI IPOs, because I think this is going to present huge use and price competition for them. they're integrable. That's not a word. You can integrate them. You're talking about the open models doing 90% of agentic work? Is that right? Yes. No, so Lee was talking about the Google... Oh, Lee's comment. I'm sorry. My apologies. I thought you moved on. No, no, no. Yeah, I agree, Lee. I think you raise a good point, Lee, because it's... Sorry, now I'm blathering back. Is if Google had to warrant we're giving students no AI, they kind of can't. Yeah. Where's that line? It's behind the scenes. How do you define it? How deep do you go

to defining it? Where do we get in trouble? So you don't want AI. Okay. You don't get AI. Yeah. Yeah. It's like Street View in Germany where at some point Google just said, okay, fine, no Street View for you. No soup for you. Yeah. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Thank you, Lee. That's okay. But you set up our next story very nicely, which is you've given the argument. Now we just need to know what it's based on. Gartner has this new report on open models, and essentially what it means, the headline of it is open weight models will run 90% of their enterprise agentic workflow steps, which basically is saying nine in 10 steps an AI agent takes are actually very routine. And classifying things, calling tools, checking data, all that kind of stuff doesn't actually necessarily always require some sort of frontier model working in the cloud to do it effectively. That open weight models can handle a lot of this at parity for a quarter of the price of the cheapest closed model.

And for the enterprise, that's potentially a really big deal. And basically, it sounds like Gartner is saying, by 2030, 90% of those operational agents run on open-weight models. And the remaining 10%, which is probably relegated to R&D research, deeper research and development, that sort of stuff, would happen with the frontier models. Also, the harnesses, I think, that are directing the agents from the open models would still have access to those frontier models for when they need them to do those certain things. I don't know how that changes the dynamics, the pricing dynamics of those frontier companies and what they offer. But, yeah, I totally agree with this. So I've got a question for you. Asking for a friend, my son, you start to use Claude at some length, and then before you know it, you're buying more tokens because you're in the middle of something, and you hit your time window or your token window or whatever. Totally. Before you know it, you have a huge bill.

And so the other way that I know of right now to effectively run open weight models is to buy a very expensive $10,000 machine or two of them and do it locally. Are there hosted? Do you know of any ways that you can run open weights in a hosted environment so you don't have to own the hardware? And so, yes, you pay a time or token usage fee on the open weight model, but you don't have to own the hardware. Do you know of anything like that? I don't. I think it's a hell of a... I mean, if you go to Hugging Face... I have to imagine that exists. I would have to. If you go to Hugging Face, you can download anything, but if you don't have the hardware, you can't run them. Because that's assuming that you're running them locally. I mean, like when I think of Llama, which was, it still is, I don't know, but was Meta's kind of open model architecture or whatever,

you could still run Llama in the cloud on services, right? Right, right. So I just wonder if it's a business yet. So I just searched on – this just came up this morning. That's why I'm asking now. Yeah. Featherless.ai, sponsored result. Host any open source AI, no GPU management. All done in the cloud. Yeah, I'd be really surprised if you couldn't do this. I'm trying to think if I have any confirmed services. Like, we had a previous sponsor, ARIA, or ARIA, sorry, ARIA Open Models in the cloud, and I'm sure that they have. Obviously, at a corporate level, that's the case. It's what Palantir does to an extent, right, with their harness. but I would think you'd get to a point where there's just a it's not a big business yet because you have to be pretty geeky to do it but if there's a geeky way

to do it, I'm not seeing a lot of things popping up here Yeah, it's a good question I want to say that yes, this exists but I'm not entirely sure right in this moment how to kind of confirm that I just, you know, because like I said, like Llama was Meta's version of this early on. Right, but you can download Llama and you can use it. But I could interact with it on the web, too, through certain services. Like I could find it posted. Yes, you could. Yes, yes, yes. And so I imagine that's the case for the chunks and all the other things as well, you know. Yes. I'd be really surprised if you couldn't do that in one way, shape, or form. Because to your point, not everybody's going to buy the mission. Buy a spark, no. Or a $10,000 app or whatever. Or be able to get them.

Yeah, right. Or even be able to get them at all. Yeah, that's true. Alright, well, if anybody folks out there know of these options, let me know. Yeah, let us know. Contact at ainsight.show if you want to send us an email. Let's see here. What else? Jensen Wong. Oh, Jensen Wong. That's right. Let me find the story. So this was a story last week in the time. Yeah. What do you think about this one? This is kind of, you know, this is a little bit more kind of along the lines of like, ooh, something going on behind the scenes. Does somebody know something we don't about Jensen Wong? And I don't know. It could be innocent. It could be whatever. But New York Times reported last week that U intelligence officials have basically concluded that an executive at a Singapore data center company called Megaspeed was a Chinese intelligence agent or asset Her name, Alice Wong, no relation to Jensen Wong.

But they had surveillance that showed that she had a close relationship with Jensen Wong. Photographed together, blah, blah, blah, at a restaurant, blah, blah, blah. But they were kind of thinking or inferring that there might be some sort of, like, deal-making behind the scenes to get around some of these China-U.S. roadblocks. Am I understanding this correctly? I thought it was a very flimsy story in the times. It sounded, yes. The more I thought about it, the more I was like, all right, this might not be in there. And it's kind of dropped. I mean, here we have, who was it? Tom's Hardware is kind of picking it up. but I don't think we saw it picked up necessarily anywhere else. The journal might have done a version of it. First, Jensen Wong is savvy as hell. He is Taiwanese, I believe, but he understands Chinese politics. He understands all the ins and outs of dealing with China. So it's not like he's some innocent waif who comes along

and wouldn't understand what's going on and all the risks involved. He was doing business with this woman. And, you know, I've had, I don't want to smirch students, but I've had people say to me in universities that you have to be careful around Chinese students, not because they're spies, but because they could be spied upon. And that if you induce them to say something that was controversial about the government, who knows who else is in the class who could spy on it. Right. Right? So, there's a suspicion, then, of many connections. And Jensen wanted plenty savvy, number one. Number two, this whole has a relationship with. Yeah. It's tabloidy. Super tabloidy. Yeah. There was nothing to back it up. It was irresponsible. And then three, NVIDIA said the next day, there was an investigation of this relationship.

It turned up nothing, of this woman. It turned up no evidence. of the trip that's being sent or this or that, and there's nothing here. Yeah. So, yeah, I think this was an effort by the Times to try to make, oh, there's something going on. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, and I think I fell for it initially, and actually when I was putting the show together, I started having mixed feelings about the story, kind of that whole tabloid. I think it's worthwhile for us to maybe point out the flimsy nature of it. Yeah, for sure, for sure. It doesn't quite seem like there's a there there, but nonetheless, there you go. Thank you for all that background. I think that's important. Real quick, if you're enjoying this show, make sure to leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It's a huge help. It helps get the word out, helps show that people are watching and listening, including people who might someday want to sponsor the show itself. So thank you very much for that. We're going to take a break. And when we come back, we've got a few quick items to get to before we get you out of here.

So hang tight. This episode of the AI Inside Podcast is brought to you by OutShift by Cisco. That's Cisco's incubation engine for frontier technology. Here's where multi-agent AI actually breaks down. And it's not where most people think. It's not the individual agents. Those are getting really good. The problem is what happens between them. Agents pass messages back and forth, but they can't actually think together. And when they don't, you get cognitive failures, misreadings, unverified claims, false consensus, quiet underperformance that your conventional monitoring just isn't even going to flag. Well, Outshift by Cisco is building the solution, the Internet of Cognition. It's an open source foundation for building multi-agent systems from design all the way to production with shared context, shared memory, and the guardrails to actually get the results you expect from AI, not the results you have to debug later. If you're building multi-agent systems, this is where to start.

Read the paper, experience the demo, grab the code at outshift.com. That's O-U-T-S-H-I-F-T dot com. And we thank them for their support of the AI Inside podcast. The Wired Newsroom is known for award-winning reporting on how technology shapes our world. On Wired's Uncanny Valley, we take that curiosity even further. Each week, journalists from Wired break down the biggest stories in tech while speaking directly with the people building, challenging, and reshaping the future. Is the AI boom sustainable? How do you protect your privacy in an age of constant surveillance? Uncanny Valley tackles the questions driving today's tech debates and lighting up your group chats. Listen to new episodes every Thursday, wherever you get your podcasts.

those tests that is now basically taking ownership, saying that it was an error on their part. And the firm is called Irregular. It's out of Tel Aviv. It runs security tests for these companies. CEO Dan LeHav at a Bloomberg event basically said the isolation guards were not set up as they were intended. So he's basically saying, look, this wasn't necessarily a matter of these agents being so wicked smart and crafty that they started doing all of these things on their own and everything. This was really about, according to them, humans that didn't set up a test environment properly, which is something that we've been saying on this show in recent weeks. It doesn't automatically mean that these things are so smart that now suddenly they're going to take over the world. At the core, they're just looking for holes. They're looking for ways to access and accomplish the tasks that they've been given.

And if we don't do our due diligence as humans is setting up a proper environment to test within, then they're going to find a way out. And that responsibility lies in the hands of the human. So human error, not actually rogue AI. Do you feel any better? Yeah. I think this goes back to our discussion about regulation earlier. I think that there's not some magic organization that's going to solve all problems. But I do think that when there were the breakouts from OpenAI, the security firms that were called upon were questioned in relation to their independence of OpenAI and of Tusk Riel boomer stuff, boomer stuff. So I think we're going to need kind of an underwriter's laboratories for AI testing, such that there's an independence that you can call upon. And it needed to be funded by the AI companies, but independent of them. So when radio started, advertisers wanted to know how large the audience was,

and the networks provided their own data to them. It says, there are larger audiences. And the advertisers said, we don't believe you. And so separate rating companies were set up, Nielsen and such eventually. Right. And others in the early rating days and broadcast, but also in print, there was what used to be called the Audit Bureau of Circulations that is now called the Association of Audited Media. I was on the original digital committee for them deciding what a page view was. And they were independent of the publishers and would then be trusted by the advertisers to audit. Even then, some advertisers didn't trust it, and they insisted on doing their own audits, but whatever. So this whole question of who's at fault when it breaks out will define the environment, define breaking out, define who is reporting on this. There has to be more independence. I think that's going to be a pretty quick fallout, even from the election, is it's going to be something that the industry has to offer up,

is funding independent auditing organizations. Good. Yeah. That'll be a welcome change. Yep. But it will be changeable as hell because, you know, the clever AI will invent something new. We didn't anticipate. Yeah. We couldn't have possibly known that it would be so clever. We have OpenAI, finally merging chat and work tabs. This is something that Anthropic actually merged back in September. It's kind of the converging of their standard mode and their work mode, which is where it integrates with files on your computer and computer control and cloud and all that kind of stuff, browser control and everything. And so ChatGPT is kind of bringing them all together. Codecs will stay separated from that separate mode, but they will share one usage pool with that mode. So that might mean that users will hit limits sooner because of the combined nature of that.

But there you go. It's a small change, but one less thing for you as a user to have to ask yourself, should I be in this mode? Should I be in that mode? They just kind of all do the same thing for the most part now. Thank you for that. Yeah. I've definitely been using ChatGPT a lot more. I've also been using Gemini a lot more. I've been really expanding and using each of them and kind of pitting them against each other. Someday I'll talk about some of the strengths. I can't wait to meet them. Apple Watch has this AI listening feature that we've talked about called Live Rewind. It's now in beta. So if you have the Series 12 or Ultra 4 and you're in the beta, the active beta, then you might have access to this. You double press on the crown, the digital crown, and you'll get text of the last 15 seconds of conversation that appears on your watch. So it's kind of collecting this in real time. No speaker IDs. You don't get any raw audio saved. So there's that. No verbatim transcript of the entire conversation.

It's just the last 15 seconds. And when you do it, a chime rings so the other person knows. If the other person actually knows what a chime means. Does a chime count as consent? Who knows, you know? It's not like when you're on a call and someone hits record. It's like recording the call so that you know exactly what's going on. It's just a chime. I think people are going to be nervous about this, number one. Number two, lawyers are going to make hay on this because if you're in a two-party state and both parties need to consent, the chime will probably not be seen as adequate. And, I mean, what happens when you're on a Zoom call and someone decides to record it? You now constantly have to hear the voice. This call is being recorded. Yep. Yep. Used to be back in the day. You probably never experienced this, Jason. Back in the day, Uncle Jeff tells me that if a phone call was being recorded, there was a beep you were supposed to present on the phone call so people knew.

Very similarly. Oh. So there's a precedent there. Yeah. I don't know if a radio station, if a reporter recorded you. I wonder if I can Google this. a phone recording beep is an audible tone a half second burst at 1400 hertz every 15 seconds played during a telephone call to let all participants know the conversation is being recorded oh okay I feel like I've heard that before yeah but I think again just as you pointed out did everybody know what that meant was it a loud beep in somebody's phone call Okay. But there is a precedent for that. Okay. Okay. I wonder how loud it is, too, off that tiny little watch. Would it really be loud enough for the other person? Well, if you search for recorder warning tone on Wikipedia right now, you can play it. Oh, boy.

I didn't want to do that. Recorder warning tone. Let's see here. This is going to require recorder warning. Recorder warning tone. All right. You got your right. Fire recorder warning. We've got a feedback that's going on. Yeah, it's not doing anything. Oh, there was the tone. Oh, I heard it. Okay. Now I can share it through the actual here. Let's see. Okay, mute on your side. Okay. If we got to hear the tone. Oh, that's pleasant. So, hi, did you hear that? Yes. Okay, yeah. That's a pleasant audio. So I remember that tone from back in the day because I also remember old-fashioned phones, kids, with flyers. By the way, Jeff, I'm recording this podcast. You know this because the tone plays every 10 seconds for all of our listeners throughout the entirety of the podcast.

Boy, that would not encourage people to keep subscribed. Oh, well. What else do we have here? Let's see here. We've got, no, we talked about that. Apple restricting dating apps and AI companions to users 18 and up. So starting November 16th, there's going to be a new App Store age rating category called Dating and Relationships. It will cover apps, connecting real people, of course, but also virtual companion apps, you know, sexual and romantic content, obviously included in that. It'll get an automatic 18 plus rating. So this would be for, you know, the apps like Replica and Character.ai, may it rest in peace. They would be included in this. So that makes sense. That makes a lot of sense to me. And finally, Anthropic confirmed it's steering its cloud code away from cloning games. So a lot of people, to test the limits, you know, and to kind of recreate certain games that they loved.

You know, I did this with a Commodore 64 game recently, and I only got so far before I got bored of the process, to be honest. But a lot of people are doing this and having a lot more fun than I did with it. And also creating current IP or recreating current IP, and that's really, I think, the big point here. Daniel says, I can't see the web page. Oh, sorry. I thought I put it on stage, but I did not. There we go. There we go. Yeah, so an ex-user spotted in the prompt. It said, do not build a recreation of a specific existing game, even if it is renamed or called original. So, yeah, Anthropics. Andy Asmani confirmed that they added two sentences to Opus 5.5 to prevent any creation or regeneration or recreation of existing games. So there you go. Because people are vibe coding all sorts of things and reconstructing certain things. I hope this doesn't happen with the firmware stuff that we were talking about from a couple of weeks ago.

Because there's some real creative stuff happening there right now. I continue to follow that, and it's pretty interesting. All right, well, that is that. I think we've hit the end of the episode. JeffJarvis.com for everything Jeff is up to, Hot Type, Web We Weave, and all of his other books, Gutenberg Parenthesis, so many, so many. Autographed copies sitting there waiting for you at the Mocklear Book Center if you follow the link at JeffJarvis.com. Yes, the link still works. Therefore, there is still an autographed version of the book. I also autographed one copy of Gutenberg Parenthesis there, too. Oh, that's a deep cut. Yes. Right on. Jeff Jarvis' all-new, newly redesigned website. Go there, Jeff Jarvis. Thank you, Jake Jarvis. Yes. Thank you, Jake. I don't know how many tokens he used to do this, but it's very nice. It looks very nice. It's a wonderful website. Everything you might need and a little bit more is already there for you.

Podtuneup.com, if you want to talk with me about your podcast, strategy for building your podcast, strategy for, you know, turning your podcast into a money-making thing, all of these things. Yeah, I actually got a new client earlier this week, and I just love it because it's so much fun to, like, talk to people about their podcasts. I absolutely love it. It's one of the great things about watching you as a consultant is you really enjoy working with these people. Yeah. Enjoying their problems and trying to stick them out together and bringing your knowledge to bear. It's fun to watch you do that. It's helpful for me, too, because, like, I've been doing podcasts the way I've been doing it for 20-plus years. It's cool to talk to people and see how they're doing it, and it's illuminating to me because I'm like, oh, I hadn't really thought about that aspect. So I feel like I'm learning a lot more about the breadth of the many different ways that you can approach this business of podcasting, and that just gives me more knowledge to share with others. Yep, yep. Anyways, podtuneup.com.

Hit me up. A.I. Inside. Show. Yes, we do have a new Web page. I'm also very, very happy with this Web page and the way the way it turned out. I will talk about this in a future episode, I promise. But you're going to have to wait for that. A.I. Inside. Show for all the information you need about this show. Ways to subscribe. Everything you need is there. And my my voice is leaving me. So I'll make it quick. Patreon dot com slash A.I. Inside. Show. If you want to support us on a deeper level, you can. We have some amazing executive producers supporting us very deeply. We appreciate you. Dr. Du, Jeffrey Maricini, Radio Asheville 103.7, Dante St. James, Bono Derrick, Jason Neifer, Jason Brady, Anthony Downs, Mark Starcher, Karsten Samotsky, and Evan Musial. We thank each and every one of you. You don't have to support us at the executive producer level, but if you do, you get some bonuses like that. And a little bit lower than that, you know, you get your AI Inside Daily with all of my awkward frozen thumbnails of me in the midst of talking and all that.

Discord access, ad-free episodes of this podcast, and so much more. Patreon.com slash AI Inside Show. All right, Jeff, I think that's it. Also, I don't want to forget to thank Daniel Croft and Anthony Lemos behind the scenes who help us on the video side of things. Couldn't do it without you both, so thank you. And thank you, Jeff. Appreciate hanging out with you. And we'll see you all on another episode of AI Inside. Take care. Bye. The Wired Newsroom is known for award-winning reporting on how technology shapes our world. On Wired's Uncanny Valley, we take that curiosity even further. Each week, journalists from Wired break down the biggest stories in tech while speaking directly with the people building, challenging, and reshaping the future. Is the AI boom sustainable? How do you protect your privacy in an age of constant surveillance?

Uncanny Valley tackles the questions driving today's tech debates and lighting up your group chats. Listen to new episodes every Thursday, wherever you get your podcasts.